The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Sony have confirmed it. Blu-Ray will be a featured component in what is set to be their most lucrative bussiness move to date.
For those that don't know, DVD is already becoming outdated. Already you can get view high definition TV, that even surpasses that of DVD. In other words you can be watching Friday Night with Jonathan Ross and it'll look better than the latest Star Wars DVD's.
Does this seem right to you? No indeed it doesn't and 2 major companies also agree this. These 2 major companies have developed 2 new forms of movie media, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.
Sony, along with a whole host of other top names, back the Blu-Ray medium to be the next big thing in home entertainment. It is a massive 50GB in size, looks pretty funky and with it being included in the Playstation 3 will autmatically put Blu-Ray in millions and millions of homes worldwide. Hollywood would almost have to support the Blu-Ray system simply because the popularity of the Playstation brand will mean millions will have the ability to play them already. Sony will add pressure with their Tri-star, Columbia and MGM studios... Spiderman, Terminator and Bond already on Blu-Ray. Watch the new system fly.
Unless something incredibly unlikely happens, such as the PSP flops and the PSTwo fails to start then it is likely Sony will be looking at a steam rolling win for the next generation of consoles.
There is one negative aspect of Blu-Ray. Because it doesn't use the simple red laser system for DVD's (something that is now very cheap to implement) and uses Blue laser, it'll mean the cost of the system will be jacked up. Either Sony will have to release it at a high price, wait an extra amount of time or just suffer a loss on the system. The latter isn't something Sony have ever been willing to do.
It is this PS3 decision that makes the Blu-Ray's competitor, the HD-DVD, look bad. Although the system is cheaper to implement the size of the medium is a mere 22GB, under half that of Blu-Ray.
But hope may remain. It is possible that Microsoft's next system, codenamed Xenon, will use it. Microsoft are desperate to release a cheap system out of the box and not to suffer the price point themselves like they are with the X-box. Already they are removing the Hard drive and to incorperate something like Blu-Ray will mean the Xenon will launch at a very high price. In fact Microsoft are hoping to get a years head start (late 2005) on the competiton and Blu-Ray will be even more expensive to use. If Microsoft want a competitive medium HD-DVD may be the only way.
Microsoft with the weaker system is almost a complete role reversal from the current generation.
What of Nintendo? Who honestly knows. No one. Rumours persist that Nintendo will continue to go their own way and buck the trend of the industry. It persists that Nintendo will play down third party support and stick to first party software, that Nintendo will use a totally new system and won't offer movie playback at all.
These rumours are counteracted with the DS almost entirely. Nintendo now base more emphesis on third parties especially with the latest system and the recent GBA Videos indicate Nintendo willingness to develop video viewing means.
But it is also likely that Nintendo will want to fight piracy in such a way that games will be on a totally different form of medium (A.K.A Gamecube/DS) but it is also likely Nintendo will offer a "second medium". Already confirmed is that the Revolution will be backwards compatible. Which points to the inclusion of either very cheap to implement DVD system or slightly more expensive "HD-DVD".
If both Nintendo and Microsoft use "HD-DVD" then there maybe trouble ahead for Blu-Ray after all. Sure Sony may have the sales advantage, but with Nintendo set to launch simultaneously with Sony and Microsoft a year early. It already kick starts a proper war between the two mediums.
On the other hand, with DVD gaining a firm position in society how likely is it that Blu-Ray and HD-DVD will be replacing it by 2006? Surly it'll take a good 5 years to properly take off? Is Nintendo likely to just stick with DVD movies? Especially as they lack the experience of it. But launching the system next to the Playstation 3 indicates that Nintendo are being really competitive this time, and they will want that to right down to the specifications and what the system offers.
Sony have a brilliant stratagy in place. Something Nintendo and Microsoft will have to be very clever to counteract. Recent reports indicate Nintendo are on the offensive, and it is likely we will see a far more agressive stance from the legendary developer... with the added bonus of brilliant and innovative "DS style" features. Microsoft are stripping down their system and offering in advance of the competiton. It is a surprise risk from Microsoft, hoping that releasing the system early will mean they get a stranglehold on the industry.
Didn't work for the Dreamcast did it.
For those that don't know, DVD is already becoming outdated. Already you can get view high definition TV, that even surpasses that of DVD. In other words you can be watching Friday Night with Jonathan Ross and it'll look better than the latest Star Wars DVD's.
