Miyamoto stagnating the series?

Originally Posted by Crab Helmet

Nobody here cares about accessible, Double A. Why should any of us want a Zelda game to be accessible? What does it bring to us personally? Almost nothing.

I think you misinterpret "accessible".

Accessible involves intuitive-as-possible controls, with gameplay that can be stopped and started at any time (so length of gameplay isn't compelling you to keep playing, it's enjoyment of gameplay). Accessible means something that anyone can play.

They could have filled the entire Wiimote with things in Galaxy, but then gameplay would be too inaccessible. The constant requirement to exit temples just to save the game and the time limit in MM made it rather inacccessible, and lost it points even in the "hardcore" critique. Plus, it was annoying as hell.

If you wanna argue like that, then
What would making ZWii inaccessible bring to Nintendo? How would it benefit them? Almost nothing.

Originally Posted by IGNIS

Should it remain that way? That's the question. Storyline has gotten priority in the most recent AAA video games.

Storyline is a priority, and Miyamoto has said this.

But no good game has 100% focus on the storyline.

Miyamoto has clearly stated that he does not like epic games,

Star Fox.

and his influence keeps showing up in the shallow, uninspired stories that the LoZ games are based on.

Miyamoto had just as much input on recent Zeldas as the most "storyline-driven" game, Majora's Mask.

In the end, I think the lack of Miyamoto's influence would benefit the series to a pretty high degree. It would be ideal to have Aonuma as the producer and pass the console game developing to Capcom.

Funny thing is that Capcom cares even less about the storyline.

Most of you don't seem to know what the different video game roles are.

A producer is supposed to make sure the product has quality, and will sell. That is what Miyamoto has been doing.

If you like certain titles so much, go and tell your friends to buy them.

Originally Posted by Double A

I think you misinterpret "accessible".

Accessible involves intuitive-as-possible controls, with gameplay that can be stopped and started at any time (so length of gameplay isn't compelling you to keep playing, it's enjoyment of gameplay). Accessible means something that anyone can play.

I understand the meaning of accessible perfectly. Some games just aren't pick up and play. Take Super Metroid. It undoubtedly has the best controls of any platforming game to date, but they aren't accessible. One-wall wall-jumping is something you slowly master, even more so for bomb jumps.

They could have filled the entire Wiimote with things in Galaxy, but then gameplay would be too inaccessible. The constant requirement to exit temples just to save the game and the time limit in MM made it rather inacccessible, and lost it points even in the "hardcore" critique. Plus, it was annoying as hell.

I'd have prefered it if there had been more options in Galaxy. Also, the time limit in MM gave it points in the hardcore department from me. You're pressured, and it's intense. Exiting to save I'll give you, but that isn't accessibility so much as a general design flaw. It has nothing to do with how the controls function or how easy the game is to learn to pick up, it's just a saving restriction, much like how in the Metroid series you can only save at save stations.

If you wanna argue like that, then
What would making ZWii inaccessible bring to Nintendo? How would it benefit them? Almost nothing.

Do I care? How did making Ico benefit Team ICO? It brought them almost nothing, and sold poorly. But, it was an amazingly high quality game. Were they discouraged? No, they went on to release Shadow of the Colosses, which was similarly amazing, and similarly didn't sell particularly well. Were they discouraged? No, they are going on to release Toriko: the Giant Man-Devouring Eagle. There are some developers who make games because they want to make good games.

99% of indy games do not benefit the creators in anyway. Look at CaveStory. The amount of time Pixel must have sunk into that is amazing, and yet, he had no idea there would be any benefits in any way! He offered it free! It wasn't until someone recognised the quality that they brought it to Wiiware.

Nintendo has massive profit margins, and massive sellers like the "Wii" series. I'd rather they pumped some of that money into making quality games, than simply pumping that money into making more money.

Originally Posted by Crab Helmet

I understand the meaning of accessible perfectly. Some games just aren't pick up and play. Take Super Metroid. It undoubtedly has the best controls of any platforming game to date, but they aren't accessible. One-wall wall-jumping is something you slowly master, even more so for bomb jumps.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Super Metroid the last console Metroid for a long time, and didn't the bad sales discourage Nintendo from making another Metroid for a while?

