The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
We all know that Nintendo are more revolution than evolution- they game us shoulder buttons, truely 3D gameplay, and original concepts.
But where is there next revolution going to come from?
It's no secret that Nintendo have given some of their franchises away- Metroid, Starfox and Smash Bros being a few examples. Initially I thought that this would lead Nintendo to put all their efforts into huge epic games like Zelda and Mario... instead the opposite seems to have happened....
Shigsy has announced his short and sweet policy. Although there's nothing wrong with this, and I'm sure it'll get more gamers onto the GC bandwagon, it would appear that there is less scope for him to release truely revolutionary titles. Zelda OOT took over 3 years to make, and now Shigsy is talking about completing a new game every 6 months?
So, what do you think of Nintendo's policy? I would rather have Ninty's second parties making almost all their franchises, with Nintendo just concentrating on a couple of killer titles- something that would have been superb had they pulled out one revolutionary GC launch title.
Sonic
But where is there next revolution going to come from?
It's no secret that Nintendo have given some of their franchises away- Metroid, Starfox and Smash Bros being a few examples. Initially I thought that this would lead Nintendo to put all their efforts into huge epic games like Zelda and Mario... instead the opposite seems to have happened....
Shigsy has announced his short and sweet policy. Although there's nothing wrong with this, and I'm sure it'll get more gamers onto the GC bandwagon, it would appear that there is less scope for him to release truely revolutionary titles. Zelda OOT took over 3 years to make, and now Shigsy is talking about completing a new game every 6 months?
So, what do you think of Nintendo's policy? I would rather have Ninty's second parties making almost all their franchises, with Nintendo just concentrating on a couple of killer titles- something that would have been superb had they pulled out one revolutionary GC launch title.
Sonic
Page:
the longievity of a game does matter, unless you don't mind forking out for a game, which yeah, may be good, but may only last you a couple of afternoons before you win it. Is that worth £40???
If it is very good, you will replay it, but if a game is huge, there is more incentive to play for longer, as you will not be repeating the game after a few days, you will just be getting fully immersed into the game if it is an epic. There is always room for 'short and sweet' titles, but there needs to be some games with lasting appeal, and Nintendo make some of the best games ever, regardless of length, so it would quite a blow to loose the great epics Nintendo release.
If it is very good, you will replay it, but if a game is huge, there is more incentive to play for longer, as you will not be repeating the game after a few days, you will just be getting fully immersed into the game if it is an epic. There is always room for 'short and sweet' titles, but there needs to be some games with lasting appeal, and Nintendo make some of the best games ever, regardless of length, so it would quite a blow to loose the great epics Nintendo release.
Does it really matter.
What game isnt short and waht game isnt long.
As long as the game is good i dont care.
the final fantasy games are long and i love em.
metal gear solid was short and i loved it.
More definition is required to fully solve this arguement.
I think so at least you may not....:)
What game isnt short and waht game isnt long.
As long as the game is good i dont care.
the final fantasy games are long and i love em.
metal gear solid was short and i loved it.
More definition is required to fully solve this arguement.
I think so at least you may not....:)
More likely to attract more casual gamers to Nintendo. Which in the long run would be a good thing.
Or†ega wrote:
More people are likely to
> complete the game
Who cares?? It's there problem if they can't be bothered to play a Nintendo classic all the way through! Besides, if they like the game that much, they'd WANT to complete it.
More people are likely to
> complete the game
Who cares?? It's there problem if they can't be bothered to play a Nintendo classic all the way through! Besides, if they like the game that much, they'd WANT to complete it.
Its a good idea though, short and sweet that is.
More people are likely to complete the game, and more people would be interested in the sequel.
Nintendo wanna win back some of the market share, looks as though short and sweet is the way...
More people are likely to complete the game, and more people would be interested in the sequel.
Nintendo wanna win back some of the market share, looks as though short and sweet is the way...
I haven't heard that Strafex, but it sounds very logical, and I hope that it's true... Zelda should be an epic!!! It's tradition!
Psst, by the way Sonic, Nintendo didn't give the Smash Brothers franchise away:
Hal made the N64 one too.
I know you probably meant giving the franchises of all the characters to Hal so they could use these characters in Smash Brothers, but just in case you didn't... ;-)
Hal made the N64 one too.
I know you probably meant giving the franchises of all the characters to Hal so they could use these characters in Smash Brothers, but just in case you didn't... ;-)
What I've heard is that "short but sweet" only applies to the small devellopment teams who are experimenting with new ideas.
Major games like Zelda and Mario are assigned to bigger teams and because these big titles are garuanteed to sell, Nintendo can afford to put more devellopment into them and make them bigger.
Pikmin is an example.
The first game is released to test what the people make of its concept.
They love it.
Miyomoto starts on making a proper sequel, now ready to expand the idea to its true potential now it has an audience.
Nintendo don't want to spend a fortune on a big title, only to find that the world can't be bothered with it!
Major games like Zelda and Mario are assigned to bigger teams and because these big titles are garuanteed to sell, Nintendo can afford to put more devellopment into them and make them bigger.
Pikmin is an example.
The first game is released to test what the people make of its concept.
They love it.
Miyomoto starts on making a proper sequel, now ready to expand the idea to its true potential now it has an audience.
Nintendo don't want to spend a fortune on a big title, only to find that the world can't be bothered with it!
slik, howcome you still sign your name slik, but spell it on the name tag $lik ???
Anyway, we have yet to see whether ALL Nintendos first party games follow the 'short and sweet' policy... Maybe Mario/Zelda will break this trend...
yes, only time will tell
;-)
Anyway, we have yet to see whether ALL Nintendos first party games follow the 'short and sweet' policy... Maybe Mario/Zelda will break this trend...
yes, only time will tell
;-)
all I can say is only time will tell...
slik ~_~
slik ~_~
Page: