Topic: The Other Side: What you pray the NX ... ISN'T

I hope it isn't a console that connects to the evil TV lol

Huh? Skyward Sword has been been the hated one for years now.

Anyway, we were just talking about Fi, and Fi has been considered one of the most overzealous guides since SS's launch.

Sorry but these seem to be completely contrary to one another. If you just want Nintendo to put out games on a traditional controller, then why does it matter to you that you play them on a Nintendo console? Them being exclusive doesn't do you any good.

IF Nintendo did a steambox, many of the problems people like to complain about would disappear. Such as third-party content, backwards compatible, no games at launch and so on.

In terms of Wii era "hand holding" I'd argue that the beginning section of Twilight Princess was worse. I never saw Fi as being any more annoying than Midna or Navi. It's just that Midna is an awesome character so we forgive the hints she gives. With Navi there's no rationale, it's just that OoT has gotten to the point where it's beyond criticism.

Anyways, there was a lot of complaining about Twilight Princess a few years ago. That's now moved on to Skyward Sword. It's just how it goes. IMO Skyward Sword is still one of the best Zeldas. The only thing I'd complain about it is the fact that, like Wind Waker, it's a game of "islands" rather than the open world of OoT or TP. I think personally complaining about Fi is a bit.... misdirected....

I love the beginning of Twilight Princess. It sets up the world and the characters, and quite honestly, I enjoyed herding goats and fishing. There were a few simple puzzles in there as well. There was a little bit of a tutorial in the swordfighting and slightshot shooting, but aside from that, it was mostly exposition and minigames, rather than explicit handholding.

Fi literally reiterates when the obnoxious noises for when your battery is dead or your hearts are low. She spells out every single thing for you, and repeats it over and over again. Navi and Midna did that, but much less often and with far fewer words.

There's been endless complaint about Skyward Sword for years now. I'm not sure how you haven't noticed. Twilight Princess was never the golden boy (though it's always been my personal favorite), but it's been gaining support as of late.

Also, as an aside, SS is my least favorite 3D Zelda for aspects most people say the game did well in: I didn't like the dungeons or the story.

@iKhan:
Well, there was always the complaints about the motion controls obviously. Twilight Princess got the same thing but not to the same degree. Every Wii game got those sorts of complaints. But I can honestly say that until recently I thought Twilight Princess got far more crap. I say that as someone who loved both.

Anyways, I think my bigger point is that I think it's a bit odd to mention games like Zelda as things you "hope the NX doesn't have". Even if you're just saying you hope they don't have particular elements in them. Because all of them have things some people don't like but ultimately they're all top tier games. Whatever the next Zeldas end up being I'm sure they'll still be the best things on whatever system.

Same deal with talk about not wanting particular kinds of software and not wanting a particular kind of marketing/audience. I think it's a bad idea to wish for Nintendo to restrict themselves in those areas. If we should want anything it would be for the NX to appeal to as many people as possible. I couldn't care less if they are games that skew younger than me, as long as there's still the stuff I do want. The broader the appeal the more likely my tastes are going to be catered to. And TBH I don't care at all what they do with marketing because at the end of the day I don't play the ads....

@IceClimbers: I can't believe you pulled a Microsoft on me. Waited for my announcement of a console coffee maker...then added a toaster at the last minute. Oooooooooo.

Something with the word 'Wii' in the name. The Wii U's failure came partly because no one realised it was a new system, and the shared name made that even worse. If it's yet another 'Wii Something', then it will pretty much inevitably fail because no one will know it's a new system.

A hybrid console. Otherwise it has a good chance of either being too weak (since it also has to work as a handheld system) or having terrible battery life as a handheld system. The former would hurt the home console side, the latter the handheld side, and to be honest... it'd be the worst of both worlds.

Oh, and digital only. If it's digital only, I won't buy the system, period. I like owning games, not the ridiculous digital renting that this generation seem brainwashed to see as acceptable.

But, that's not necessarily true that "the broader the appeal, the more likely my tastes are going to be catered to". They have limited resources. Let's say they are putting out 6 first party games in a year. They are going to sit down and say "Which one of these franchises should we make a game in?" If Fzero sold 800,000 and "Happy Monkey" had 1.8 million kids buy it, it's much more likely I'm not getting my next Fzero because Happy Monkey Meets Kitty Party Tea Time is going to take it's slot. There's only so much they can make.

EDIT: As for the marketing comment at the end, I also don't wear Levi ads, or eat food ads, but it's very important, and relevant, that marketing keeps things selling well if I want to continue to have the option to buy these products. Especially when a company is coming from an already-struggling period.

The "Zelda cycle" is a well known and extremely popular idea, not a "theory of yours", Skywake. And I personally have never changed my views on it. From day 1, my thoughts were:

LOVED: Story, Combat
HATED: Lack of adventure, Fi, first dousing part

I'm not sure if the Zelda Cycle is real, it may be, but don't include me in it. It's important to remember that, on average, every 2 console titles takes up an entire decade. People grow and change a lot in this time period. This time period also makes up the entirety of many gamers' whole gaming careers. So, unless you're following individual people's opinions on it, you could be dealing with entirely different groups of people over the years and that's why opinions change. Plus tastes change, and, like anything, people forget details the further removed you are from something, so you may only remember the good parts, for example.

Either way, that cycle theory, whoever made it, doesn't apply to me.

Missed this post until now. I have a pretty unique perspective as I stopped playing games pretty much altogether from the last 2 years of the Cube to about the 2nd year of the Wii U. My first instinct was to buy a Nintendo console so I bought a Wii, and went to the store and was confused as to all these junkie looking games I was seeing.

I then asked the Gamestop rep about it who informed me that Nintendo catered more to kids. I was actually very surprised. I bought Galaxy to be safe, then went home and researched it. The few friends I had that still were gamers somewhat told me the same thing. It was like "Nintendo console?? bahahahaha what are you 10?". I looked it up online, and found the opinions to be the same.

I was shocked that after being away from the industry for 10 years, Nintendo had went down this path when I saw them as the ultimate "something for everyone" company. So, even over the years as I sifted though shovelware and found my footing, able to find plenty of games I do like, it has always stuck with me that Nintendo let it's reputation slip like this to the vast majority.

Had I not been a former consumer of Nintendo's products, they would have had ZERO chance of gaining me as a consumer. EVERYBODY told me to look away from them. I kept with Nintendo only because I absolutely LOVED them as a kid and couldn't let that go. And I'm the same way now. As I see them making horrible decision after horrible decision, I simply can't forget how much they once meant to me.

So, it probably wouldn't be super genuine for me to list a ton of titles about this. I honestly would probably just google it and spout it back out. I can generalize it and just point to the tons of motion shovelware type stuff. And that the "skewing kiddie" thing has even started to seep into the franchises I thought were essentially immune to it, like Mario 3D World. Although I agree with your assessment of it, as well.

EDIT: I'm a little confused as to your thoughts on the separation between Galaxy 1 and 2. I actually haven't played 2, but you are the only person I've seen make this distinction between them. I've always heard that Galaxy 2 was either "an even better version of Galaxy 1" or "almost as good, but JUST under Galaxy1 because of it's lack of originality since it's essentially Galaxy 1 with Yoshi". Can you elaborate on this point, just for my own curiousity's sake?

@LetsGoRetro: So first, I'm surprised you hadn't noticed the "Nintendo's for kids" thing before the Wii/Wii U. It was very much a thing with the Gamecube, which got heavily criticized for it's "Lunchbox design".

I remember when I was in middle school the Gamecube was always regarded as the "kiddie console", and it sometimes felt strange only being able to play Gamecube with all my friends who owned PS2s or XBOX's. It's really been a thing that's developed since the SNES-Genesis era when Nintendo censored games like Mortal Kombat, but that's not personal experience, but rather gaming history research.

As for Galaxy vs Galaxy 2, it's really a lot more than that. Galaxy 2 forgoes a real hub world for a world map a la the 2D games. There isn't really much of a plot, and each galaxy only has 2 normal stars per level. More levels are completely linear, with more 2D sections. So yes, the level design is very similar to Galaxy 1. But Galaxy 2 has a bunch of accumulated little things that make it feel much more sterile and much less immersive.

Ok, so examples. This was the Wii U's list of Nintendo published games for 2015:
1. Splatoon
2. Super Mario Maker
3. Mario Party 10
4. Yoshi's Woolly World
5. Xenoblade Chronicles X
6. Kirby and the Rainbow Curse
7. Mario Tennis Ultra Smash
8. Animal Crossing: Amiibo Festival

And your argument is what, remove the "casual slots" and replace them with "core games"? Well I hate to break it to you but it doesn't work like that. Mario Party 10, Amiibo Festival, Mario Tennis, Yoshi's Woolly World and Xenoblade were all done by second party studios. Amiibo Festival in particular is interesting because its development overlapped with both Mario Party 10 and Splatoon. They literally developed it with spare talent and assets during the post release period of two other titles.

Sure most of the time that simpler content they push out isn't great. It's never Zelda tier stuff. But it doesn't take anywhere near as much development time as you seem to think it does. And sometimes? It pays off in a big way. You made a point about how I shouldn't discount marketing as being important. And you're right, because I do think it's important. It just doesn't impact me. Though on the same token I think you shouldn't discount the value of "casual games" to actually fund development for series like Zelda and Metroid.

Firstly it was a figure of speech, I didn't intend to claim it as my own. I meant to say that it's a theory that I happen to agree with. Also whether or not you've changed your views is beside the point. I'm not sure that anyone does change their position on whether or not they like a game. Other than maybe buying into whatever is being posted online and having their minds changed.

I think if anything what's happening with the Zelda games is that there is some kind of unwritten rule. Early on you can't say you don't like it because it's the new Zelda game. Too far away from it you can't complain because by then it's a classic. I don't think people's views change at all.

Well, it's not that I didn't notice it, it's that I feel it was much better balanced. This is what I'm calling for them to go back, too. Now, in fairness, it might actually be that it was easier to "balance" back then because games had shorter development cycles on average, so you could make a lot of all kinds, hence the appearance of "balance". Although, 3rd party support plays a huge role in that, too.

As for Galaxy 2, sans the complaint of a lack of story (as a writer myself, NO Mario game has any semblance of a story, heh) I agree with all your points. Lack of a hub world, linearity and only having 2 stars per galaxy does seem pretty lame.

OK, so your first point actually hurts your argument in 2 ways (and I can't find a way it helps it). You posted 8 games. And I hate to break it to YOU ( ) but 7 and 8 are very much casual experiences. Mario Tennis SHOULDN'T be, and USUALLY isn't, but come on, man, you don't pump out something with that little content for a core audience.

So, how does it hurt your argument, you ask? Well 1- You posted a total of 6 "core" games in the span of a year. (The exact total I used as an example) And only THREE were first party! So, I'm sure we can agree that Nintendo doesn't sit around going "We can make tons of games, but let's not", right? They are making what they can. So, they could make only THREE games in the span of a year. Those are valuable slots, my friend! Are you disagreeing that the company sits down and decides to make games based off of how they sell, or how they perceive they will sell? Of course they do. So, the facts boil down to, there are very limited resources, and they will go where the company deems best.

2- You tell me it doesn't work like I say, and cite the fact that 2nd parties did a lot of the work. So? And? Whether it's 1st party, 2nd party, a guy that lives under a bridge, the process is the same.

1- Nintendo decides what to make based off of how much money they can make off it.
2- Nintendo assigns somebody to make it.

It doesn't matter if it's 1st or 2nd parties. These are employees that are going to work on something, and I sure as HECK would've preferred it was Metroid prime over Amiibo Fest and Mario Tennis.

I know your response is going to be how you said it doesn't take as much work as I think to make these, and that Prime would take way more than it took to make those 2 games, and you'd probably be right, but the point is that I would much better they work on a good, deep game than some trash game, even if they couldn't make the entirety of said game in the same time they made the entirety of the other.

I don't really understand your comments on the Zelda cycle. The Zelda cycle is the idea that people's opinions change on a title over time. They say one thing when it's out, another a few years later, so on and so forth. Then you say you don't think anyone changes their minds. I'm not getting what you're getting at with that one.

It seems like you are saying their views don't change on it, but what they say does based on the Zelda cycle making saying certain things acceptable or not? I find that hard to believe, but ok.

Again, there are not "slots". It doesn't work like that. Anyways, which of the three first party titles would you remove? Which one would you rather them not have spent their precious development time on? And do you not realise that they had other teams working on much larger projects at the same time?

From what I can tell the games you "didn't want" were Amiibo Festival and Mario Tennis. How many resources do you think they devoted to those games? You're asking for them to not devote too many resources to games that are "bad" mostly because they obviously didn't devote many resources to them....

You say it's hard to believe but the same thing happens with all sorts of media. It's always at launch that people will be either hugely positive or negative. Because during that period it's the people who brought into the hype who are the loudest. As things move on a lot of those people move on to the next thing and the discussion becomes more balanced. Then later on there's a third period where nobody is talking about it other than die-hard fans.

People's opinions don't necessarily change. It's the opinion of the community that changes as the title goes from the new thing to last years news to a classic.

OK, this is getting a little silly, getting into semantics and such. "They aren't slots". Fine. Games. The terminology of Games VS slots. The specific games of 2015... These things are distractions to the main point.

Limited resources = Limited amount of games. If they aren't making one thing, they are making another. Does it matter if I'm calling them slots? Does it matter which particular games I personally wanted VS which I didn't in the year of 2015?

The main point is they can't make many games, so of course I personally don't want the few they can make to be games that don't appeal to me.

@skywake:

Look at Retro. Nintendo has been very reluctant to give other companies the "keys to the kingdom" in regards to their franchises. But, Retro has been given the keys to DKC and Metroid Prime. I personally would've much, MUCH preferred a new Metroid Prime and was absolutely livid when I saw DKC: TF debut. Retro had the resources to do one of them, and they chose that one. I'm sure they would've done both if they could've. If not, they would've done a 2nd other title. But, they could only do one, and they chose the wrong one.

The important thing in the above paragraph isn't DKC, or Metroid Prime, or whether or not it was a first party or 2nd party or 3rd party decision. Or if it was Nintendo or Retro making the decision. The takeaway from the paragraph is the very simple, basic idea that a company can only do what it can do, and I provided one example of millions. A decision that is made every single time a company decides what game to make.

I'm sure it's not a coincidence that DKCR on Wii sold 6.5 million, which is more than all 3 Primes combined.

Based on what, your opinion? People voted with their wallets whether you like the result or not. The Donkey Kong Country games are decent titles. They might not do it for you but they are generally well received games that do sell well.

Really, is your grand strategy for Nintendo that they stop making games that sell and instead focus on "winning the forum arguments"? That instead of developing content that will sell they invest in marketing? Because I think that's a great way to make a console that bombs harder than the Wii U.