Forum > Gaming Discussion > CNET: Is Nintendo's Success a curse?
CNET: Is Nintendo's Success a curse?
<< prevnext >>
avatar
Country: CA
Comments: 12479
News Posts: 0
Joined: 2008-07-01
 
Sat, 22 Nov 2008 22:59:05
Oh yeah and about that realistic Mario pic. Games like Mario can get much better graphically without taking that realistic kind of approach. Fable II is gorgeous graphically as is Banjo Nuts & Bolts but they are still very much cartoony.

1176413.png

avatar
Country: UN
Comments: 14648
News Posts: 2156
Joined: 2008-06-21
 
Sat, 22 Nov 2008 23:02:48
Archangel3371 said:
Oh yeah and about that realistic Mario pic. Games like Mario can get much better graphically without taking that realistic kind of approach. Fable II is gorgeous graphically as is Banjo Nuts & Bolts but they are still very much cartoony.

Yeah, I know, and agree. It was just a silly joke. Happy

Edited: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 23:04:10

The VG Press

avatar
Country: US
Comments: 1750
News Posts: 65
Joined: 2008-06-21
 
Sat, 22 Nov 2008 23:22:26
edgecrusher said:
Obviously I know there have been DK games since then. But that was the last really major one. Its not really a major franchise anymore was my point.

As for sales, maybe some people are selling more wii software, but look at what the games are. Mostly crap. Who cares?

Yeah, big major games obviously can be made on Wii. But why would I want these games on Wii, when I can have them on the others? Like I said, its like going back in time 4 years technically. Why would I want to drive a Ford Focus, when I can drive a ferrari? Outside of porting older games to the Wii, I can't say at this point that I'm really rooting for many major 3rd-party games to go to the Wii. Unless its something that doesn't benefit much from better tech, like strategy RPG's or something.

Where I'm coming from is, I have better technology so I'd rather use that. I'd rather use a system that can get Digital sound out of my reciever and full widescreen and visuals that take advantage of my TV.
Tomb Raider just came out. Did I get the Wii version? No. The gap is too wide in the audiovisuals for me to care about different controls. Whereas TR Anniversary was basically a PS2 game anyway, so I had no problem getting the Wii version of that (which some didn't like, but I did).

Do I really care that developers are not making much interesting stuff on the Wii? Not really. They obviously don't either. All I really hope for on the Wii is more great Nintendo published games.
They didn't deliver that this year. Not in North America anyway. I'm basically just hoping for new Pikmin since I think it could actually benefit from the controller, and some RPG's from Monolith since they make great ones. Other than that, meh.

Honestly because to me it doesn't really matter for some games. I couldn't careless if Shin Megami Tensei IV or Skies of Arcadia 2 were on the Wii (or possibly even the DS) instead of the PS3/360 because honestly there wouldn't be much of a difference and to me the graphics of the last gen version were more then good enough.

And honestly looking at the line-up from the good third party games that's what they are delivering.

Though I am dissapointed that TvC doesn't have HD I really do dig the cell-shaded Dreamcast like graphics instead of it having a Tales of Vesperia detailed ones. It makes the game seem a little semi-retro which fits the 70's anime cast.

Sin & Punishment 2 looks very good and I can't really imagine having it look better on more powerful hardware. It's already easy on the eyes anything more would just be overkill.

Oboro Muramasa Youtoden pretty much looks better then any 2D game to date and if its anything like Odin Sphere then the Wii is way more then powerful enough to run the gameplay.

Madworld doesn't even come close to maxing out the Wii's graphics the developer stated they just said that they were done with the graphics as they mastered the games art style, as well as stating that the Wii had plenty of juice left to give. And honestly the gameplay looks so simple the DS could probably do it flawlessly.

Tenchu IV, the need for power in the series was pushed to its limit on the PS2, now it's just a matter of fixing the formula.

No More Heroes 2 a point of this series is to have fun playing it while looking back and laughing at the purposly made bad graphics and awkward moments. There really isn't anything "epic" in this game.

I mean I really have no problem with these games being on the Wii. If anything it would b e just annoying to have them on other systems. More Power doesn't always equal better games all the time and to me these games demostrate this. I'd just prefer to have those types of games on the Wii and the others on the PS3/360/PC. The only thing bugging me is that there aren't nearly enough of the former type of games I've listed, though they are rapidly growing.

Also Edge technology isn't to me what moves games forward gameplay evolution does.

As for the article, there is no "curse" or "mystery" to why publishers are avoiding the Wii. The answer to this is because unlike the NES, Genesis, or the Playstation the Wii launched in 2006 not in the 90's or 80's. THE GAMING INDUSTRY IS NOTHING LIKE THAT AT ALL ANYMORE. Publishers have invested multi tens of millions of dollars and many years into not only the PS3/360 but next-generation technology in general. Not to mention that many developers have been making games for the past 2 to 3 or even 4 years in which many (probably most) aren't even completed yet (remember developers develop multiple projects little by little at a time then switch to them when a previous one is finished). You can't just tell developers and publisers "Sorry, you wasted the past 4 years and $70 million preparing for the next wave of generational gaming you actually didn't have to do anything at all.

Also people have to remember that it takes a lot of time to make these big games. Look how long it took to make these "big third party games" they average out to around 3 years, the Wii hasn't even been out that long. By the time they finish it's more then likely either be the tail end of this generations lifespan or Nintendo would already announce their successor and THAT is when third parties will take key.

Edited: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 23:40:02

One of the site's forefathers.

Play fighting games!

avatar
Country: CA
Comments: 12479
News Posts: 0
Joined: 2008-07-01
 
Sat, 22 Nov 2008 23:28:49

Ravenprose said:



Archangel3371 said:

Oh yeah and about that realistic Mario pic. Games like Mario can get much better graphically without taking that realistic kind of approach. Fable II is gorgeous graphically as is Banjo Nuts & Bolts but they are still very much cartoony.


Yeah, I know, and agree. It was just a silly joke. Happy






Oh yeah I pretty much figured that I was just making a point in general.

1176413.png

avatar
Country: UN
Comments: 14648
News Posts: 2156
Joined: 2008-06-21
 
Sun, 23 Nov 2008 00:23:07

In my opinion, the problem with Nintendo is that they build all of their consoles for their games solely. Nintendo looks at the games that they wish to make for the next 5-6 years, and then builds their console to that spec. Their games are mostly cartoon based, so they probably felt that there was little to gain by having 360/PS3 level graphics (as good as some of the cartoon games look on 360, they are not that big of a leap from what Nintendo did with Super Mario Galaxy), so they decided to go with a console with less graphical power which also had the added benefit of being cheaper to build and sell too.

Nintendo has done the same thing with a lot of their controllers too. For instance, the Gamecube controller has a very different face-button layout from the industry standard "diamond" shape (that they made standard on the SNES in 1990); it also has fewer buttons than their competition (only 8 buttons instead of 12 on Xbox and PS2). The GC controller works extremely well for all of Nintendo's games, but the same can't be said for many third party titles like the Spinter Cell series, FPS, and most fighting games. I'm sure there are quite a few third party devs who wish the Wii Remote had a few more buttons too.

Storage is another common issue on Nintendo platforms. Back in the mid-1990's, Nintendo decided to use cartridges for the N64 despite their competitiors going CD. Nintendo went with carts because they knew that all of their games would work fine with that format; they also saved money on not having an expensive CD-ROM drive in the N64 too. On the GC, Nintendo knew that they needed to have an optical drive in the GC, but decided to go with mini-DVDs instead of the industry standard full size DVDs. Again this worked great for Nintendo themselves who use very little or no pre-rendered CG movies or CD-quality music in their games, but the space constraints made things much more difficult than it should have for third parties. Space constraints are a major problem on the Wii too. Instead of having a HDD like their competitors, Nintendos goes with 512MB internal storage. Why? Because they figured that most of their VC/WiiWare games won't need much space, and most of their customers will only download a few games anyway.

Basically, Nintendo builds all of their hardware solely for their purpose, and third party devs/publishers will either have to deal with their design limitations or go elsewhere. Unfortunately, most have decided to go elsewhere.

Edited: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 00:26:00

The VG Press

avatar
Country: US
Comments: 1750
News Posts: 65
Joined: 2008-06-21
 
Sun, 23 Nov 2008 01:01:38
Ravenprose said:

Instead of having a HDD like their competitors, Nintendos goes with 512MB internal storage. Why? Because they figured that most of their VC/WiiWare games won't need much space, and most of their customers will only download a few games anyway.

Well this is also why you notice that Wii games ship when they are ready and not with any bugs present.

One of the site's forefathers.

Play fighting games!

avatar
Country: UN
Comments: 14648
News Posts: 2156
Joined: 2008-06-21
 
Sun, 23 Nov 2008 01:09:57
Punk Rebel Ecks said:
Ravenprose said:

Instead of having a HDD like their competitors, Nintendos goes with 512MB internal storage. Why? Because they figured that most of their VC/WiiWare games won't need much space, and most of their customers will only download a few games anyway.

Well this is also why you notice that Wii games ship when they are ready and not with any bugs present.

