Most anticipated game of 2010-11 at E3

[Tarazuma]

Still, I pretty much instinctively dislike Nintendo because of what they've done to great series like Kirby and Zelda and to their company itself.

Well yeah, the whole NINTENDO=AUTOMATIC WIN thing is annoying and the reason for Nintendo's success despite their stupid motion control/touch screen crap. I personally hate how they ruined Zelda, Kirby and even Mario. I hate all the 3D Mario platformer games (even Mario 64), Wind Waker and the Zelda touchscreen/motion games, and the only post-Dreamland 3 Kirby game I like is Squeak Squad.

 

[TheFudgehogGuy]

Well yeah, the whole NINTENDO=AUTOMATIC WIN thing is annoying and the reason for Nintendo's success despite their stupid motion control/touch screen crud. I personally hate how they ruined Zelda, Kirby and even Mario. I hate all the 3D Mario platformer games (even Mario 64), Wind Waker and the Zelda touchscreen/motion games, and the only post-Dreamland 3 Kirby game I like is Squeak Squad.

Ironic really, as you express dislike for games (Not E3) that garnered critical acclaim, but the one game you do like is Kirby and his rather mediocre titles.

 

[Claus]

Well I think I've pretty much stated my opinion on Zelda with motion controls and how bad it is.

All you've basically said is "Motion control games tend to be only gimmick in everything I've seen, therefore those games are insta-bad and I don't like them, therefore this game will be bad too."

Which is pretty baseless if you ask me. We've been through how Skyward Sword, is FAR from gimmick, farthest from gimmick as anything using motion control has ever been. For the first (big) time, motion control is being offered as something bigger than just waggle, or point-at-screen. The entire game - enemies, environments, weapons, etc. - is being designed around the actual sword-hand-tracking movement - to call the motion control in these game 'gimmick' (even though I know that, here, you didn't specifically say that) is a clear misusage of the word. You have in your mind that motion = gimmick. Skyward Sword is looking to change that.

So quit forming premature opinions about motion = autobad for this game D:<

As for Kirby, Kirby is most definitely a gimmick. Kirby Epic Yarn looks awful, and I don't see the appeal at all.

I'm guessing you say that just because it uses motion? Like, you're not taking into consideration the brave innovation, the new art style, the gameplay mechanics, or anything else?

I hate all the 3D Mario platformer games (even Mario 64), Wind Waker

^Coming from you, this doesn't surprise me, at all.

 

[PG24]

Why isn't Fallout on the poll? You guys wouldn't know a good game if it hit you in the face :/ Skyward Sword seems like Wind Waker and TP had a baby. Metroid M might be good :/ There hasn't been a good Mario Kart since 64 era. MGS might be good. . . Wii party, something for 5 year olds, Kirby might be a good game, if it has story. If OoT has the annoying Iron Boots/Water Temple thing, I will buy the game and then spit on it

The only good games I see are:
Portal 2
Peace Walker
FNV
Killzone 3
AC BTH
Metroid M
DK Country

All others are doomed to marketing failure

 

[Gale]

All you've basically said is "Motion control games tend to be only gimmick in everything I've seen, therefore I don't like those games, therefore this game will be bad."

Which is pretty baseless if you ask me. We've been through how Skyward Sword, is FAR from gimmick, farthest from gimmick as anything using motion control has ever been. For the first (big) time, motion control is being offered as something bigger than just waggle, or point-at-screen. The entire game - enemies, environments, weapons, etc. - is being designed around the actual sword-hand-tracking movement - to call the motion control in these game 'gimmick' (even though I know that, here, you didn't specifically say that) is a clear misusage of the word. You have in your mind that motion = gimmick. Skyward Sword is looking to change that.

So quit forming premature opinions about motion = autobad for this game D:<

As for Kirby, Kirby is most definitely a gimmick. Kirby Epic Yarn looks awful, and I don't see the appeal at all.

I'm guessing you say that just because it uses motion? Like, you're not taking into consideration the brave innovation, the new art style, the gameplay mechanics, or anything else?