Nintendo cares about sales. Otherwise they wouldn't have made the Wii.

Originally Posted by Crab Helmet

I'd have prefered it if there had been more options in Galaxy. Also, the time limit in MM gave it points in the hardcore department from me. You're pressured, and it's intense. Exiting to save I'll give you, but that isn't accessibility so much as a general design flaw. It has nothing to do with how the controls function or how easy the game is to learn to pick up, it's just a saving restriction, much like how in the Metroid series you can only save at save stations.

Well I wouldn't have preferred it. And from a professional critic viewpoint, MM lost points for its time limit, and people like you didn't help it. "Me me me me me."

And yes, the saving system in MM did affect accessibility.

Originally Posted by Crab Helmet

Do I care? How did making Ico benefit Team ICO? It brought them almost nothing, and sold poorly. But, it was an amazingly high quality game. Were they discouraged? No, they went on to release Shadow of the Colosses, which was similarly amazing, and similarly didn't sell particularly well. Were they discouraged? No, they are going on to release Toriko: the Giant Man-Devouring Eagle. There are some developers who make games because they want to make good games.

First of all, ICO =/= Nintendo. Nintendo is quite a large company and thus it basically requires money.

Secondly, Id actually like to know how different the games were from each other. If they were very different from each other, it shows that ICO is trying to differentiate themselves from other games to try and find that right type of "unique" that will sell (much like Mario Galaxy sold even though it wasn't one of your everyday bestselling games).

Thirdly, does ICO have much experience in making games that traditionally sell?

EDIT: The people who buy their games are grateful to them. So they make more games for them. Nintendo is merely doing the same.

Originally Posted by Crab Helmet

Do I care?

Should Nintendo care?

Originally Posted by Double A

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Super Metroid the last console Metroid for a long time, and didn't the bad sales discourage Nintendo from making another Metroid for a while?

I've read about these poor sales recently (I had no idea, I thought it had sold well).

Anyway, I remember interviews with Nintendo back in the late 90's where someone explained that they didn't want to make Metroid for N64 as they probably couldn't meet Super Metroid expectations.

True or not, I must agree with that, as Metroid on N64 would have been sucky regardlesss of style (Traditional 3rd person or Metroid Prime FPS style).

There wasn't a metroid for the N64? Now that i think about it i guess so. Anyway the time limit in MM is one of the reasons i rank it rather low. It's just so confusing. For instance i'm stuck on trying to clear the THEM minigame. I can't seem to figure out what to do beccause i'm having trouble reading the timer.

^ I don't understand what's so confusing about it, it's just a clock. It's even numbered, to help you keep track of the time:
http://www.zeldaelements.net/games_m...enshots/48.jpg

That screenshot for instance, was taken at 7:30 PM on the 1st day. The game "ends" at 6 AM on the 4th day.

But I suppose there are tutorials online (GameFAQs?) to help you understand how it works...

So why don't they just remake OoT?

Seriously. Remake OoT, TP style, or give us a direct sequel (same Link/universe) to satify all those wearing nostalgia goggles. That done, those craving the good old days can finally be sated and they'll quit clamoring for moar OoT and then the games we have now can be free to explore all kinds of new things without the worry of losing the giant OoT-loving fanbase that helps sell the games.

Originally Posted by TheGeminiSage

So why don't they just remake OoT?

Seriously. Remake OoT, TP style, or give us a direct sequel (same Link/universe) to satify all those wearing nostalgia goggles. That done, those craving the good old days can finally be sated and they'll quit clamoring for moar OoT and then the games we have now can be free to explore all kinds of new things without the worry of losing the giant OoT-loving fanbase that helps sell the games.

That's just moving backwards! The whole reason I would like miyamoto to change his approach is because he just wants the game to sell. It seems as if he doesn't care for the game's originality or depth. He just cares about innovation.

Originally Posted by TheGeminiSage

So why don't they just remake OoT?

Seriously. Remake OoT, TP style, or give us a direct sequel (same Link/universe) to satify all those wearing nostalgia goggles. That done, those craving the good old days can finally be sated and they'll quit clamoring for moar OoT and then the games we have now can be free to explore all kinds of new things without the worry of losing the giant OoT-loving fanbase that helps sell the games.

I hope 'Moto doesn't care about the OoT, MM, or WW fanbase and make something original.

Originally Posted by andrewguy

That's just moving backwards! The whole reason I would like miyamoto to change his approach is because he just wants the game to sell. It seems as if he doesn't care for the game's originality or depth. He just cares about innovation.

Yeah, innovation of gameplay--something that, nowadays, is just not enough for most video games. Something like Mario, sure--after all, who really plays any Mario game for the story?

Zelda, however, is certainly not in that category. Games like Zelda require much more than innovative gameplay to catch the eye of the general gaming audience--it needs flashy graphics, great music and a well fleshed out, interesting story.

This at least, is something I know I personally look for with video games. Fun gameplay can only hold me for so long. In the end, it is the characters and their stories that hold me--this is why I'm so crazy over the Metal Gear Solid series as well. A perfect example of story-driven gameplay that keeps me entertained.

In short, Miyamoto needs to either step up with the times, or leave Zelda in the hands of another who will.

No. I don't think that Miyamoto is holding the series back. In fact, he isn't really in a position to do that.

Here is an Iwata Asks interview regarding Twilight Princess. It's spread out into ten parts, and in some of the later parts Miyamoto explains the role that he played in development:

http://www.nintendo.com/wii/what/iwa...olume-5/part-1

Miyamoto's role in development isn't really to come up with ideas. His role is to oversee development, and tell the designers how they could refine certain aspects of the gameplay.

Originally Posted by Calypso

Yeah, innovation of gameplay--something that, nowadays, is just not enough for most video games. Something like Mario, sure--after all, who really plays any Mario game for the story?

No-one played Zelda for the story either.

Zelda, however, is certainly not in that category.

Probably not anymore, but it certainly was.

Games like Zelda require much more than innovative gameplay to catch the eye of the general gaming audience--it needs flashy graphics, great music and a well fleshed out, interesting story.

Nnnnno. Innovative gameplay? Eh, sure. Great music? Duh. Story? Haha no. OoT, perhaps the best example for a commercially and critically acclaimed Zelda title, had a very simple storyline. People did not play the original Zelda for the story. The story is not what brought the Zelda series to such popularity. Games like the Wind Waker and Twilight Princess are examples of where the Zelda series is going. More complex stories.

So, the Zelda series is not about the story. Yet.

Abyss: What are you talking about? OOT had a very deep story for it's time.

Originally Posted by Oni Dark Link

Abyss: What are you talking about? OOT had a very deep story for it's time.

Hahaha no. Games like Final Fantasy VI and Chrono Trigger, on the Super Nintendo, had deep storylines. OOT did not.

Originally Posted by Oni Dark Link

Abyss: What are you talking about? OOT had a very deep story for it's time.

OoT had a "very deep story" for a Zelda game.

Originally Posted by Silver

Hahaha no. Games like Final Fantasy VI and Chrono Trigger, on the Super Nintendo, had deep storylines. OOT did not.

your wasted get some sleep.

Originally Posted by Senap

^ I don't understand what's so confusing about it, it's just a clock. It's even numbered, to help you keep track of the time.

It's a time limit, and considering that MM's puzzles were already much harder than normal...

Originally Posted by HAPPY MASK MAN

your wasted get some sleep.

I don't know what you're talking about, mate. I got a good night sleep, and it is currently 3:48 PM where I live, which is far too early to go to bed.

If you would care to add something to the topic other than "ur wasted lol", be my guest.

Originally Posted by Calypso

Zelda, however, is certainly not in that category. Games like Zelda require much more than innovative gameplay to catch the eye of the general gaming audience--it needs flashy graphics, great music and a well fleshed out, interesting story.

Again, what is it about an elf kid who hangs around with fairies and imps that says so?