Viewing Thread:
"E3 Revolution"

Some of you may recall my previous topic detailing how I think not showing Revolution properly (just a concept, non playable etc), would be a HUGE mistake for Nintendo. Then Dringo argued with me about it, saying that my opinion was wrong (good one!!!11).

Anyway, turns out IGNcube agree with me completely.

[URL]http://cube.ign.com/articles/587/587028p1.html[/URL]

The main points for those of you too lazy to read:

- Sony and Microsoft are going for MASSIVE launches of their new machines, Nintendo needs to keep up

- Nintendo need to pay attention because no one outside the fanbase is talking about Revolution, because no one knows anything about it, so they ignore it

- Nintendo need to use Reggie to unveil the console and games

- Revolution must be playable to generate interest, just like with the DS

- Revolution can't sacrifice power for gimmicks

- The revolution must actually improve the gameplay experience and not just change it slightly for no reason

- Games must be shown and not just talked about

- Nintendo can't forget 3rd parties by making Revolution so different that no one will want to develop for it

- Gamecube needs some surprise games

- Mario 128 must be playable or at least shown

- Zelda must be more than just OOT v 2

So pretty much everything that I said. Anyone agree/disagree? Personally I think they've got it spot on.

Oh and the report also says that Developers haven't got hard machine specs or dev kits yet, Dringo, so looks like you were wrong about that. Apparently we'll get that at the GDC in March.

Dringo wrote:
> Ah now I wouldn't include the GBA games because it is a seperate
> platform. I dunno why I just don't, I'm sure you understand.

Heh, you don't expect me to agree do you? :)

Tphi wrote:
> Dringo wrote:
> I'd say each Zelda game is a sequel. But as there are never more
> than
> 2 every 5 years it isn't worth complaining about.
>
> Four Swords, Wind Waker and the New Zelda?
>
>
>
>
>
> and Minish Cap too :P

Ah now I wouldn't include the GBA games because it is a seperate platform. I dunno why I just don't, I'm sure you understand.

And Four Swords is certainly not a sequel to the traditional Zelda series.

Dringo wrote:
> I'd say each Zelda game is a sequel. But as there are never more than
> 2 every 5 years it isn't worth complaining about.

Four Swords, Wind Waker and the New Zelda?





and Minish Cap too :P

I'd say each Zelda game is a sequel. But as there are never more than 2 every 5 years it isn't worth complaining about.

A sequel isn't a bad thing but imagine working for the FIFA team, knocking out an exact replica of a game every year and then removing some teams and changing the commentry for World Cup, European Cup or UEFA champions league games.

gamesfreak wrote:
> Chr1s wrote:
> They are sequels. Regardless of the story, the fact that they have
> the same characters and the game goes under the same name means that
> they are sequels.
>
> Unless we are under different understandings here, but a sequel is
> something that carries on the story from the previous game
> correct?

Yes, but in your(gamesfreak) original post you used Zelda as an example of a something where the stories don't carry on from each other but most of the time there are some pretty obvious connections, e.g. OoT to MM.

Though technically a sequel doesn't have to be a continuation of a story, just a continuation, so FIFA 2004 to FIFA 2005 is a sequel because it's a continuation of the franchise.

Blank wrote:

> With Mario it's essentially "oh he has a hosepipe in this
> one"

That's BS.

Compare Mario 64 to Mario World and there's an amazing difference. The same goes for Mario Sunshine, sure some will look and say "Oooh he's got a hosepipe in this one" but that totally changed the gaming mechanics and also the settings.

Chr1s wrote:
> They are sequels. Regardless of the story, the fact that they have
> the same characters and the game goes under the same name means that
> they are sequels.

Unless we are under different understandings here, but a sequel is something that carries on the story from the previous game correct?

gamesfreak wrote:
> It's like the Final Fantasy series, each one is a different game.

Not really. Final Fantasy has a different cast of characters, different aesthetics, atmosphere, battle system, magic system, etc.

With Mario it's essentially "oh he has a hosepipe in this one"

gamesfreak wrote:
> I don't see why people think Nintendo knock Mario titles out faster
> then EA can produce FIFA 2005.1
>
> They're not sequels for christs sake, nor updates, each one is a
> completely different game. The physics and characters might be the
> same, but it's a different adventure each time.
>
> It's like the Final Fantasy series, each one is a different game.
>
> Same with Zelda etc.
>
> Mmmmm Zelda.

They are sequels. Regardless of the story, the fact that they have the same characters and the game goes under the same name means that they are sequels.

I don't see why people think Nintendo knock Mario titles out faster then EA can produce FIFA 2005.1

They're not sequels for christs sake, nor updates, each one is a completely different game. The physics and characters might be the same, but it's a different adventure each time.

It's like the Final Fantasy series, each one is a different game.

Same with Zelda etc.

Mmmmm Zelda.