I hate all the 3D Mario platformer games (even Mario 64), Wind Waker

^Coming from you, this doesn't surprise me, at all.

I wouldn't say Skyward Sword is as much of a gimmick as some other games. There's a difference between using motion controls to your advantage, and just using them because you have to. The entire game is designed around motion controls because it has to be. Motion controls aren't always a gimmick, they're a hassle, they're not the right direction gaming should be taking, and they're setting limits for what you can do in the game. I can tell you're rolling your eyes right now, but come on, don't you feel that a game runs smoother when you aren't swinging your arms around pretending you're holding a sword? It doesn't add a challenge to the game, it adds a certain unnecessary difficulty based on your ability to swing your arms around like an idiot.

I'm not prematurely saying motion controls are bad. I know that they're bad based on 4 years of motion controls being bad.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see what's so awesome about string.

TheDarkLucario knows what's up.

Edit: Metal Gear Solid Peace Walker came out like two months ago. lol.

 

[Tarazuma]

Ironic really, as you express dislike for games (Not E3) that garnered critical acclaim, but the one game you do like is Kirby and his rather mediocre titles.

Meh, I could care less whether games are "critically acclaimed" or not. I like what I like (and hate what I hate), regardless of how popular or "good" they are. It's all opinions anyways.

I hate all the 3D Mario platformer games (even Mario 64), Wind Waker

^Coming from you, this doesn't surprise me, at all.

Just curious, why doesn't it surprise you? I barely know you

I wouldn't say Skyward Sword is as much of a gimmick as some other games. There's a difference between using motion controls to your advantage, and just using them because you have to. The entire game is designed around motion controls because it has to be. Motion controls aren't always a gimmick, they're a hassle, they're not the right direction gaming should be taking, and they're setting limits for what you can do in the game. I can tell you're rolling your eyes right now, but come on, don't you feel that a game runs smoother when you aren't swinging your arms around pretending you're holding a sword? It doesn't add a challenge to the game, it adds a certain unnecessary difficulty based on your ability to swing your arms around like an idiot.

Quoted for truth, this is EXACTLY why I hate motion controls and refuse to use them. I shouldn't be FORCED to hurt my wrists and risk carpal tunnel syndrome just to play a freakin' video game -.-

 

[Claus]

The entire game is designed around motion controls because it has to be.

No the game most certainly does not have to be designed around motion control. They could very, very easily make the motion tracking sword play, then slap it onto a general Zelda adventure, changing nothing about how fighting/puzzle-solving works, and call it innovation. Then we'd have a gimmick. But that's not what's happening; the game is being designed around sword-motion tracking because doing so is innovation and in theory will bring a fresh and new experience with age-old Zelda gameplay.

Motion controls aren't always a gimmick, they're a hassle, they're not the right direction gaming should be taking, and they're setting limits for what you can do in the game.

Actually I agree that motion control isn't the direction gaming as a whole should be taking, as I explained in the timeline thread. However, I think that motion control is the next step to improving specific, individual franchises and games, specifally Zelda.

A lot of games, in fact probably the majority of games, don't need motion control at all, and I agree that a good deal of games needlessly use it just because they can. Which of course is gimmick.

But Skyward Sword is different, it's not gimmick, and I honestly feel that Zelda specifically can be improved by motion control. This is the very first time Zelda, a tried-and-true franchise, has had a chance to try and fully utilize motion control (the technology wasn't ready at TP's Wii release). So I think it deserves at the very least, an open mind.

Also, I don't understand how motion control sets limits on what you can do in a game. At least not for Wii and Move, as they have buttons and such. I can see how Kinect could limit certain games, though (but said games probably won't be for Kinect anyway).

I can tell you're rolling your eyes right now, but come on, don't you feel that a game runs smoother when you aren't swinging your arms around pretending you're holding a sword?

Actually, I've never played a game where I swing my arms around pretending like I'm holding a sword. Sorry :\

And actually I was rolling my eyes at that point

It doesn't add a challenge to the game, it adds a certain unnecessary difficulty based on your ability to swing your arms around like an idiot.

Well, waggle certainly doesn't add a challenge to games. However, from what we've seen of Skyward Sword's usage of Motion Plus, I think we can say that a challenge and genuine new gameplay mechanic has been added, however easy it may be in different situations.

Like, did you see where some Deku Babas had to be cut in a certain way to be killed? Some open their mouths across a vertical axis, so in order to kill them, you have to slice downward. Some open their mouths across a horizontal axis, so to kill them, you gotta slice horizontally. Maybe it's just me, but that's way more interesting, creative, and challenging then just mashing the B button and slicing randomly at their stalks to kill them.

And that's just a basic situation in the generic forest area. They said that this is how the entire game will be; using sword-hand-tracking in creative ways to kill various enemies, solve various puzzles, etc.

So yes, I agree that thus far, with just waggle waggle, not much genuine new gameplay mechanic or challenge has been added to anything.

But Skyward Sword is different, and is changing that.


Post dissection... COMPLETE

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see what's so awesome about string.

Well, that's your opinion and that's okay, but the point isn't just about string. The point is that it's such a creative innovation to the series. Instead of just re-releasing Kirby 64 with updated graphics, like they assumedly were going to do with the canceled GCN game (judging from screenshots), they decided to be new and try a fresh take with the series. That's what's good about Epic Yarn.

 

[Gale]

Claus, you really should come on chat when I'm on. It's getting annoying to quote post after post.

No the game most certainly does not have to be designed around motion control. They could very, very easily make the motion tracking sword play, then slap it onto a general Zelda adventure, changing nothing about how fighting/puzzle-solving works, and call it innovation. Then we'd have a gimmick. But that's not what's happening; the game is being designed around sword-motion tracking because doing so is innovation and in theory will bring a fresh and new experience with age-old Zelda gameplay.

I'm not really denying that it's innovative and new, but it's also really dumb. That was blunt on my part but honestly, it is. I don't want to make this entire discussion about Skyward Sword, but instead let me shift it to motion controls in general. Motion controls are still a new concept, I guess. 4 years after the Wii first came out and we pretty much know how to use them. I'm not saying my opinion is right, but there are people that agree with me when I say motion controls are unnecessary and are not what gaming is meant to be. People say that motion controls are the future of gaming. No. eSports is the future of gaming, and that's the direction it will go. Nintendo will never be caught up with eSports because they have no way of becoming competitive with video games, so they have to stick to their old classics like Zelda, Kirby, Mario, etc. They think motion controls is the way to bring them into the "future". Motion controls themselves are a gimmick. Some games use them in a creative way that makes them less gimmicky, but for the most part, motion controls is not where gaming will be in the years to come.

Actually I agree that motion control isn't the direction gaming as a whole should be taking, as I explained in the timeline thread. However, I think that motion control is the next step to improving specific, individual franchises and games, specifally Zelda.

A lot of games, in fact probably the majority of games, don't need motion control at all, and I agree that a good deal of games needlessly use it just because they can. Which of course is gimmick.

But Skyward Sword is different, it's not gimmick, and I honestly feel that Zelda specifically can be improved by motion control. This is the very first time Zelda, a tried-and-true franchise, has had a chance to try and fully utilize motion control (the technology wasn't ready at TP's Wii release). So I think it deserves at the very least, an open mind.

Also, I don't understand how motion control sets limits on what you can do in a game. At least not for Wii and Move, as they have buttons and such. I can see how Kinect could limit certain games, though (but said games probably won't be for Kinect anyway).

I swear I didn't even read this part when I typed up my response, lol.

Games that were already popular before motion controls don't need them because they were already popular. A stand-alone game like Epic Mickey or The Conduit needs motion controls because they're built for that. When OoT came out they didn't have motion controls in mind. Skyward Sword could be a great Zelda game without motion controls, and I think adding motion controls takes away from the gameplay that we're used to. Change isn't always a good thing.

Well, waggle certainly doesn't add a challenge to games. However, from what we've seen of Skyward Sword's usage of Motion Plus, I think we can say that a challenge and genuine new gameplay mechanic has been added, however easy it may be in different situations.

Like, did you see where some Deku Babas had to be cut in a certain way to be killed? Some open their mouths across a vertical axis, so in order to kill them, you have to slice downward. Some open their mouths across a horizontal axis, so to kill them, you gotta slice horizontally. Maybe it's just me, but that's way more interesting, creative, and challenging then just mashing the B button and slicing randomly at their stalks to kill them.

And that's just a basic situation in the generic forest area. They said that this is how the entire game will be; using sword-hand-tracking in creative ways to kill various enemies, solve various puzzles, etc.

So yes, I agree that thus far, with just waggle waggle, not much genuine new gameplay mechanic or challenge has been added to anything.

But Skyward Sword is different, and is changing that.

You're right! Instead of mashing B, now I can continually swing my arm in a vertical/horizontal motion endlessly until the enemy is killed. I'm not saying I mashed B or that I would do that, but people can still do it. It's too early to tell, yes, but motion controls themselves soured me on Skyward Sword. The demo of Skyward Sword soured me even more.

Well, that's your opinion and that's okay, but the point isn't just about string. The point is that it's such a creative innovation to the series. Instead of just re-releasing Kirby 64 with updated graphics, like they assumedly were going to do with the canceled GCN game (judging from screenshots), they decided to be new and try a fresh take with the series. That's what's good about Epic Yarn.

I'm fine with a fresh take with the series. I'm not fine with yarn.

 

[Claus]

But chat is such a pain D: And I'm not so great at thinking on my feet, either; I enjoy having time to think out my responses.

Anyway!

I don't want to make this entire discussion about Skyward Sword, but instead let me shift it to motion controls in general

No, we’re making this discussion about Skyward Sword. I’ve already agreed with you that motion controls in most of what’s out there is pretty gimmicky and probably could be done without in most cases. But I’m arguing that Skyward Sword is different.

I'm not saying my opinion is right, but there are people that agree with me when I say motion controls are unnecessary and are not what gaming is meant to be. People say that motion controls are the future of gaming. No.

And I've agreed with you there, in terms of gaming as a whole. I just think that for some specific games/franchises, motion control is the next logical step forward.

eSports is the future of gaming, and that's the direction it will go.

I desperately hope you don't advocate this. Ugh, what a hideously bleak concept; e-sports being the future of gaming. Unfortunately, this is the direction it's moving, which is really stupid, as far as I'm concerned. I see video games as first and foremost for fun (which e-sports can be), but also as unique literary mediums (look at certain Zelda games (MM and WW in particular), the Mother series, etc). At least there are some developers out there who look at games this way, like Shigeru Miyamoto and Shigesato Itoi (even though he doesn't make any more).

Nintendo will never be caught up with eSports because they have no way of becoming competitive with video games

What fantasy world are you living in Gale? Nintendo is obviously competitive with video games. Last time I checked, Nintendo was making waaay more money from video games than the other companies. Why do you think they make so much money? Is it because you think their games are rubbish? Why do you think their games (certain ones, anyway) are very often ridiculously great sellers? It is because you think they're uninteresting and made of hassling gimmick? Maybe it's because certain people involved know how to make a quality, fun game that everyone can enjoy!

Or are you one of those elitists who thinks that the majority public are mindless shrubs who don't know what a 'good' video game is. I used to be one of those, regarding shooter fans. As far as I was concerned, shooters were pretty stupid, and I couldn't see why anyone would want them. Then I realized - 'You know what? A whole lotta people really, truly enjoy those games. Who cares if I don't particularly like them? Gaming is about having fun, and if they like them and have fun with them, more power to them!' And now I don't bash Microsoft fans, Sony fans, shooter fans, anything fans, because everyone can enjoy what they like and it’s not my place to be condescending over something so silly.

so they have to stick to their old classics like Zelda, Kirby, Mario, etc.

Because new Mario games are worse and less fun than the old ones, right? They stick to their old classics, yes, but at least they do something new with them most of the time. Like New Super Mario Bros Wii - what a quality game! I bet you've never played it though; at least you certainly don't own it. You probably think, 'oh they just slapped 'new' and 'wii' on an old game and are basically releasing something old and pointless because people will buy it.' Honestly, that’s what I thought when I first heard of it, but I've had a chance to play a good chunk of it, and I can't say enough good about it. It feels completely fresh and new, but more than that, it's a ridiculous amount of pure fun (particularly with more than one person).

And for more. Super Mario Galaxy - innovative to the max. Super Mario Galaxy 2 - less innovative, but only because they had so many ideas that couldn't fit well into the first innovative game that they decided to make a different, surprisingly fresh feeling game (which I doubt you've played either). Galaxy 2 is, as far as I'm concerned, one of the purest, most unhindered gaming experiences out there.

And Kirby. Kirby's Epic Yarn - completely innovated. Not only is gameplay for the most part innovated, now so is the art style and way you interact with the environment.

And Zelda. Skyward Sword - after TP's lack of innovation, innovation to the maaaax. Spirit Tracks - like or hate the train, there’s no denying the innovation (even if it was based on things before it, the concept at least was new). And there's Zelda being (sorta) playable, adding new puzzle elements via Phantom.

So you can say Nintendo sticks with their old franchises. But you can't say that's a bad, money-gouging thing, when they put the effort into innovation like this. Specifically Nintendo-developed first parties have always been about innovation.

Motion controls themselves are a gimmick. Some games use them in a creative way that makes them less gimmicky, but for the most part, motion controls is not where gaming will be in the years to come.

So lemme get this straight. Motion controls are a gimmick because most of the games using them use them as a gimmick. And that means games that don't use them as a gimmick are now still considered gimmicky because other games used motion as a gimmick. That about right?

Games that were already popular before motion controls don't need them because they were already popular. A stand-alone game like Epic Mickey or The Conduit needs motion controls because they're built for that. When OoT came out they didn't have motion controls in mind. Skyward Sword could be a great Zelda game without motion controls, and I think adding motion controls takes away from the gameplay that we're used to. Change isn't always a good thing.

But Zelda has always been about innovation, Gale, whether it be big or small! Even from day two! Look back to the original. It was a hit game, for sure. Then, instead of just milking it and making a similar game in Zelda 2, they hugely innovated! And after OoT's success, instead just making a similar game in concept to milk it, they made MM, probably the most creative game in the series. And after those two, instead of just making updated-graphics OoT, they completely innovated the concept of the series in WW. Only TP was an updated-graphics, steroid version of OoT, and as awesome as it is, it's one of the games in the series that innovated the least.

And now Skyward Sword is completely innovating the way the Zelda is played. You complain that Nintendo 'sticks to their old franchises,' but when they try to innovate you gripe more? Well, I know your gripe isn't at innovation so much as motion control, but what I've been trying to say is that this isn't gimmick. You cannot validly call Skyward Sword's motion control gimmick.

You're right! Instead of mashing B, now I can continually swing my arm in a vertical/horizontal motion endlessly until the enemy is killed.

Wrong. You missed my entire point. You said motion control doesn't add any new challenge to a game, and I gave evidence that it is indeed now adding a genuinely new challenge and mechanic gaming, at least for one series. And the evidence still stands. Swinging with thought, precision, and puzzle-solving in mind is hardly the same as mashing B.

I'm fine with a fresh take with the series. I'm not fine with yarn.

Well alrighty, but it's not your place to judge the game based on the yarn direction rubbing you the wrong way. I'm not saying you were doing this exactly, but I'm just saying ;o

 

[PG24]

Clause is just mad because the Mother series is dead ;o

Nintendo did have the best e3 this year, but that doesn't excuse them ruining the Zelda universe. They made a Wind Waker/ TP baby This is madness!

 

[Claus]

Clause is just mad because the Mother series is dead ;o

Nintendo did have the best e3 this year, but that doesn't excuse them ruining the Zelda universe. They made a Wind Waker/ TP baby This is madness!

Quiet, you, fully read previous posts before you post. You have no basis for the claim that Nintendo is ruining the Zelda universe.

 

[The Fallen One]

What fantasy world are you living in Gale? Nintendo is obviously competitive with video games. Last time I checked, Nintendo was making waaay more money from video games than the other companies. Why do you think they make so much money? Is it because you think their games are rubbish? Why do you think their games (certain ones, anyway) are very often ridiculously great sellers? It is because you think they're uninteresting and made of hassling gimmick? Maybe it's because certain people involved know how to make a quality, fun game that everyone can enjoy!

You do understand that Nintendo does not have many competitive games. Most of their sales have come from very casual gamers who have never owned a console before. They're just buying the Wii for the Wii Fit...

 

[PG24]

Quiet, you, fully read previous posts before you post. You have no basis for the claim that Nintendo is ruining the Zelda universe.

This game takes place before OoT. This game takes place after OoT.
Seriously Nintendo, how many 'Links' are born every year? o.o

 

[The Fallen One]

Actually I think Twilight Princess really screwed up the continuity of this series. The temple of time being all the waaaaaay down in the Faron woods several miles away from the castle? Yeah that just doesn't fly. Plus only in the GCN game is the map of Hyrule a similar match with the one in OoT.

 

[Claus]

This game takes place before OoT. This game takes place after OoT.
Seriously Nintendo, how many 'Links' are born every year? o.o

How is that a basis for claiming Nintendo is ruining the Zelda universe? What Zelda universe would there be if there was just one Link? What timeline would there be? They'd all just be random games, random stories, random concepts, little connection - like Mario.


And TFO and Gale, I am very, very sorry. I thought Gale meant competitive as in sales, not as in actual competitive gaming. I'm sorry D:

 

[PG24]

How is that a basis for claiming Nintendo is ruining the Zelda universe? What Zelda universe would there be if there was just one Link? What timeline would there be? They'd all just be random games, random stories, random concepts, little connection - like Mario.


And TFO and Gale, I am very, very sorry. I thought Gale meant competitive as in sales, not as in actual competitive gaming. I'm sorry D:

Let's put it this way, 10 years after I die, someone who looks exactly like me is born withe the same name, and after he dies, someone who looks exactly like him is born with the same name. . . [/Never ending paradox]

And like tFO said, they completely messed it up, putting the ToT in a weird place. It seems like Nintendo doesn't even look back at their previous work in the series :/

 

[Claus]

Actually I think Twilight Princess really screwed up the continuity of this series. The temple of time being all the waaaaaay down in the Faron woods several miles away from the castle? Yeah that just doesn't fly. Plus only in the GCN game is the map of Hyrule a similar match with the one in OoT.

I'll have you know that the Temple of Time was originally supposed to be in the Lost Woods in OoT. They decided to put it in Castle Town to give Ganon a reason for destroying the Castle Town in getting into the Sacred Realm.

What is the legend of Zelda? It's legends. The games are stories of past events in the fictional kingdom of Hyrule. Legends change with time. So what if Death Mountain is a little off between games? Say someone wrote down the events of the hero in a scroll for future generations. Would they really record the exact locations of every place? No, locations are relative and subject to change and different interpretations, even in real-life legends.

So who cares if they decide to be creative instead of forcing themselves to make every game look basically the same! This is the way the makers look at the games, so you should too.

---

Let's put it this way, 10 years after I die, someone who looks exactly like me is born withe the same name, and after he dies, someone who looks exactly like him is born with the same name. . . [/Never ending paradox]

Like I said, you have no basis for claiming what you did.

No Zelda game has been 10 years apart from another one and used the same Link. Any reincarnation of Link takes place hundreds of years after another Link. WW Link was a reincarnation of OoT Link. The ancient evil arose again, so why can't the ancient, chosen hero arise again to counter him? And TP Link was a descendant, it's confirmed in the game. In case you didn't know, people oftentimes look like their relatives!


UPDATED POST TO INCLUDE DARKLUCARIOS POST

 

[PG24]

Haha Claus, your funny, replacing my name with shrub. Ahaha I'm rofl. You funny! [/sarcasm]

I'm sorry that your so fan-boy that you can't think clearly, Zelda has lost its touch.

 

[The Fallen One]

I'll have you know that the Temple of Time was originally supposed to be in the Lost Woods in OoT. They decided to put it in Castle Town to give Ganon a reason for destroying the Castle Town in getting into the Sacred Realm.

What is the legend of Zelda? It's legends. The games are stories of past events in the fictional kingdom of Hyrule. Legends change with time. So what if Death Mountain is a little off between games? Say someone wrote down the events of the hero in a scroll for future generations. Would they really record the exact locations of every place? No, locations are relative and subject to change and different interpretations, even in real-life legends.

So who cares if they decide to be creative instead of forcing themselves to make every game look basically the same! This is the way the makers look at the games, so you should too.

Okay, this is bs right here. I don't mind a slight shift because yes, maps change a bit over time. But because they moved the ToT to castle town they should /keep/ it there. And they completely moved the woods from one part of the pap to another. Going from the East side to the South side of the hyrule map is not continuity. Your argument doesn't hold up very well Claus.

No Zelda game has been 10 years apart from another one and used the same Link. Any reincarnation of Link takes place hundreds of years after another Link. WW Link was a reincarnation of OoT Link. The ancient evil arose again, so why can't the ancient, chosen hero arise again to counter him? And TP Link was a descendant, it's confirmed in the game. In case you didn't know, people oftentimes look like their relatives!

Technically Phantom Hourglass didn't follow that long after Wind Waker. It was less than 10 years to say the least.

 

[Gale]

You know, Claus, you'd think we'd be like best buddies if it weren't for all this debating. Oh well, it's fun.

I desperately hope you don't advocate this. Ugh, what a hideously bleak concept; e-sports being the future of gaming. Unfortunately, this is the direction it's moving, which is really quite stupid, as far as I'm concerned. I see video games as first and foremost for fun, but also as unique literary mediums (look at certain Zelda games (MM, WW, etc), the Mother series, etc). At least there are some developers out there who look at games this way, like Shigeru Miyamoto and Shigesato Itoi (even though he doesn't make any more).

eSports is pretty much taking what you think is fun and making it your occupation and what you make money off of, or just a way to make money. Starcraft 2, World of Warcraft, etc etc all capitalize on this to great success. Some games aren't meant for eSports so there's a good balance. It's difficult to compare Nintendo to eSports because Nintendo takes a totally different approach to things, but motion controls aren't the main future of gaming. They're fun for right now, but eventually we won't be using them at all.

What fantasy world are you living in Gale? Nintendo is obviously competitive with video games. Last time I checked, Nintendo was making waaay more money from video games than the other companies. Why do you think they make so much money? Is it because their games are rubbish? Why do you think their games (certain ones, anyway) are very often ridiculously great sellers? It is because they're boring and poorly-made? Maybe it's because certain people involved know how to make a quality, fun game that everyone can enjoy!

I could ask you the same thing. Sony is currently leading in video game sales, then Nintendo, then Microsoft. As far as how they make money off their games, here's an example: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/102785-Sonic-Colors-Not-Meant-For-Core-Audience Their games are for kids. Maybe teenagers and some adults buy Nintendo's games, but they are FOR KIDS. That means parents will buy them, unlike gory and "addictive" games for the PC/360/PS3.

Or are you one of those elitists who thinks that the majority public are mindless shrubs who don't know what a 'good' video game is. I used to be one of those, regarding shooter fans. As far as I was concerned, shooters were pretty stupid, and I couldn't see why anyone would want them. Then I realized - 'You know what? A whole lotta people really, truly enjoy those games. Who cares if I don't particularly like them? Gaming is about having fun, and if they like them and have fun with them, more power to them!' And now I don't bash Microsoft fans, Sony fans, shooter fans, anything fans, because everyone can enjoy what they like and it’s not my place to be condescending over something so silly.

No because everyone is allowed to have their opinions on what they think is a good game. People can enjoy a Nintendo game, people can enjoy a Microsoft game, people can enjoy whatever they want. But it comes to a point where it just gets annoying, and where it's difficult to not debate with someone over the quality of a certain video game/company.

Because new Mario games are worse and less fun than the old ones, right? They stick to their old classics, yes, but at least they do something new with them most of the time. Like New Super Mario Bros Wii - what a quality game! I bet you've never played it though; at least you certainly don't own it. You probably think, 'oh they just slapped 'new' and 'wii' on an old game and are basically releasing something old and pointless because people will buy it.' Honestly, that’s what I thought when I first heard of it, but I've had a chance to play a good chunk of it, and I can't say enough good about it. It feels completely fresh and new, but more than that, it's a ridiculous amount of pure fun (particularly with more than one person).

I played NSMBW. I can't bash Nintendo without playing the majority of its games. I'm not a jerk like most people who do that. I thought it was like Super Mario World with 4-player co-op, better graphics, and a few new power ups. They changed it, yeah, but not much. That's my opinion.

And for more. Super Mario Galaxy - innovative to the max. Super Mario Galaxy 2 - less innovative, but only because they had so many ideas that couldn't fit well into the first innovative game that they decided to make a different, surprisingly fresh feeling game (which I doubt you've played either). Galaxy 2 is, as far as I'm concerned, one of the purest, most unhindered gaming experiences out there.

And Kirby. Kirby's Epic Yarn - completely innovated. Not only is gameplay for the most part innovated, now so is the art style and way you interact with the environment.

And Zelda. Skyward Sword - after TP's lack of innovation, innovation to the maaaax. Spirit Tracks - like or hate the train, there’s no denying the innovation (even if it was based on things before it, the concept at least was new).

Just because a game is innovative does not make it good. I think Super Mario Galaxy 2 is one of the candidates for game of the year (certainly not game of the year). I have nothing more to say about Kirby's Epic Yarn because it's so early, but I just don't like the concept. Skyward Sword we've exhausted and I've stated my opinion on it.

So lemme get this straight. Motion controls are a gimmick because most of the games using them use them as a gimmick. And that means games that don't use them as a gimmick are now still considered gimmicky because other games used motion as a gimmick. That about right?

No. Some games use motion controls as a gimmick because, like I said, they have no other choice. Some games use them in interesting ways like Super Mario Galaxy. Skyward Sword, so far, is just about swinging the sword and blocking, no matter how complicated you try to make it seem.

But Zelda has always been about innovation, Gale, whether it be big or small! Even from day two! Look back to the original. It was a hit game, for sure. Then, instead of just milking it and making a similar game in Zelda 2, they hugely innovated! And after OoT's success, instead just making a similar game in concept to milk it, they made MM, probably the most creative game in the series. And after those two, instead of just making updated-graphics OoT, they completely innovated the concept of the series in WW. Only TP was an updated-graphics, steroid version of OoT, and as awesome as it is, it's one of the games in the series that innovated the least.

Zelda has always been about innovation, I'm not denying that. Just because a game is innovative does not make it good (Phantom Hourglass). It's my personal opinion that motion controls are the wrong way to push this game into the future.

And now Skyward Sword is completely innovating the way the Zelda is played. You complain that Nintendo 'sticks to their old franchises,' but when they try to innovate you gripe more? Well, I know your gripe isn't at innovation so much as motion control, but what I've been trying to say is that this isn't gimmick. You cannot validly call Skyward Sword's motion control gimmick.

I don't mean Skyward Sword is using gimmicks. I think it's just stupid to use motion controls in Zelda. Kirby Epic Yarn is a gimmick.

Wrong. You missed my entire point. You said motion control doesn't add any new challenge to a game, and I gave evidence that it is indeed now adding a genuinely new challenge and mechanic gaming, at least for one series. And the evidence still stands. Swinging with thought, precision, and puzzle-solving in mind is hardly the same as mashing B.

Skyward Sword, so far, is just about swinging the sword and blocking, no matter how complicated you try to make it seem.

Even if you have to solve puzzles, that's fine and all, but motion controls are still a huge problem and always will be. They do not add to the gameplay experience and instead make it unnecessarily difficult.

Well alrighty, but it's not your place to judge the game based on the yarn direction rubbing you the wrong way. I'm not saying you were doing this exactly, but I'm just saying ;o

Like I said, it's my opinion that yarn is stupid. It's also a pretty big deal that the entire concept of the game rubs me the wrong way.