Does this seem right to you? No indeed it doesn't and 2 major companies also agree this. These 2 major companies have developed 2 new forms of movie media, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.
Sony, along with a whole host of other top names, back the Blu-Ray medium to be the next big thing in home entertainment. It is a massive 50GB in size, looks pretty funky and with it being included in the Playstation 3 will autmatically put Blu-Ray in millions and millions of homes worldwide. Hollywood would almost have to support the Blu-Ray system simply because the popularity of the Playstation brand will mean millions will have the ability to play them already. Sony will add pressure with their Tri-star, Columbia and MGM studios... Spiderman, Terminator and Bond already on Blu-Ray. Watch the new system fly.
Unless something incredibly unlikely happens, such as the PSP flops and the PSTwo fails to start then it is likely Sony will be looking at a steam rolling win for the next generation of consoles.
There is one negative aspect of Blu-Ray. Because it doesn't use the simple red laser system for DVD's (something that is now very cheap to implement) and uses Blue laser, it'll mean the cost of the system will be jacked up. Either Sony will have to release it at a high price, wait an extra amount of time or just suffer a loss on the system. The latter isn't something Sony have ever been willing to do.
It is this PS3 decision that makes the Blu-Ray's competitor, the HD-DVD, look bad. Although the system is cheaper to implement the size of the medium is a mere 22GB, under half that of Blu-Ray.
But hope may remain. It is possible that Microsoft's next system, codenamed Xenon, will use it. Microsoft are desperate to release a cheap system out of the box and not to suffer the price point themselves like they are with the X-box. Already they are removing the Hard drive and to incorperate something like Blu-Ray will mean the Xenon will launch at a very high price. In fact Microsoft are hoping to get a years head start (late 2005) on the competiton and Blu-Ray will be even more expensive to use. If Microsoft want a competitive medium HD-DVD may be the only way.
Microsoft with the weaker system is almost a complete role reversal from the current generation.
What of Nintendo? Who honestly knows. No one. Rumours persist that Nintendo will continue to go their own way and buck the trend of the industry. It persists that Nintendo will play down third party support and stick to first party software, that Nintendo will use a totally new system and won't offer movie playback at all.
These rumours are counteracted with the DS almost entirely. Nintendo now base more emphesis on third parties especially with the latest system and the recent GBA Videos indicate Nintendo willingness to develop video viewing means.
But it is also likely that Nintendo will want to fight piracy in such a way that games will be on a totally different form of medium (A.K.A Gamecube/DS) but it is also likely Nintendo will offer a "second medium". Already confirmed is that the Revolution will be backwards compatible. Which points to the inclusion of either very cheap to implement DVD system or slightly more expensive "HD-DVD".
If both Nintendo and Microsoft use "HD-DVD" then there maybe trouble ahead for Blu-Ray after all. Sure Sony may have the sales advantage, but with Nintendo set to launch simultaneously with Sony and Microsoft a year early. It already kick starts a proper war between the two mediums.
On the other hand, with DVD gaining a firm position in society how likely is it that Blu-Ray and HD-DVD will be replacing it by 2006? Surly it'll take a good 5 years to properly take off? Is Nintendo likely to just stick with DVD movies? Especially as they lack the experience of it. But launching the system next to the Playstation 3 indicates that Nintendo are being really competitive this time, and they will want that to right down to the specifications and what the system offers.
Sony have a brilliant stratagy in place. Something Nintendo and Microsoft will have to be very clever to counteract. Recent reports indicate Nintendo are on the offensive, and it is likely we will see a far more agressive stance from the legendary developer... with the added bonus of brilliant and innovative "DS style" features. Microsoft are stripping down their system and offering in advance of the competiton. It is a surprise risk from Microsoft, hoping that releasing the system early will mean they get a stranglehold on the industry.
Didn't work for the Dreamcast did it.
Page:
Dringo wrote:
> Strafio the N64 was the ultimate Nintendo system, the first move into
> 3D gaming. Nintendo have tried to extend their franchises in new
> directions. Well aware that following the paths set by the N64 games
> would suit us down to the ground but will eventually cause
> complaints.
I guess you agree that the N64 era is unsurpassable.
I know what you mean, I wasn't saying that the Gamecube should try to be the N64, just that it would never be as special.
> Nintendo fiddled a bit. Turned an "epic" game like Zelda
> into what was essentially a living cartoon. I know what you mean.
> Zelda just isn't a living cartoon. It did work but isn't what Zelda
> fans truly craved. Hence the more comic Zelda's should be left for
> the handheld renditions. Whilst Nintendo should make Zelda the truly
> epic game.
But it really wasn't the comicness that I didn't like.
Infact, I thought that it was a great idea when I realised that the "N64 look" would be getting a bit old the third time round.
Even though they could've made it more impressive by getting assistance from professional animé artists, that wasn't my problem either.
The quest itself, sucked.
Which is surprising because the quest in Majora's Mask was one of the most geniously sublime quests I've ever played.
It wasn't just the sailing. The sailing was a bit part of it, but just in general it was a let down. I guess that's the price we pay for our impatience.
C'est la vie. :-)
The next one. Personally, I'm refusing to have ANY ideas of what it'll be like, because I know I'll enjoy it more if I take to it with a fresh mind with no expectations, whether it's worth them or not.
> Wind Waker was smoother, overall more "fun" (as in to just
> pick up and play) and comical than any other Zelda. But it wasn't the
> great epic we've come to expect. Which, to be fair, Nintendo never
> planned it to be.
I don't think it was more pick up and play...
And it wasn't more fun because the quest had too much tedium.
I have to say, when I play OOT now I REALLY miss being able to move the camera with the C-Stick. That is all.
> In essence Wind Waker was more a kids game. I can't say it is any
> worse than OOT. OOT was a epic legendary adventure. Whilst Wind Waker
> was a bit of fun. The different approach it took may upset a few die
> hard Zelda fans. But I appreciate it for what it is.
So when did Nintendo decide to alienate their adult audience when in the past they achieved pleasing both so well?
> Sunshine had a load of filler quests. I'll grant ya. But then it had
> a lot of great ones too. And the filler quests weren't that bad. The
> water mario for example was more of an extra.
Well, if you compare it to Mario 64, it replaced a proper "star"/challenge/whatever, and that's my point. It's not that it was there that was the problem, but you can tell Nintendo sat there and thought "now what's the best formula's for cramming 120 stars into such a small game".
> Oh and for your information. It's anoumi (or something similar) that
> is the designer for the Zelda franchise now. He's designing the new
> one. He did Wind Waker and he also did Majora's Mask. He be
> Miyamoto's understudy.
That is surprising.
I know some people had their issues with the saving system (which I incidently thought was fine), but everything else about Majora's Mask is pure genius.
Perhaps after the great time travel idea, he into the mentality of "what is the next clever idea can we make for Zelda - SAILING!" rather than thinking of the best way to make a new Zelda game and weaving a new idea around that... you know?
> Strafio the N64 was the ultimate Nintendo system, the first move into
> 3D gaming. Nintendo have tried to extend their franchises in new
> directions. Well aware that following the paths set by the N64 games
> would suit us down to the ground but will eventually cause
> complaints.
I guess you agree that the N64 era is unsurpassable.
I know what you mean, I wasn't saying that the Gamecube should try to be the N64, just that it would never be as special.
> Nintendo fiddled a bit. Turned an "epic" game like Zelda
> into what was essentially a living cartoon. I know what you mean.
> Zelda just isn't a living cartoon. It did work but isn't what Zelda
> fans truly craved. Hence the more comic Zelda's should be left for
> the handheld renditions. Whilst Nintendo should make Zelda the truly
> epic game.
But it really wasn't the comicness that I didn't like.
Infact, I thought that it was a great idea when I realised that the "N64 look" would be getting a bit old the third time round.
Even though they could've made it more impressive by getting assistance from professional animé artists, that wasn't my problem either.
The quest itself, sucked.
Which is surprising because the quest in Majora's Mask was one of the most geniously sublime quests I've ever played.
It wasn't just the sailing. The sailing was a bit part of it, but just in general it was a let down. I guess that's the price we pay for our impatience.
C'est la vie. :-)
The next one. Personally, I'm refusing to have ANY ideas of what it'll be like, because I know I'll enjoy it more if I take to it with a fresh mind with no expectations, whether it's worth them or not.
> Wind Waker was smoother, overall more "fun" (as in to just
> pick up and play) and comical than any other Zelda. But it wasn't the
> great epic we've come to expect. Which, to be fair, Nintendo never
> planned it to be.
I don't think it was more pick up and play...