True, but besides the point. Nintendo is selling downloadable games (as are Microsoft and Sony). Some third-party WiiWare titles can take up to 1/12th (about 40MB) of the Wii's internal storage. Nintendo should've either made the wii use a HDD or had a larger amount of built-in flash memory. Instead they went cheap because it doesn't affect their titles which are usually quite small in comparison.

Edited: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 01:15:12

The VG Press

avatar
Country: US
Comments: 31189
News Posts: 1716
Joined: 2008-06-22
 
Sun, 23 Nov 2008 01:22:37
Ravenprose said:

In my opinion, the problem with Nintendo is that they build all of their consoles for their games solely. Nintendo looks at the games that they wish to make for the next 5-6 years, and then builds their console to that spec. Their games are mostly cartoon based, so they probably felt that there was little to gain by having 360/PS3 level graphics (as good as some of the cartoon games look on 360, they are not that big of a leap from what Nintendo did with Super Mario Galaxy), so they decided to go with a console with less graphical power which also had the added benefit of being cheaper to build and sell too.

Nintendo has done the same thing with a lot of their controllers too. For instance, the Gamecube controller has a very different face-button layout from the industry standard "diamond" shape (that they made standard on the SNES in 1990); it also has fewer buttons than their competition (only 8 buttons instead of 12 on Xbox and PS2). The GC controller works extremely well for all of Nintendo's games, but the same can't be said for many third party titles like the Spinter Cell series, FPS, and most fighting games. I'm sure there are quite a few third party devs who wish the Wii Remote had a few more buttons too.

Storage is another common issue on Nintendo platforms. Back in the mid-1990's, Nintendo decided to use cartridges for the N64 despite their competitiors going CD. Nintendo went with carts because they knew that all of their games would work fine with that format; they also saved money on not having an expensive CD-ROM drive in the N64 too. On the GC, Nintendo knew that they needed to have an optical drive in the GC, but decided to go with mini-DVDs instead of the industry standard full size DVDs. Again this worked great for Nintendo themselves who use very little or no pre-rendered CG movies or CD-quality music in their games, but the space constraints made things much more difficult than it should have for third parties. Space constraints are a major problem on the Wii too. Instead of having a HDD like their competitors, Nintendos goes with 512MB internal storage. Why? Because they figured that most of their VC/WiiWare games won't need much space, and most of their customers will only download a few games anyway.

Basically, Nintendo builds all of their hardware solely for their purpose, and third party devs/publishers will either have to deal with their design limitations or go elsewhere. Unfortunately, most have decided to go elsewhere.



Very true, good point.
660896.png
avatar
Country: US
Comments: 31189
News Posts: 1716
Joined: 2008-06-22
 
Sun, 23 Nov 2008 01:33:45
Iga_Bobovic said:
edgecrusher said:
^^^WTF quoting is bad.

Yeah...it was atmospheric back in 1994, when the SNES was considered an advanced console. Now its not atmospheric at all.

Your basically just talking about things I think I've already covered, so I'm not going to repeat myself.
Bottom line is, your not going to convince me that the Wii is somehow able to be as impressive as the other machines. If that was the case, I'd be all kinds of pissed off that Konami made MGS4 on the PS3 instead of the PS2. As its basically the same argument.....last-gen tech, or current-gen tech. I just haven't drank that particular bottle of Nintendo kool-aid. If this was 2002, then yes.

Explained? You only said graphics would be better. That would not fundamentally change the games at all. And I also mentioned Fusion which was released in 2002 on the GBA, so your argument is incorrect.

So to repeat the question. again!

How can 360/PS3 improve Zelda/Metroid and Mario? (give examples)

Why could these improvements not be made on the Wii/ps2/GG/Xbox level of tech?

Only answer we have know is that the graphics would be better, obviously!



This is getting ridiculous. Sorry but graphics do matter to some extent. If we were still stuck on the SNES days for the last 15 years we would be bored out of our mind cause everything still looks the same. Everyone wants their franchises to evolve and look better this is a normal human emotion.  I am not saying that automatically makes it a better game, I am not saying you can't make a good game without good graphics or old graphics (as MM9 showed), just that its good to advance with time.  All the Nintendo games have had the same look for the last 7 years or so, its getting old.

As for gameplay improvements. With Zelda, you are right huge worlds does not equal good gameplay, but sense of scale can help. Imagine stepping out into Hyrule and instead of the field you got in TP you have this breathtaking view of this massive world, detailed to perfection, sure you may not be able to visit it cause its not nesessary but it will give you a better sense of wonder. Its possible to add a lot more enemies. Imagine a large scale horseback battle with a ton of enemies on a large field. Imagine a dungeon where physics and small particles can play a much larger role cause the system can handle it. They could make a better fire system like in FC2. With more tech comes better tools with better tools comes more options and men like Miyamoto would do amazing things with those options.

You are living in fantasy land if you dont think a Zelda on the Wii 2 lets just say wouldn't be better off than another one on the Wii if they both are designed to their utmost potential.
Edited: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 01:34:35
660896.png
avatar
Country: UN
Comments: 15369
News Posts: 232
Joined: 2008-06-21
 
Sun, 23 Nov 2008 01:50:18
This is why I normally don't get into large debates on gaming boards anymore. Its pointless, nobody is going to change their opinions, and everybody thinks they're right even when they are so very wrong, like Iga. Nyaa

I wonder what we'd be talking about if Nintendo had put out a true next-gen machine instead.

         1200923.png?77682175

avatar
Country: US
Comments: 6343
News Posts: 411
Joined: 2008-06-21
 
Sun, 23 Nov 2008 02:04:52
edgecrusher said:
This is why I normally don't get into large debates on gaming boards anymore. Its pointless, nobody is going to change their opinions, and everybody thinks they're right even when they are so very wrong, like Iga. Nyaa

I wonder what we'd be talking about if Nintendo had put out a true next-gen machine instead.

About how Nintendo had yet to sell 10 million units

---

Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobile
avatar
Country: UN
Comments: 14648
News Posts: 2156
Joined: 2008-06-21
 
Sun, 23 Nov 2008 02:41:27
edgecrusher said:
This is why I normally don't get into large debates on gaming boards anymore. Its pointless, nobody is going to change their opinions, and everybody thinks they're right even when they are so very wrong, like Iga. Nyaa

I wonder what we'd be talking about if Nintendo had put out a true next-gen machine instead.

Actually, I was leaning more toward the pro Nintendo side of this argument, but you guys have made some pretty valid points for the higher powered consoles. I probably come off as a Nintendo fanboy sometimes (they are my favorite game company afterall), but they do make some seriously messed up decisions. As much as I enjoy my Wii, it is not perfect by any means. I'm really not as big on bleeding edge graphics as some of you guys are, but they are necessary for certain types of games. And most devs/publishers don't want to have to make the same game twice; one for the 360/PS3 and another for the Wii. Which is why we are seeing so many half-assed games on Wii now.

When Nintendo announced that the Wii would be about double the power of the GC, but will also cost less than the 360 and PS3; I was quite pleased (I am a cheap bastard WinkWink ). However, in hindsight, I now realize that Nintendo kind of screwed up by going that route. Sure, they have pleased the casual market with a lower selling point and focus on cartoon graphics, but they've also alienated hardcore gamers and most third-party devs in the process. In many ways, I wish Nintendo had gone the $400 hardware route and more directly competed with Sony and Microsoft if only so that I could play games like Bioshock, Orange Box, and RE5 with the Wii Remote.

Yodariquo said:
edgecrusher said:
This is why I normally don't get into large debates on gaming boards anymore. Its pointless, nobody is going to change their opinions, and everybody thinks they're right even when they are so very wrong, like Iga. Nyaa

I wonder what we'd be talking about if Nintendo had put out a true next-gen machine instead.

About how Nintendo had yet to sell 10 million units

Sadly, that probably would've been true. Sad

Edited: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 04:53:41

The VG Press

avatar
Country: UN
Comments: 15369
News Posts: 232
Joined: 2008-06-21
 
Sun, 23 Nov 2008 03:28:34
Nice post Raven.

See I don't think they would have had to make a $400 console though. One thing Nintendo was always good at was making hi-tech consoles cheaper than anyone else. They did it with Gamecube and N64. (Gamecube was cheaper than Wii...that is so wrong its not even funny)

Most people thought, after learning everything of the Wii, and I believe Matt C. at IGN almost guaranteed this, that the Wii would be $150 tops. Then Sony announced $600....and Nintendo raised the price. When you have stupid competitors pricing themselves that high, I guess you can also go higher. Now, the Wii is still $250 and you can get an Xbox 360 for $200.

I have no doubt that Nintendo could have released a machine at least close to 360's level for $300. Its not like they have to be exact, or have a machine that pushed 1 more polygon than the competition at all times. Just one that's close, like the PS2 was to Cube and Xbox. I think next-gen after some hard lessons have been learned, all systems will be back to the normal $300 launch price range.

         1200923.png?77682175

avatar
Country: UN
Comments: 15745
News Posts: 1040
Joined: 2008-06-21
 
Sun, 23 Nov 2008 03:38:22

Thing is, games like GTAIV go to show that technical improvements do not automatically mean a more enjoyable experience can be created. So far there's only been one PS3 game that I can honestly tell you was better than it could have been on the PS2, and that is MGS4.

I've not played Little Big Planet yet, so don't kill me Vader. Nyaa

Edited: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 03:39:59

    Children, our lives have been gongs striking; clamour and boasting; cries of despair; blows on the nape of the neck in gardens.

avatar
Country: US
Comments: 1750
News Posts: 65
Joined: 2008-06-21
 
Sun, 23 Nov 2008 07:00:45

I've said this before and I'll say it again. The Wii's philosophy was suppose to be like the DS. Basically have developers put out games that they always wanted to make but couldn't because the game would either not fit on a current generation platform due to it not being "up to date" in technology or would be too big of a task for the developer for a modern console (too small of a development team) or the game would be too much of a risk.

I always smirk when people say "But the PS3/360 have online downloadable games to counter that!". It's been 3 years since the birth of those services and not only are they declining but the amount of just "talkable" (not BIG but just noticable) games on those services combined become fewer and farther inbetween. What was the last notable one? Braid. Before that? Lost Winds. Before that? Castle Crashers. Before that? Who the fuck knows. Yes these services blew up when they first came out but that was more so the impact of it all, since then they've drastically declined. And honestly it's a no brainer why. I mean first of people buy these consoles to get "epicness" and get "high-end technology". I'm pretty sure nearly everybody brought a 360 for Gears of War and not Geometry Wars. And the second is that big companies are taking the little share that is left. Just look at Capcom with Megaman 9 and Super Street Fighter II HD Remix and SONY with their shit. And the third point is how corrupt and corperate it is. We've all heard how developers complained about space and their games getting denied. Hell a common complaint from companies like Microsoft was that the games were "too good and epic" because they'd compete against the other games. However they accept HD Remix? WTF!? For every Braid or Lost Winds the console downloadable services receiver there are like 20 Zombia BBQ's or Steel Princess's the DS receives.


The Wii however was suppose to bring the DS philosophy and bring that mindset to the console arena. Instead of getting the seasonally "big game" instead you'd be showered with tons and tons of gems with the occasional "big game" showing up 2 to 4 times a year from third parties. However the Wii failed in this arena because the publishers invested too much time and money to becoming "next-gen" and the small developers are on the DS or don't think they have the resources to take the next step toward the Wii.


I know some would argue "but the Wii is that. Look at 2009 with Madworld, Oboro, KORE, Arc Rise Fantasia, Tenchu IV, The Conduit, Little King Story, etc." Well yeah but the thing is that is the 2009 line-up. That should've been the 2007 or POSSIBLY it would've been acceptable being the 2008 line-up. But 2009? What made the DS come from a laughing joke compared to the PSP to the Handheld God? Easy the line-up. Little by little the flow of good games not only kept coming but kept getting bigger and bigger and coming more and more frequently. Now see this is happening with the Wii, but it's happening way WAY too late. Unless this generation lasts until 2014 before a new console comes out, I highly doubt that the Wii would ever truly deliver on what it truly could have. So yeah it's happening but that's like working at a job during highschool for 2 years. And you always wanted to make the supervisor position and it is currently second semester during your senior year and you finally moved up your first rank. I mean yeah it's definately good but it isn't where you'd hope to be and even if you possibly do reach your goal there wouldn't be much time to enjoy it would there?

edgecrusher said:
This is why I normally don't get into large debates on gaming boards anymore. Its pointless, nobody is going to change their opinions, and everybody thinks they're right even when they are so very wrong, like Iga. Nyaa

Agreed.

One of the site's forefathers.

Play fighting games!

avatar
Country: NL
Comments: 9411
News Posts: 9625
Joined: 2008-06-21
 
Sun, 23 Nov 2008 08:34:38
Dvader said:
Iga_Bobovic said:
edgecrusher said:
^^^WTF quoting is bad.

Yeah...it was atmospheric back in 1994, when the SNES was considered an advanced console. Now its not atmospheric at all.

Your basically just talking about things I think I've already covered, so I'm not going to repeat myself.
Bottom line is, your not going to convince me that the Wii is somehow able to be as impressive as the other machines. If that was the case, I'd be all kinds of pissed off that Konami made MGS4 on the PS3 instead of the PS2. As its basically the same argument.....last-gen tech, or current-gen tech. I just haven't drank that particular bottle of Nintendo kool-aid. If this was 2002, then yes.

Explained? You only said graphics would be better. That would not fundamentally change the games at all. And I also mentioned Fusion which was released in 2002 on the GBA, so your argument is incorrect.

So to repeat the question. again!

How can 360/PS3 improve Zelda/Metroid and Mario? (give examples)

Why could these improvements not be made on the Wii/ps2/GG/Xbox level of tech?

Only answer we have know is that the graphics would be better, obviously!



This is getting ridiculous. Sorry but graphics do matter to some extent. If we were still stuck on the SNES days for the last 15 years we would be bored out of our mind cause everything still looks the same. Everyone wants their franchises to evolve and look better this is a normal human emotion.  I am not saying that automatically makes it a better game, I am not saying you can't make a good game without good graphics or old graphics (as MM9 showed), just that its good to advance with time.  All the Nintendo games have had the same look for the last 7 years or so, its getting old.

As for gameplay improvements. With Zelda, you are right huge worlds does not equal good gameplay, but sense of scale can help. Imagine stepping out into Hyrule and instead of the field you got in TP you have this breathtaking view of this massive world, detailed to perfection, sure you may not be able to visit it cause its not nesessary but it will give you a better sense of wonder. Its possible to add a lot more enemies. Imagine a large scale horseback battle with a ton of enemies on a large field. Imagine a dungeon where physics and small particles can play a much larger role cause the system can handle it. They could make a better fire system like in FC2. With more tech comes better tools with better tools comes more options and men like Miyamoto would do amazing things with those options.

You are living in fantasy land if you dont think a Zelda on the Wii 2 lets just say wouldn't be better off than another one on the Wii if they both are designed to their utmost potential.

I am living in fantasy land?! You guys said the games would be better on the 360/PS3, so I asked you to explain your statements! Apparently this is a ridiculous thing to do in a debate.

Now about your points.

Good point about more enemies at screen at once. You could do this on the Wii but it would be easier to do on the HD consoles. I am thinking of large Lord of the Rings style battles, but be carefull it does not turn into a mindless hack and slash, like Dynasty Warrior!

I am having a harder time envisioning physics though. Zelda has a puzzle like design, so how would physics help instead of just make it look better when things fall? Sure we could make the whole scenery destructible, but you could then proceed to skip the puzzles and just blow up the doors instead. I Think physics work better in open world games, than in tightly designed games like Metroid and Zelda.

So we have now:

Better graphics

More enemies at screen

Better Physics ?

I share Punks opinion when it comes to Zelda/Metroid!

Gameplay design is much more important than technology. And in case of Zelda I think Wiimotion-plus can make some drastic changes too.

But hey, I am so wrong, what do I know?

Yodariquo said:
edgecrusher said:


I wonder what we'd be talking about if Nintendo had put out a true next-gen machine instead.

About how Nintendo had yet to sell 10 million units

Or, how long before Nintendo goes 3rd party!

edgecrusher said:
This is why I normally don't get into large debates on gaming boards anymore. Its pointless, nobody is going to change their opinions, and everybody thinks they're right even when they are so very wrong, like Iga. Nyaa

Really?! Did you read Hamsters response? Or check out Archie's response in some other threads? Relax, this is not GGD, no idiotic trolls here!

P.S. I am never wrong

The VG Press
avatar
Country: US
Comments: 1750
News Posts: 65
Joined: 2008-06-21
 
Sun, 23 Nov 2008 20:28:11
Dvader said:


As for gameplay improvements. With Zelda, you are right huge worlds does not equal good gameplay, but sense of scale can help. Imagine stepping out into Hyrule and instead of the field you got in TP you have this breathtaking view of this massive world, detailed to perfection, sure you may not be able to visit it cause its not nesessary but it will give you a better sense of wonder. Its possible to add a lot more enemies. Imagine a large scale horseback battle with a ton of enemies on a large field. Imagine a dungeon where physics and small particles can play a much larger role cause the system can handle it. They could make a better fire system like in FC2. With more tech comes better tools with better tools comes more options and men like Miyamoto would do amazing things with those options.

You are living in fantasy land if you dont think a Zelda on the Wii 2 lets just say wouldn't be better off than another one on the Wii if they both are designed to their utmost potential.

No offense but your examples are just... lame. I mean more enemies on screens? Zelda already could have way more enemies on screen (just look at a Dynasty Warriors game or Dead Rising Wii). Nintendo just doesn't add more because it isn't needed. The combat in Zelda is so simplistic that adding more would just be overkill and annoying. And on horseback it would be even more annoying. I mean again Nintendo could have easily added more enemies on screen. In order to acheive the power the Wii couldn't handle you'd need like a hundred enemies and that would just be ridiculous (and extremely annoying). I mean I'm sorry why would I need to fight 100's of enemies at once? This is an action-adventure game not a hack-n-slash extraveganza. A dungeon with physics and small particles? With the physics well that's not how Zelda plays. The puzzles in Zelda have always been simple but not too simple as you move room to room solving piece by piece of a puzzle. And with physics well the Xbox could run Half-Life 2 so I'm sure what ever it is the Wii could handle it. As with small particles I don't even know what that even means so I doubt that it could be important. As with a fire system...fire system...fire system? What? I'm I going to burn villages or something? The only thing I can give credit is the better distance range as I admit that I am a huge sucker for.

But personally no Zelda wouldn't be a better game if it was on the Xbox 360 or even made to push the limits of my PC because all of it is just unnecessary. I seriously do not understand the whole "if it can't be done then it has to be better philosophy". If you looked at the majority of good games that have came out this year most of them didn't even push tech. The World Ends with You, A Vampyre Story, No More Heroes, Left 4 Dead, Apollo Justice, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Braid, Little Big Planet (trust me the physics in this game are nothing impressive), Dragon Quest IV, De Blob,  Locke's Quest, Castlevania OoE, WoW:WotLK, etc. with games like Persona 4, Tat vs Cap, and many others on the horizon. I mean yes there are games like GTAIV, MGSIV, Fable II, NGII, DMC4, Gears 2, Dead Space, and the likes. But if you tally it up the amount of good games that don't push technology against the ones that do you'd find a much higher number of quality.

And the answer is really simple actually. Just because do something doesn't mean it is more enjoyable. Is the scene of fighting hordes of enemies in Kameo technicall impressive? Yes. Is it more enjoyable then horseback fighting in Twilight Princess? No. Are the intense physics and precise car building and driving through the massive detailed worlds in Banjo Nuts and Bolts fun? Well most say no but let's pretend it is. Is it better then anything in Super Mario Galaxy? No. Was Crysis a great game? Yes. Was it as great as Half-Life 2 Episode 2? No. Was anything in Crysis as enjoyable as the fight with the tripods in Half-Life 2 or the sandlions in the underground railroad? No. Just because it is technically impressive doesn't make it better then something that isn't.

You know what would make Zelda a better game? How about having the game take place on a world hub much like Super Mario Galaxy did. How about ever one of the portals in that hub lead to a different Zelda world. Like one hub contains a lot of sea and sailing like in Windwaker, another contains a skyworld region in which you can fly creatures through, another your in some planet where you can manipulate gravity, another planet where you can manipulate time. How about actually adding the ablity to talk and add bonds to characters in order to unlock certain side quests. I mean this was a very likable feature in Majora's Mask, why not make a comeback? How about instead of the game progressing by visiting unvistited towns and going to that "right" spot. Why not just have the player explore to find treasure maps in a semi-open world then have them use them to find secret dungeons and progress that way, while towns can be held for side-quests and for purchasing items. I know all this sounds a little too ambious but I'm sure it could be toned down a bit and to me it is sure far more interesting then having the same thing with the ability of lighting things on fire.

If you look at all the great developers like Valve, Nintendo, Blizzard, Atlus R & D1, etc. when they make games they don't think about tech. but they think about gameplay and what they can do with the tools that are already avaliable to them. They realize just because one idea they have can't be accomplished doesn't mean they can think of 1,000 more just as ambious that can be done with the hardware level they are working on. In this day of age especially technology is so advanced it makes more sense for developers to first think of the 1,000's of things they can do with the hardware they are working on instead of the few things that they can't. Because let's face it this generation is half over and there are very few games that I would consider to be leaps and bounds over last gens top-tier in terms of "wow" (I.E. SoTC, RE4, GoW, Half-Life 2, etc.). Compare that to last generation where we had games like GTA III,  Splinter Cell, Devil May Cry, and Metal Gear Solid 2 all in the first 2 years of the generation.

Now I'm not saying that power in games isn't needed. Metal Gear Solid 4 wouldn't have been half the game it was if it was on the PS2. All I'm saying is that power isn't the only way to go and for some developers with the type of games they make (this would be Nintendo) it doesn't make sense to go in that direction. There are games that don't use immersion for technology. The World Ends With You, Persona 3, and Phoenix Wright would gain nothing if they were on the Wii or 360 even. I mean those tools you listed that would allow some of  Miyamoto's visions to be realized, in all honesty Miyamoto has made it clear (both in words and actions) that he doesn't think that way. He creates games through his imagination of design instead of just looking at the tech. and saying "maybe we can do this now." And even if there was something that could only be done on the 360. Like say he made a Mario game that revolved around mass destructable enviornments, deforming environments, and high end physics is that game automatically better then Galaxy? Of course not. I mean I'm sure it'll be fun but just because he can now do something on more powerful hardware doesn't make it better. Fun is fun.

Don't get me wrong I see where you are coming from. Yes another Zelda on the 360 possibly could have had a few bells and whistles over a Wii version. But honestly if all a formula can offer a franchise is bells and whistles then clearly it is time to rethink the formula.

Also  (not referring to anyone in this thread) why are people complaining about the Wii being underpowered? There are THREE platforms that offer cutting edge tech. Gamers always complain how companies never try anything new and how all games are the same or try nothing new. Yet when a company does (this includes others then Nintendo) gamers bitch about it. I mean really the Wii isn't suppose to be a powerhouse it has a different philosophy. I don't see games like Metal Gear Solid 4 or Crackdown on the Wii. But then again I don't see games like Zack and Wiki, No More Heroes, or Madworld on the PS3/360. Hell I don't even see any worthwhile niche games on those platforms other then Battle Fantasia, Valkyrie Chronicles, and possibly Disgaea 3. I mean do people stop to think of the advantages of having low cost less powerful hardware? But whatever it seems that in most niche groups things  that take risks only get respected when they die off. Just look at the SEGA Dreamcast, Clover Studios, the Neo Geo Pocket, etc.

Edited: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 20:42:40

One of the site's forefathers.

Play fighting games!

avatar
Country: UN
Comments: 14648
News Posts: 2156
Joined: 2008-06-21
 
Sun, 23 Nov 2008 21:37:09

The main problem I have with Twilight Princess was that the fields just looked too barren. There's no high grass, very few trees, and hardly any bushes. Granted, TP is a GC game, so maybe that's something that'll be changed  in the next Wii Zelda. But I'd like to have a Zelda game that has the overall lushness of Oblivion. They should keep the cartoon graphics, just fill the world in more with more trees, bushes, high grass, and animals; lots of animals! I want to see deer, rabbits, birds, insects, ect. in the game world. I want to ride a horse into a field of high grass that's swaying in the breeze, and see birds scatter in the distance as I approach. I want to be able to climb a tree just because it's there. I want the bounderies of the levels to be more organic, and less obvious.

Note: I'm not suggesting that it should be an open-world game (I don't like those much), I just want them to make it feel more ALIVE.

Those are just some of the things I'd like to see in the next Zelda, but I'm not sure if the Wii could handle that or not.

Edited: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 21:39:13

The VG Press

avatar
Country: UN
Comments: 14648
News Posts: 2156
Joined: 2008-06-21
 
Sun, 23 Nov 2008 21:50:22
Punk Rebel Ecks said:

Is the scene of fighting hordes of enemies in Kameo technicall impressive? Yes. Is it more enjoyable then horseback fighting in Twilight Princess? No.

Actually, I do think it is a bit more enjoyable. Raming dozens of enemies with Kameo's horse is just plain fun. Simialr how it's fun running over pedestrians in GTA. There's something oddly satisfying about it. Happy

Edited: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 21:56:22

The VG Press

avatar
Country: US
Comments: 1750
News Posts: 65
Joined: 2008-06-21
 
Sun, 23 Nov 2008 22:30:22
Ravenprose said:
Punk Rebel Ecks said:

Is the scene of fighting hordes of enemies in Kameo technicall impressive? Yes. Is it more enjoyable then horseback fighting in Twilight Princess? No.

Actually, I do think it is a bit more enjoyable. Raming dozens of enemies with Kameo's horse is just plain fun. Simialr how it's fun running over pedestrians in GTA. There's something oddly satisfying about it. Happy

Yeah but in a Zelda game? With Zelda's combat?

Ravenprose said:

The main problem I have with Twilight Princess was that the fields just looked too barren. There's no high grass, very few trees, and hardly any bushes. Granted, TP is a GC game, so maybe that's something that'll be changed  in the next Wii Zelda. But I'd like to have a Zelda game that has the overall lushness of Oblivion. They should keep the cartoon graphics, just fill the world in more with more trees, bushes, high grass, and animals; lots of animals! I want to see deer, rabbits, birds, insects, ect. in the game world. I want to ride a horse into a field of high grass that's swaying in the breeze, and see birds scatter in the distance as I approach. I want to be able to climb a tree just because it's there. I want the bounderies of the levels to be more organic, and less obvious.

Note: I'm not suggesting that it should be an open-world game (I don't like those much), I just want them to make it feel more ALIVE.

Those are just some of the things I'd like to see in the next Zelda, but I'm not sure if the Wii could handle that or not.

I definately see what you mean. Though in reality I don't really mind because Nintendo games are about using your imagination.

One of the site's forefathers.

Play fighting games!

<< prevnext >>
Log in or Register for free to comment
Recently Spotted:
*crickets*
Login @ The VG Press
Username:
Password:
Remember me?