And it wasn't more fun because the quest had too much tedium.
I have to say, when I play OOT now I REALLY miss being able to move the camera with the C-Stick. That is all.
> In essence Wind Waker was more a kids game. I can't say it is any
> worse than OOT. OOT was a epic legendary adventure. Whilst Wind Waker
> was a bit of fun. The different approach it took may upset a few die
> hard Zelda fans. But I appreciate it for what it is.
So when did Nintendo decide to alienate their adult audience when in the past they achieved pleasing both so well?
> Sunshine had a load of filler quests. I'll grant ya. But then it had
> a lot of great ones too. And the filler quests weren't that bad. The
> water mario for example was more of an extra.
Well, if you compare it to Mario 64, it replaced a proper "star"/challenge/whatever, and that's my point. It's not that it was there that was the problem, but you can tell Nintendo sat there and thought "now what's the best formula's for cramming 120 stars into such a small game".
> Oh and for your information. It's anoumi (or something similar) that
> is the designer for the Zelda franchise now. He's designing the new
> one. He did Wind Waker and he also did Majora's Mask. He be
> Miyamoto's understudy.
That is surprising.
I know some people had their issues with the saving system (which I incidently thought was fine), but everything else about Majora's Mask is pure genius.
Perhaps after the great time travel idea, he into the mentality of "what is the next clever idea can we make for Zelda - SAILING!" rather than thinking of the best way to make a new Zelda game and weaving a new idea around that... you know?
I don't think it was a step backwards that's my argument. More of a step to the side.
Yes we wanted a step forward. The next one seems to offer it. The realistic "epic" graphical effect of OOT mixed with the combat system of Wind Waker.
Oh yes.
Yes we wanted a step forward. The next one seems to offer it. The realistic "epic" graphical effect of OOT mixed with the combat system of Wind Waker.
Oh yes.
OOT is almost impossible to beat because being the first 3D Zelda game made it legendary straight away. If Majora's Mask had been released before OOT, I dare say that we'd be saying that that was the greatest Zelda game. By giving Wind Waker a different style of graphics, Nintendo were trying to make the Zelda franchise fresher but it didn't work because it seemed like a step backwards.
Strafio the N64 was the ultimate Nintendo system, the first move into 3D gaming. Nintendo have tried to extend their franchises in new directions. Well aware that following the paths set by the N64 games would suit us down to the ground but will eventually cause complaints.
Wind waker is just OOT with nice graphics, Sunshine is just Mario 64 with nicer graphics... what was the point in Double Dash?
Nintendo fiddled a bit. Turned an "epic" game like Zelda into what was essentially a living cartoon. I know what you mean. Zelda just isn't a living cartoon. It did work but isn't what Zelda fans truly craved. Hence the more comic Zelda's should be left for the handheld renditions. Whilst Nintendo should make Zelda the truly epic game.
Wind Waker was smoother, overall more "fun" (as in to just pick up and play) and comical than any other Zelda. But it wasn't the great epic we've come to expect. Which, to be fair, Nintendo never planned it to be.
In essence Wind Waker was more a kids game. I can't say it is any worse than OOT. OOT was a epic legendary adventure. Whilst Wind Waker was a bit of fun. The different approach it took may upset a few die hard Zelda fans. But I appreciate it for what it is.
Sunshine had a load of filler quests. I'll grant ya. But then it had a lot of great ones too. And the filler quests weren't that bad. The water mario for example was more of an extra.
Oh and for your information. It's anoumi (or something similar) that is the designer for the Zelda franchise now. He's designing the new one. He did Wind Waker and he also did Majora's Mask. He be Miyamoto's understudy.
Wind waker is just OOT with nice graphics, Sunshine is just Mario 64 with nicer graphics... what was the point in Double Dash?
Nintendo fiddled a bit. Turned an "epic" game like Zelda into what was essentially a living cartoon. I know what you mean. Zelda just isn't a living cartoon. It did work but isn't what Zelda fans truly craved. Hence the more comic Zelda's should be left for the handheld renditions. Whilst Nintendo should make Zelda the truly epic game.
Wind Waker was smoother, overall more "fun" (as in to just pick up and play) and comical than any other Zelda. But it wasn't the great epic we've come to expect. Which, to be fair, Nintendo never planned it to be.
In essence Wind Waker was more a kids game. I can't say it is any worse than OOT. OOT was a epic legendary adventure. Whilst Wind Waker was a bit of fun. The different approach it took may upset a few die hard Zelda fans. But I appreciate it for what it is.
Sunshine had a load of filler quests. I'll grant ya. But then it had a lot of great ones too. And the filler quests weren't that bad. The water mario for example was more of an extra.
Oh and for your information. It's anoumi (or something similar) that is the designer for the Zelda franchise now. He's designing the new one. He did Wind Waker and he also did Majora's Mask. He be Miyamoto's understudy.
So Miyamoto didn't make Windwaker...
Should I say it explains a lot? ;-)
I'm not saying that Mario Sunshine was any less fun than Mario 64, not at first anysway. But there's such a big difference.
Mario 64 was the game that no one dreamed possible.
Nintendo made full use of 3D levels by putting 7 challenges on each one, rather than you just having to get to the end. Blah, blah blah.
Mario Sunshine? Started playing it too much by formula.
What do I mean by fillers?
Stupid blue coins. An extension you say? Well it took out of the 120 Shines. I guess you could say that the last Shines were an extension then, but Mario 64's same extension felt a lot more like a complete game than an extension.
Well how about chasing "Evil Mario". Yeah, essential to the story, but a waste of a star. It meant that there were less "interesting" challenges.
Silly things like that.
And at the end of the day, it was Mario 64+.
Real improvements? The controls were that little bit slicker (and not much because Mario 64 is STILL very playable). So again, I'm not putting anyone down because there is probably no way that anything could be made as special as Mario 64. So that's where my rambling came from about the N64 being Nintendo's peak, as so many possibilties opened up for them and they took full advantage of them.
Zelda played like OOT with greased controls.
Some people liked cel shading, others didn't.
Some people were satisfied with the adventure, some weren't.
But even if they had then there was still no way it could've been more special than OOT because OOT broke so many boundaries the first time.
Personally, I don't think it touches Orcarina standing up now.
I have played it again recently, and it IS technically a good game but I'm just not drawn to it. I sort of tried it in the summer, got bored after finishing the 2nd temple and played Majora's Mask instead.
The way I go on about it, it might sound like I'm slating it, which I might sort of be. But all I'm saying is that it's not in the same league as it's predecessors. And for the record, I defend it from my brother who says it's the worst game ever. :-)
But I guess what you think of the new Mario and Zelda is irrelevant compared to what I was really trying to say. Sure, I found the new games disappointing but they were never going to blow me away.
During the N64, the world of games went through some of the most exciting changes, and Nintendo and Rare were at the forefront, making the N64 one of the most exciting consoles to own.
Nowdays, bar a few sparks of genius like Pikmin, every game is a polished re-work of one of the games during that era.
Do you agree with me on that one?
Whether either of us think that Sunshine or Windwaker underperformed, had they been the best the could possibly been, could they have impressed us like their predecessors did? I doubt it.
Should I say it explains a lot? ;-)
I'm not saying that Mario Sunshine was any less fun than Mario 64, not at first anysway. But there's such a big difference.
Mario 64 was the game that no one dreamed possible.
Nintendo made full use of 3D levels by putting 7 challenges on each one, rather than you just having to get to the end. Blah, blah blah.
Mario Sunshine? Started playing it too much by formula.
What do I mean by fillers?
Stupid blue coins. An extension you say? Well it took out of the 120 Shines. I guess you could say that the last Shines were an extension then, but Mario 64's same extension felt a lot more like a complete game than an extension.
Well how about chasing "Evil Mario". Yeah, essential to the story, but a waste of a star. It meant that there were less "interesting" challenges.
Silly things like that.
And at the end of the day, it was Mario 64+.
Real improvements? The controls were that little bit slicker (and not much because Mario 64 is STILL very playable). So again, I'm not putting anyone down because there is probably no way that anything could be made as special as Mario 64. So that's where my rambling came from about the N64 being Nintendo's peak, as so many possibilties opened up for them and they took full advantage of them.
Zelda played like OOT with greased controls.
Some people liked cel shading, others didn't.
Some people were satisfied with the adventure, some weren't.
But even if they had then there was still no way it could've been more special than OOT because OOT broke so many boundaries the first time.
Personally, I don't think it touches Orcarina standing up now.
I have played it again recently, and it IS technically a good game but I'm just not drawn to it. I sort of tried it in the summer, got bored after finishing the 2nd temple and played Majora's Mask instead.
The way I go on about it, it might sound like I'm slating it, which I might sort of be. But all I'm saying is that it's not in the same league as it's predecessors. And for the record, I defend it from my brother who says it's the worst game ever. :-)
But I guess what you think of the new Mario and Zelda is irrelevant compared to what I was really trying to say. Sure, I found the new games disappointing but they were never going to blow me away.
During the N64, the world of games went through some of the most exciting changes, and Nintendo and Rare were at the forefront, making the N64 one of the most exciting consoles to own.
Nowdays, bar a few sparks of genius like Pikmin, every game is a polished re-work of one of the games during that era.
Do you agree with me on that one?
Whether either of us think that Sunshine or Windwaker underperformed, had they been the best the could possibly been, could they have impressed us like their predecessors did? I doubt it.
Strafio wrote:
> Talk about rambling but...
> I mean seriously Dringo, in terms of game design, didn't you find
> Windwaker and Sunshine sort of patchy, like bits had been put in as
> "fillers"?
> Like they'd been made for the sake of there being a new Mario and a
> new Zelda, with new original idea's... seeming to forget WHY original
> idea's are so important in the first place...
The only criticism I can make is that the long sea journeys and the blue coins were merely there to extend the playtime.
Meanwhile I found Sunshine easily as fun as Mario 64 and Wind Waker easily as fun as OOT.
And scrapping over which title is superior or whether Nintendo have lost it is just stupid. The games still felt, still played and was just as fun as the classic Nintendo franchises. Wind Waker will never have the effect OOT and MM had on me, but I can look at it and realise that it was equally as fun as the other games. The only real criticism I have of Sunshine was those bloody samey levels. Yet the game was a pure joy to behold and all those puzzles Nintendo created with FLUDD were actually good fun.
Miyamoto normally works with another designer. As he is in charge of ALL Nintendo works, Miyamoto can only be head designer of a few projects. I seem to re-call Luigi's Mansion, Pikmin and Pacman Vs. as being 3.
> Talk about rambling but...
> I mean seriously Dringo, in terms of game design, didn't you find
> Windwaker and Sunshine sort of patchy, like bits had been put in as
> "fillers"?
> Like they'd been made for the sake of there being a new Mario and a
> new Zelda, with new original idea's... seeming to forget WHY original
> idea's are so important in the first place...
The only criticism I can make is that the long sea journeys and the blue coins were merely there to extend the playtime.
Meanwhile I found Sunshine easily as fun as Mario 64 and Wind Waker easily as fun as OOT.
And scrapping over which title is superior or whether Nintendo have lost it is just stupid. The games still felt, still played and was just as fun as the classic Nintendo franchises. Wind Waker will never have the effect OOT and MM had on me, but I can look at it and realise that it was equally as fun as the other games. The only real criticism I have of Sunshine was those bloody samey levels. Yet the game was a pure joy to behold and all those puzzles Nintendo created with FLUDD were actually good fun.
Miyamoto normally works with another designer. As he is in charge of ALL Nintendo works, Miyamoto can only be head designer of a few projects. I seem to re-call Luigi's Mansion, Pikmin and Pacman Vs. as being 3.
Strafio Miyamoto did not make the last 2 Zelda titles.
Before you continue on your criticism... play Wind Waker again.
Before you continue on your criticism... play Wind Waker again.
Every Zelda game was so ambitious up till now.
The graphics were a brave idea. I think they could've done more with them, but it still good. The controlling of Link couldn't possibly have been any better.
But the adventure...
I mean, there were new ideas, but you could tell that their heart wasn't really in it and that new ideas were just there for the sake of there being new ideas. Nothing really special happened.
Perhaps that's why I'm refusing to get hyped over this new Zelda.
Everything looks promising so far, but can Nintendo get over OOT?
Is this a genuinely inspired game or just Nintendo trying to keep up with what their genius "should" be producing.
I think that Miyamoto has done so many platformers/adventure games that they're starting to bore him. Well, not quite bore him, but it's not a passion of his any more.
Each time he made a new Zelda or Mario game, he'd always be out to make something better than ever before. I think he got that initial buzz, from Mario's sleek control and Zelda's cel shading and then got big senses of deja vu when it came to the level design.
So tried some quirky ideas like spray cleaning and sailing, but it seems like that they were invented for the sake originality. Becuase that's what's been labelled as what people expect from Nintendo.
It's like he's no longer oozing these things from his intuitive creativity. He's actively trying to find the new formula for each of these games.
You can tell that Pikmin WAS run straight off his muse, because despite the lack of level design, what was actually there was almost flawless.
Mario and Zelda seemed to be stuck together in pieces, too formulaic...
Not that I'm criticising him, or saying that he should have, or anyone could have, done better. But I'm thinking that the N64 was Nintendo's finest hour, alongside Rare's, and neither company will ever pull the magic they did back then. It was that moment when new possibilties emerged and it was an exciting time for all.
Now it's old.
Miyamoto will never get the same passion from making OOT again.
I'll never get the same passion from playing any of these classics again.
I mean, nowdays there are great games, plenty to look forward to.
But there was a time when I would be happy to save up 3 months of pocket money for a single game, and wouldn't even dream of spending the money on something else.
Talk about rambling but...
I mean seriously Dringo, in terms of game design, didn't you find Windwaker and Sunshine sort of patchy, like bits had been put in as "fillers"?
Like they'd been made for the sake of there being a new Mario and a new Zelda, with new original idea's... seeming to forget WHY original idea's are so important in the first place...
The graphics were a brave idea. I think they could've done more with them, but it still good. The controlling of Link couldn't possibly have been any better.
But the adventure...
I mean, there were new ideas, but you could tell that their heart wasn't really in it and that new ideas were just there for the sake of there being new ideas. Nothing really special happened.
Perhaps that's why I'm refusing to get hyped over this new Zelda.
Everything looks promising so far, but can Nintendo get over OOT?
Is this a genuinely inspired game or just Nintendo trying to keep up with what their genius "should" be producing.
I think that Miyamoto has done so many platformers/adventure games that they're starting to bore him. Well, not quite bore him, but it's not a passion of his any more.
Each time he made a new Zelda or Mario game, he'd always be out to make something better than ever before. I think he got that initial buzz, from Mario's sleek control and Zelda's cel shading and then got big senses of deja vu when it came to the level design.
So tried some quirky ideas like spray cleaning and sailing, but it seems like that they were invented for the sake originality. Becuase that's what's been labelled as what people expect from Nintendo.
It's like he's no longer oozing these things from his intuitive creativity. He's actively trying to find the new formula for each of these games.
You can tell that Pikmin WAS run straight off his muse, because despite the lack of level design, what was actually there was almost flawless.
Mario and Zelda seemed to be stuck together in pieces, too formulaic...
Not that I'm criticising him, or saying that he should have, or anyone could have, done better. But I'm thinking that the N64 was Nintendo's finest hour, alongside Rare's, and neither company will ever pull the magic they did back then. It was that moment when new possibilties emerged and it was an exciting time for all.
Now it's old.
Miyamoto will never get the same passion from making OOT again.
I'll never get the same passion from playing any of these classics again.
I mean, nowdays there are great games, plenty to look forward to.
But there was a time when I would be happy to save up 3 months of pocket money for a single game, and wouldn't even dream of spending the money on something else.
Talk about rambling but...
I mean seriously Dringo, in terms of game design, didn't you find Windwaker and Sunshine sort of patchy, like bits had been put in as "fillers"?
Like they'd been made for the sake of there being a new Mario and a new Zelda, with new original idea's... seeming to forget WHY original idea's are so important in the first place...
Strafio wrote:
> It would've made more use of the postal service and the like...
Exactly, it was hardly used and yet had the potential for a larger role in your quest.
> It would've made more use of the postal service and the like...
Exactly, it was hardly used and yet had the potential for a larger role in your quest.
The sea itself wasn't such a bad idea.
It's just like you said, over-used, and another thing:
Most of the islands were crap.
I mean, you'd spend ages sailing, only to find a small piece of rock with grass on. I wouldn't have minded the windmill town being so small if there had been another 3 like it.
It would've made more use of the postal service and the like...
But there was so much sea compared to such little life.
Made the game so sparse and depressing.
It's just like you said, over-used, and another thing:
Most of the islands were crap.
I mean, you'd spend ages sailing, only to find a small piece of rock with grass on. I wouldn't have minded the windmill town being so small if there had been another 3 like it.
It would've made more use of the postal service and the like...
But there was so much sea compared to such little life.
Made the game so sparse and depressing.
Page: