Has Miyamoto Completely Sold Out?

Originally Posted by Mirren

Ack, non-linearity isn't challenging, it's just annoying. Having to look around every nook and cranny of a fairly large overworld without any form of guidance or any idea of what you're looking for (all the while doing no real tasks) isn't a fair challenge in the least, it's tedious.

Some guidence is in order these days, but non-linearity is always a plus. You may find it annoying, but I guess you just don't like to have freedom in your games. I guess that's why you love Twilight Princess so much, it tells your exactly what to do all the time like an instruction manual.

Giving gamers the freedom to explore is the essense of Zelda, and one of the original reasons it was so revolutionary. The Metroid games are praised for the same thing. Clearly, non-linearity is a good thing for most gamers.

As for the recent games, I would agree that Wind Waker and Minish Cap are two of the easier entries into the series, but I actually enjoyed them a lot more than I did something like ALttP or LA. More inventive bosses, much more variety in the main campaigns, having an actual idea of what you're supposed to do next, I liked that a lot better.

Non-linearty adds challenge because it requires the player to play on there own without having their hand held the entire game.

And to be honest, I found TP to be one of the harder games

I find that hard to believe.

the challenge I had in MM wasn't the puzzles or enemies, but that aggravating time system.

You must be slow at finding things then because I can't think of the time system ever being a problem for me.

Originally Posted by KeeSomething

I find that hard to believe.

When will you accept the fact that people are different? There are many variables to the equation that makes something more challenging for a person or not. Not everyone shares your views.

Originally Posted by Blizzaga

When will you accept the fact that people are different? There are many variables to the equation that makes something more challenging for a person or not. Not everyone shares your views.

Threads like these always get ruined because you try to turn away from the subject make the people you don't agree with justify themselves.

Twilight Princess is an easy game. Sure, some people may find it hard, but those people need to understand that compared to gaming as a whole, it is an easy game.

Originally Posted by Blizzaga

When will you accept the fact that people are different? There are many variables to the equation that makes something more challenging for a person or not. Not everyone shares your views.

But when Mirren uses an opinionated defense such as; "Well I think TP is hard" expect to get responses like that.

Originally posted by KeeSomething
Some guidence is in order these days, but non-linearity is always a plus. You may find it annoying, but I guess you just don't like to have freedom in your games. I guess that's why you love Twilight Princess so much, it tells your exactly what to do all the time like an instruction manual.

Giving gamers the freedom to explore is the essense of Zelda, and one of the original reasons it was so revolutionary. The Metroid games are praised for the same thing. Clearly, non-linearity is a good thing for most gamers.

You do realize that the majority of games are linear, right? And a lot of those linear games are still praised? Hell, look at Shadow of the Colossus and Resident Evil 4. They're pretty linear, they're both in the action/adventure genre, and they're two of the highest rated games of all time.

Exploration is not the essence of Zelda, to say that one thing is the essence is foolish. If anything is, it should be what has been in every last game, and what is the most featured part of them; the dungeons.

Nonlinearity can be good when used right, but when nonlinearity becomes the forcing of you to walk around flat terrain without any tasks outside of speaking to a few people, it can barely be considered 'exploration'. It's barely gameplay, it's not a real challenge, and it's not special or creative in the least bit.

Non-linearty adds challenge because it requires the player to play on there own without having their hand held the entire game.

It requires them to find things, without any real tasks. What's challenging about walking around playing "guess and check"?

I find that hard to believe.

Considering the rest of the series, I wouldn't.

You must be slow at finding things then because I can't think of the time system ever being a problem for me.

Wasn't that I couldn't find things, it's was that I'd always lose all of my items after going back in time, or that I couldn't complete a sidequest because I was on a different day without ever knowing of the mission before the three-day cycle began, or how after going through that long sequence of events before a dungeon, I'd have no time to do anything there, so I'd have to go deposit my rupees and waste more time traveling back to the first day.

Hard, yes. Resonable? I don't see what's reasonable about it.

EDIT-

Originally posted by Zeldafan1
So I just want to ask a random question Mirren; between me Kee Something, Dark Link, and me who has debate this "casual-gamer" vs. "hardcore gamer" thing best?

Too hard to decide, I think all of you are very pessimistic, melodramatic, distrusting and impatient.

To be honest.

Originally Posted by Mirren

You do realize that the majority of games are linear, right? And a lot of those linear games are still praised? Hell, look at Shadow of the Colossus and Resident Evil 4. They're pretty linear, they're both in the action/adventure genre, and they're two of the highest rated games of all time.

SotC give you an entire world to explore right off the bat, so I wouldn't call in linear. Sure, you had to fight the Colossus in order, but I won't consider it linear when you could go anywhere at anytime.

Resident Evil 4 is an action shooter like Gears of War. I'm not sure why you'd compare it to Zelda...

Anyways, Zelda is different. Like Metroid, it was built on the idea of non-liear exploration. Recently, it has been lost in the Zelda series, and that has to do with the dumbing-down of the Zelda games.

Exploration is not the essence of Zelda, to say that one thing is the essence is foolish. If anything is, it should be what has been in every last game, and what is the most featured part of them; the dungeons.

The exploration is what made the original Zelda so revolutionary and popular. The puzzles were also a distinct feature in the series. Dungeons, not so much. What adventure game didn't have dungeon-crawling back then?

Nonlinearity can be good when used right, but when nonlinearity becomes the forcing of you to walk around flat terrain without any tasks outside of speaking to a few people, it can barely be considered 'exploration'. It's barely gameplay, it's not a real challenge, and it's not special or creative in the least bit.

Oh, yes, of course. I completely agree with you here. One of the reasons I can't play the original Legend of Zelda is because it drops you in the middle of a huge world without giving you any guidence. It's more frustrating than fun, and it makes the game feel cheap to me.

I like games like Metroid Prime or Majora's Mask where you are giving a tutoral on where to go and exactly what to do, but you also are giving hints on where to go. That way, you have a basic idea of where to go (limited to one region rather than an entire world), but there is plenty of room to explore. I think that is a very creative way of progressing through a game.

Now, I not hate linear games. Final Fantasy X is my favorite game of all time, but that game still offers plenty of challenge and strategy in other areas like battle and puzzles. You are also given a lot of room to be creative with you party in most boss battles, which leads you to using different strategies everytime you play the same boss again when you start a new game.

Zelda isn't like that anymore though, especially in Twilight Princess. Every time you start a new game you must do everything in the same order, and fight the bosses the exact same way. It also doesn't help how you can't skip through the hand-holding cutscenes (or can you?). The dumbed-down nature of Twilight Princess just completely ruined the game for me.

It requires them to find things, without any real tasks. What's challenging about walking around playing "guess and check"?

I agree with you here. When you have absolutely no guidence at all, like in the original Zelda, things are just frustrating, not fun. So yes, the game should reward the player with hints, but step-by-step tutorals, ala Twilight Princess, are uncalled for and cheapen the experience.

Wasn't that I couldn't find things, it's was that I'd always lose all of my items after going back in time, or that I couldn't complete a sidequest because I was on a different day without ever knowing of the mission before the three-day cycle began, or how after going through that long sequence of events before a dungeon, I'd have no time to do anything there, so I'd have to go deposit my rupees and waste more time traveling back to the first day.

Hard, yes. Resonable? I don't see what's reasonable about it.

I understanf your frustration. Majora's Mask certainly has an oldschool attitude to it, much like Metroid Prime 1 and 2. You have to know the world and figure a lot out on your own, or at least know the people to talk to to get the good information.

Too hard to decide, I think all of you are very pessimistic, melodramatic, distrusting and impatient.

To be honest.

Reminds me of this thread--the lame attempt to cry about everyone who doesn't agree with your opinion of Twilight Princess being a great game...

Someone was quoted saying "OoT, difficult?". Well, I found it and MM hard. It wasn't until after MM that things started getting easy.

It hurts, but there isn't much to say when a business is MAKING money. They target people who aren't into the series, and depend on fanboyism to keep the hardcore gamers like me coming.

There are a few good things to say about EVERY Zelda game (note, the CDi games aren't Zelda. They don't have Legend of Zelda on the box). That's why I keep coming back. I hate that it hardly takes me over a week to beat Zeldas anymore, but I can't do anything about it.

Originally Posted by Blizzaga

Who's sucking up? I'm saying it how it is. There would be nothing gained for "sucking up," so why bother to do so?

So because we go against an absurd stance against a key element in gaming, that means we complain too much? There's an obvious hint of biased in your previous post.

To rephrases my previous words more bluntly: at least I'm not a fanboy.

No, I won't be your errand boy. Try doing a bit of your own research. It would be good to start with E3 Mario Galaxy Round Table or something of the sort.

Meh. I'll take your word for it.

I buy whatever games I wish to buy and have fun. Therefore, I have a right to complain about people complaining because they seem to be complaining about nothing to me. The same goes to Super Mario Sunshine, Mario Party games, Sonic the Hedgehog in 3-D, and "milking a franchise." Of course, people have their own opinions and have a right to share them, which is why I am voicing mine.

So, if we're complaining about nothing to you, then why complain about us complaining about nothing? Why debate when (according to you) there's apparently nothing to be debating about?

But know this. There will always be something to complain about. No matter how much Nintendo would meet your demands, you'd just find something else to complain about. I, for one, enjoy what I have most of the time. The only game in my collection that I'll ever complain about is Hexen for '64. I have traded the game with a friend for it and have regretted that ever since.

Nintendo doesn't meet my (or our) demands though, obviously.

Also: you my friend are a very hard person to displease. That, or fanboyism comes to mind

Maybe. Maybe not. I wouldn't care either way.

Wouldn't care. If it's fun, I'll play it. End of story. I still love Wii Sports. Tennis is a blast, Golf is a hoot, Baseball is da bomb, and Bowling reminds me of how much I suck at the real game.

The blowing mechanics of Wii Sports are dreadful. It's not even remotely close to the real thing.

Enjoy your (for the most part) crappy casual games.

Please explain to me how linking casual and hardcore gaming in order to find harmony in difficulty is ignoring hardcore completely?

Must I keep re-quoting Miyamoto? He doesn't want hardcore games. He doesn't think that's the future. They should just be so easy that somehow they're fun.

Originally Posted by Miyamoto

But I think the future is games that are not difficult and yet very fun to play.

One word: Fun. It's a brand new discovery. You should really check it out some time.

Most of the games Wii produces are crap. Crappy games aren't fun to me. I'm not in elementary or beginning middle school. . .

Here we are with the old "Kiddie" argument all over again. Rated E means for everyone. Everyone can enjoy it. It's not rated K or 8+. It's rated E for everyone. Why can't anyone understand such a simple concept?

Disney games are rated E for everyone; yet I hardly doubt "anyone" can enjoy their games. You make it sound as though every rated E game is widely accepted by everyone.

It should be obvious that if it's rated E, it's more or likely geared towards kids. Just by looking at all the E rated games should be more enough proof of that.

Success is success, so quit yer whinin'. Obviously, Nintendo is doing something right. I could have complained similarly (which I have) about "graphics is everything" and superior hardware being cheap (or rather expensive) gimmicks that people flocked to support and forgetting to have fun. However, I believe Nintendo's success is a lot more positive than that.

I'm not whining. I'm stating my opinion on Miyamoto's absurd stance over hardcore gaming and Nintendo's recent lack of difficult (triple-A quality) titles.

Good for Nintendo and all their success. If Nintendo continues down this path of their gimmicky "no challenge if the most fun" games, then this will be the last Nintendo console I'll purchase.

Absolutely nothing justifies the fact that Nintendo's games are more about "innovation" and "fun" (for youngster children) and less about "challenging," "lasts more then ten hours" and "worthwhile." Little to none of their games have any real depth any more. I can rent three Wii games and return them all, beaten within the rental period (yes, I've actually done that). All of which provided no real challenge and hardly left me satisfied.

Originally Posted by Mirren

Doesn't mean he's going to get it every time.

I'd say he's been pretty successful doing so this past year.

And if third parties had been there, we would've had more T and M rated games, thus lessening that kiddy image.

Why weren't they there at first is what I'm trying to get at. Nintendo started the GC with kiddy games.

On their own, Nintendo's franchises aren't going to do a whole lot, that's my point.

Agreed.

I generally save sarcasm for when I want to mock someone without going so far that I could get a warning. This is not one of those cases.

I see. Thanks for showing me some respect.

As long as the majority of their franchises have multiple difficulty settings, will always remain hard (Fire Emblem, Advance Wars, F-Zero) or they're just not meant to be very difficulty (Zelda, Animal Crossing) I honestly think you're worrying far too much.

It's been so long since Nintendo's new stance on gaming and their serious lack of triple-A quality games, I guess I've gotten used to the idea of them abandoning "hardcore" gamers entirely. Long before since this interview, actually. You're right though. I am worrying a little more then I should be. I'm over-analyzing Nintendo's situation.

"Lately" will be over soon. In about a week and a half, we'll get Prime 3, and the start of an avalanche of notable titles from Nintendo and third parties.

Hopefully.

And with that, I come to my final words (hopefully. . .). You're right Mirren. Nintendo is supposedly releasing a few triple-A quality titles before the end of the year. I'm hoping that it'll compensate for the serious lack of good games this past year (unlikely, but still. . .). Only time will tell. Until the end of the year, I shouldn't judge Nintendo's future quality of games by just addressing what (crap) Nintendo's been releasing only as of lately.

However, as I stated before, the only thing is that seeing Nintendo's recent titles, then seeing Miyamoto say something like this really puts me at an uneasy state of mind for the future of Nintendo though.

Too hard to decide, I think all of you are very pessimistic, melodramatic, distrusting and impatient.

To be honest.

I'm not showing that much emotion in my posts; so I can't say I'm showing melodramatic behavior. I don't know how you got the impression of "distrust". Trust has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I will say that I admit to being pessimistic and impatient. One only has so much patience though. I, personally, have been waiting for Nintendo to show us some more "hardcore" games for quite a while.


I'd say our pessimism is perfectly excusable. Nintendo needs to be critiqued for their obvious, highly noticeable faults (with the Wii's games) as of lately.

Missed something from before

Originally posted by Kishiro Diablo
Hey yeah guys I'd like to say something real quick. Mirren, you said Disaster Day of Crisis and I'd like to say, I think we can pretty much say that DOC is pretty much canned. I mean, First Hammer was canned and I was really looking forward to that and we haven't hear dof DOC for months, same as Hammer and, weel, that's all I really have to say.

Yeah, about that...

Go Nintendo » Blog Archive » Disaster coming along, Project H.A.M.M.E.R. on hold, Smash online not confirmed, and Kirby!- What are you waiting for?

Originally stated by Beth Llewelyn
Disaster: Day of Crisis is still in the works and is “looking very good”

Originally posted by KeeSomething
SotC give you an entire world to explore right off the bat, so I wouldn't call in linear. Sure, you had to fight the Colossus in order, but I won't consider it linear when you could go anywhere at anytime.

Eventually in the newer Zeldas, you can go anywhere, also. It just takes a couple hours (oh dear!)

The fact is, you can't beat any of the Colossi out of the order, you are forced to follow the sequence that the game presents you. Therefor, it is linear.

Resident Evil 4 is an action shooter like Gears of War. I'm not sure why you'd compare it to Zelda...

Because it shows that linearity isn't always an apolcalyptic gameplay element.

Anyways, Zelda is different. Like Metroid, it was built on the idea of non-liear exploration. Recently, it has been lost in the Zelda series, and that has to do with the dumbing-down of the Zelda games.

If getting rid a tedious gameplay aspect is dumbing the series down, I'm glad that Zelda's gotten stupid.

The exploration is what made the original Zelda so revolutionary and popular. The puzzles were also a distinct feature in the series. Dungeons, not so much. What adventure game didn't have dungeon-crawling back then?

Yeah, too bad they've become the highlight of the series since then.

Zelda isn't like that anymore though, especially in Twilight Princess. Every time you start a new game you must do everything in the same order, and fight the bosses the exact same way. It also doesn't help how you can't skip through the hand-holding cutscenes (or can you?). The dumbed-down nature of Twilight Princess just completely ruined the game for me.

Shame, you must hate most of the action/adventure genre.

I agree with you here. When you have absolutely no guidence at all, like in the original Zelda, things are just frustrating, not fun. So yes, the game should reward the player with hints, but step-by-step tutorals, ala Twilight Princess, are uncalled for and cheapen the experience.

I really think you're overexaggerating here. What exactly are all these "step-by-step tutorials"?

Reminds me of this thread--the lame attempt to cry about everyone who doesn't agree with your opinion of Twilight Princess being a great game...

Wow, glad to see you forgot about the 5/6 of the article that was about the series in general...

Originally posted by Dark Link
I'd say he's been pretty successful doing so this past year.

How many core-gamer titles have come out this year from Nintendo? Super Paper Mario and Mario Strikers, really. SPM was easy, but Strikers can be an insane challenge on the right difficulty setting.

Them making a lot of simplistic casual games is inevitable, but lowering the difficulty on their long time franchises doesn't seem too likely right now.

Why weren't they there at first is what I'm trying to get at. Nintendo started the GC with kiddy games.

Because nobody liked how Nintendo acted like *******s in previous generations.

I'd say our pessimism is perfectly excusable. Nintendo needs to be critiqued for their obvious, highly noticeable faults (with the Wii's games) as of lately.

Criticism is reasonable, pessimism, not so much. Every console has a ****ty first year, Wii just has had a different way of doing it. And I mean, I don't see how anyone can think that Nintendo is forgetting about the hardcore gamer when they have the "Holy Trinity" and more coming out just this year.

If getting rid a tedious gameplay aspect is dumbing the series down, I'm glad that Zelda's gotten stupid.

How is limiting gameplay and exploration tedious? Non-linear games simply make the game more realistic and much less predictable.

Originally Posted by Mirren

How many core-gamer titles have come out this year from Nintendo? Super Paper Mario and Mario Strikers, really. SPM was easy, but Strikers can be an insane challenge on the right difficulty setting.

I acknowledge the fact that Super Paper Mario did have some "core-gamer" (from now on, I'm using this term; "hardcore" sounds unpleasant) elements to it. As you said though, it lacked difficultly; it was, however, adequate.

Super Paper Marip was pretty good overall. It would have been great if there were a difficulty level or just a higher difficultly in general though.

I've never played Strikers, so I wouldn't know. I'll take your word for it.

Them making a lot of simplistic casual games is inevitable, but lowering the difficulty on their long time franchises doesn't seem too likely right now.

They already did it to the Zelda series with TP. All I know is they better not screw up the Metroid series. . . Then again, Retro makes Metroid, so, I have faith.

Because nobody liked how Nintendo acted like *******s in previous generations.

In what way do you think were they acting like that?

Nintendo is much more arrogant these days.

Criticism is reasonable, pessimism, not so much. Every console has a ****ty first year, Wii just has had a different way of doing it. And I mean, I don't see how anyone can think that Nintendo is forgetting about the hardcore gamer when they have the "Holy Trinity" and more coming out just this year.

MP3, Galaxy, and Brawl were mainly the only reasons why I bought a Wii. I hope they intend to not disappoint with any one of those games.

I also hope that, as you say, there'll be more to the Wii than those three games as well. There'll more or likely be at least a couple more games that meet to the core-gamer standards.

Originally posted by Dark Link
How is limiting gameplay and exploration tedious? Non-linear games simply make the game more realistic and much less predictable.

Because exploration in Zelda has never really been exciting. Basically, the entire overworld is always one-dimensional, in that it's usually just one height and is pretty much flat terrain the whole way. Now, if you took the environments out of something like Shadow of the Colossus, which featured lots of hills, cliffs, rivers, glades, caves etc. then exploration would be a lot better because you'd have more epic landscapes, not stuff that's just a bunch of plains.

And the thing is, I don't see Zelda going that route, it's simply not it's style. It creates impressive landscapes in a different fashion.

They already did it to the Zelda series with TP.

That's entirely debatable, and I don't really see how that's a good example when the series has always been relatively easy.

In what way do you think were they acting like that?

Nintendo is much more arrogant these days.

...

I'm....I'm taken aback because you actually said that.

Are you forgetting how they forced multiple companies to edit things out of games so they could appear on the systems? How they refused to take GTA and Resident Evil on their consoles because they thought they were terrible ideas? How they stabbed Sony in the back and decided to partner with Phillips at the last moment? etc.

Originally Posted by Mirren

Give me some examples, in that case. I see everyone *****ing about how big bad Nintendo is dumbing down their favorite franchises, but nobody ever actually mentions the franchises.

Zelda is the first case that comes to mind. Retro has also admitted that they're making Corruption easier. TP was a great game in many ways, but it would ahve been much better if it wasn't for the difficulty.

Originally Posted by Mirren

Or, maybe you guys are just being impatient and fail to realize that they have five games for the core audience to be released in a four month time span, just for Wii.

And don't give me any crap about Wii's library this year, every console's first year sucks and that'll never change.

I agree with you that every console sucks in it's first year, but that's not what I'm complaining about. What bothers me is that the hardcore games we're getting this year will probably end up being watered down for this new casual market. Nintendo doesn't seem to know that Metroid and Zelda are for hardcore audiences.

Originally Posted by Mirren

Ack, non-linearity isn't challenging, it's just annoying. Having to look around every nook and cranny of a fairly large overworld without any form of guidance or any idea of what you're looking for (all the while doing no real tasks) isn't a fair challenge in the least, it's tedious.

That depends on the game. I have to agree with you that Metroid Prime's backtracking gets extremely annoying sometimes, since it's just going through known halls over and over. However, I really appreaciate non-linearity in most games. Giving me multiple paths to follow and additional items all over the place only add up to the game's quality. Prime 2 achieved this extremely well I think, they just need to open up more paths from the beggining and they're set.

Originally Posted by Mirren

You do realize that the majority of games are linear, right? And a lot of those linear games are still praised? Hell, look at Shadow of the Colossus and Resident Evil 4. They're pretty linear, they're both in the action/adventure genre, and they're two of the highest rated games of all time.

There isn't much to say here considering that those are mainly action games, so non-linearity isn't a deciding factor. Two of my favorite games, God of War and God of War 2, are very straightforward but they reward the player with much needed items if you're curious enough to check the enviroment well. You could find chests hidden behind walls, or hidden by the camera, it's a very good achievement IMO. That kind of stuff is appreciated in most games, specially if it's Zelda or Metroid.

Originally Posted by Mirren

Them making a lot of simplistic casual games is inevitable, but lowering the difficulty on their long time franchises doesn't seem too likely right now.

Why not? You've got 2 examples: Twilight Princess and Super Paper Mario. The latter is so easy it almost makes you cry. And yet it's somehow labelled as a hardcore game. If those two suffered that fate, then why not Corruption, Galaxy or Brawl? Who assures us that they won't remove Maniac difficutly from FE10? All we see here is Miyamoto claiming that people don't need hard games. Bull****.

Originally Posted by Mirren

Because exploration in Zelda has never really been exciting. Basically, the entire overworld is always one-dimensional, in that it's usually just one height and is pretty much flat terrain the whole way. Now, if you took the environments out of something like Shadow of the Colossus, which featured lots of hills, cliffs, rivers, glades, caves etc. then exploration would be a lot better because you'd have more epic landscapes, not stuff that's just a bunch of plains.

I thought you meant games in general. Nonetheless, I see what you mean. I'll address what I said to the Zelda games as accordingly:

I'd say that Winder Waker and Majora's Mask had a little bit more variation in the overworld when compared to the other Zelda's (more of the later than sooner). They were decent in their overwolrd design if you ask me. Although, there was definitely room for improvement.

TP's overworld didn't really have much variation and "depth" to it at all though, I agree. It was very much how you described it, "one-dimensional, one height, flat terrain." All TP did to improve the overworld was only by graphical means (which shouldn't really be even called an improvement, since higher-end graphics automatically come to mind with any newer game).

Nintendo could easily add some variety to their overworld design if they chose so (even Final Fantasy does a much better job than them). Why they haven't yet is beyond me. No Zelda game to date has had that great of an overworld when compared to most other games. It might be implemented in Wii Zelda though, who knows?

However, most action/adventure games are "one-dimensinal" anyways. In most cases, it's only in RPG's and sometimes the occasional FPS in which you truly find good (according to your standards) overworlds.

And the thing is, I don't see Zelda going that route, it's simply not it's style. It creates impressive landscapes in a different fashion.

They came pretty close with Majora's Mask. I don't see why they can't do it again.

That's entirely debatable, and I don't really see how that's a good example when the series has always been relatively easy.

Debatable? So you disagree with me then? You're saying that TP is hard? 'Cause I doubt that's what you think.

In my eyes, Zelda's difficultly had always been sufficient when compared to most Nintendo games (or all games for that matter). It doesn't mean that it's OK for TP to be "easier" just because the series has always been on the easy side.

I'm....I'm taken aback because you actually said that.

Are you forgetting how they forced multiple companies to edit things out of games so they could appear on the systems? How they refused to take GTA and Resident Evil on their consoles because they thought they were terrible ideas? How they stabbed Sony in the back and decided to partner with Phillips at the last moment? etc.

I know that the Nintendo screwed themselves over with the N64. I merely wanted to know why you think (in your own words) Nintendo failed with the N64. I like reading your opinion.

Originally posted by KratosAurion
Zelda is the first case that comes to mind. Retro has also admitted that they're making Corruption easier. TP was a great game in many ways, but it would ahve been much better if it wasn't for the difficulty.

You really can't say that the change for Zelda is significant, since the series has never been very challenging to begin with.

And when did Retro say that? I honestly don't recall anything of the sort.

I agree with you that every console sucks in it's first year, but that's not what I'm complaining about. What bothers me is that the hardcore games we're getting this year will probably end up being watered down for this new casual market. Nintendo doesn't seem to know that Metroid and Zelda are for hardcore audiences.

Why do you think it's going to be watered down? What makes you think that things like Battalion Wars and Fire Emblem will be easier? How will Brawl be watered down if it has multiple difficulty settings? How much more could you even water down for a 2D Party Fighter?

Seriously, what are you basing this on?

That depends on the game. I have to agree with you that Metroid Prime's backtracking gets extremely annoying sometimes, since it's just going through known halls over and over. However, I really appreaciate non-linearity in most games. Giving me multiple paths to follow and additional items all over the place only add up to the game's quality. Prime 2 achieved this extremely well I think, they just need to open up more paths from the beggining and they're set.

It's true, when done right non-linearity can be great.

Problem is, making it good enough to have a notable impact is tough. There's nonlinearity that enhances a game, but then, fairly often, there's nonlinearity which really wouldn't change the quality of the game whatsoever.

There isn't much to say here considering that those are mainly action games, so non-linearity isn't a deciding factor. Two of my favorite games, God of War and God of War 2, are very straightforward but they reward the player with much needed items if you're curious enough to check the enviroment well. You could find chests hidden behind walls, or hidden by the camera, it's a very good achievement IMO. That kind of stuff is appreciated in most games, specially if it's Zelda or Metroid.

Okay, what does that have to do with anything?

And by the way, never call Shadow of the Colossus an action game. Even the combat is more puzzle-like than actual fighting, which is why it's one of the best games to come out of the last few years.

Why not? You've got 2 examples: Twilight Princess and Super Paper Mario. The latter is so easy it almost makes you cry. And yet it's somehow labelled as a hardcore game. If those two suffered that fate, then why not Corruption, Galaxy or Brawl? Who assures us that they won't remove Maniac difficutly from FE10? All we see here is Miyamoto claiming that people don't need hard games. Bull****.

Holy Christ!! Two games out of the dozen or more franchises that Nintendo makes!!??

Mario platformers generally haven't been that difficult to begin with, so if Galaxy is a wee bit easier it won't be a drastic change, and judging by some of the sequences it won't be a cake walk 24/7. Brawl won't be easy because it'll most definitely, like the previous iterations, have very high difficulty settings and will still be able to provide a challenge since one of its pillars is multiplay. Corruption, I still want to see where Retro said they're dumbing it down.

And for the love of God, Goddess of Dawn doesn't need maniac mode to be hard. It just needs Normal mode and you're still in for a helluva ride. But the fact that they'll probably (and by probably, I mean, a 90% chance or more) give us Hard more.

Originally posted by Dark Link
I thought you meant games in general. Nonetheless, I see what you mean. I'll address what I said to the Zelda games as accordingly:

I'd say that Winder Waker and Majora's Mask had a little bit more variation in the overworld when compared to the other Zelda's (more of the later than sooner). They were decent in their overwolrd design if you ask me. Although, there was definitely room for improvement.

TP's overworld didn't really have much variation and "depth" to it at all though, I agree. It was very much how you described it, "one-dimensional, one height, flat terrain."

Actually I wasn't referring to just TP, if anything TP arguably did it the least.

I'd say every Zelda's game terrain has been pretty one-dimesional.

They came pretty close with Majora's Mask. I don't see why they can't do it again.

Not really, MM's landscape still weren't very grand or epic. It was better than most of the series, but that in itself isn't an accomplishment.

Debatable? So you disagree with me then? You're saying that TP is hard? 'Cause I doubt that's what you think.

No, it wasn't hard, but I found it harder than most of the series. To me, TP is an relatively easy game with a bunch of difficult moments.

In my eyes, Zelda's difficultly had always been sufficient when compared to most Nintendo games (or all games for that matter). It doesn't mean that it's OK for TP to be "easier" just because the series has always been on the easy side.

I'm not saying that'd be okay, I'm saying that's not a drastic move like some people are making it out to be.

It'd be like F-Zero getting a little bit harder, how much of a difference would people make it out to be? I'd say very little.

Originally Posted by Mirren

Actually I wasn't referring to just TP, if anything TP arguably did it the least.

I'd say every Zelda's game terrain has been pretty one-dimesional.

There's no disagreement here.

Not really, MM's landscape still weren't very grand or epic. It was better than most of the series, but that in itself isn't an accomplishment

It gave much more variety of terrain than most Zelda games. I'd say more or less decent for an overall game, and great (possibly the best) for a Zelda game.

MM was the closest the Zelda series has ever gotten to a "non-one-dimensional" game, and it's as old as six years old. Nintendo could obviously look back at MM and drastically improve on what MM started for the series; variational terrain. They should take the initiative to do so. . .

No, it wasn't hard, but I found it harder than most of the series.

Meh. The difficultly for TP up for debate. I won't get into a long-winded discussion about why I think TP is actually one of the easiest Zelda games to date.

Originally Posted by Mirren

To me, TP is an relatively easy game with a bunch of difficult moments.

You've just described the entire Zelda series.

I'm not saying that'd be okay, I'm saying that's not a drastic move like some people are making it out to be.

Like myself?

Why make it any easier at all? It'll only make the Zelda experience, as a whole, seems less fulfilling, desirable, exciting, and shorter.

The only reason Nintendo would want to make the series easier is to appeal to casual gamers who need their hand help throughout the game. Zelda isn't meant to be for the typical casual gamer. Please don't ruin it for us Nintendo.

It'd be like F-Zero getting a little bit harder, how much of a difference would people make it out to be? I'd say very little.

A difficultly level will make everyone happy. But no, they refuse to implement it. Who cares? They're getting their money through the casual market. Why spend more money so that it also makes it enjoyable for the core gamer as well? God forbid. . .

Originally posted by Dark Link
MM was the closest the Zelda series has ever gotten to a "non-one-dimensional" game, and it's as old as six years old. Nintendo could obviously look back at MM and drastically improve on what MM started for the series; variational terrain. They should take the initiative to do so. . .

Actually, OoT 'started' that in detail with places like Gerudo Valley, Death Mountain, Zora's River, a couple parts of Hyrule Field and such, it's just that MM improved upon it heavily.

You've just described the entire Zelda series.

You're probably right, but I feel I encountered more difficult moments in TP than normal Zelda games.

Why make it any easier at all?

$$$

That's why, it's an unfortunate truth. If I were you, honestly, I'd try to accept that Zelda will never be much harder than it's ever been at its peak difficulty, and learn to appreciate the other enhancements the series is making, because I think that's how things are going to be for a long while.

A difficultly level will make everyone happy. But no, they refuse to implement it. Who cares? They're getting their money through the casual market. Why spend more money so that it also makes it enjoyable for the core gamer as well? God forbid. . .

They seem to be content with the practice of the Three Heart Challenge, which to some extent makes sense, and in other cases feels cheap.

But it's important to note that Zelda would be a tricky franchise to include multiple difficulty settings in. For one, it would only be used for combat, which in the grand scheme of things is probably only about 1/3 of the gameplay. Exploration and puzzles couldn't really be enhanced, unless Nintendo decided to spend time altering every last task, and thus making two games' worth of challenges in one. This really leaves it all up to the enemies, but you have to be careful about how you handle them. If you simply make it so that it requires more hits to hurt them, and they do more damage to you, you'll have a pretty mediocre result. They may be more dangerous, but you then run the risk of very repetitive, boring fights. Most minibosses and bosses in the series these days are like puzzles in that you need to complete a certain sequence of actions in order to damage them. Having to do the same scripted motions over and over again could get quite boring. The best example I can think of is Argorok; great boss fight, inventive battle tactics, but three times around the Peahats in the air was enough. If on a harder mode, the game made you do that six or even nine times, it'd quickly grow stale and ultimately make the fight less enjoyable than before.

How do you avoid this without degrading the bosses to basic beat-em-ups? Well, you'd probably have to add another phase which would require different actions to hurt them, so that even while the bosses do more damage and take more damage, the fight doesn't see serious repetition. I wouldn't say it's impossible for Nintendo to do this, but I also wouldn't say it'd just be a week-long job, especially with the probability that we'll see a growing number of bosses and minibosses as the campaigns get larger and larger. It's not a cut-and-dry situation in the least.

Originally Posted by Mirren

Actually, OoT 'started' that in detail with places like Gerudo Valley, Death Mountain, Zora's River, a couple parts of Hyrule Field and such, it's just that MM improved upon it heavily.

True. I meant to put more emphasis on how MM made it good though.

$$$

The folly of man, no doubt.

That's why, it's an unfortunate truth. If I were you, honestly, I'd try to accept that Zelda will never be much harder than it's ever been at its peak difficulty, and learn to appreciate the other enhancements the series is making, because I think that's how things are going to be for a long while.

I look upon Miyamoto when I see the downfall of difficulty for the Zelda series. I'd say Aonuma might change Zelda's direction for the better if Miyamoto wasn't watching him like a hawk.

They seem to be content with the practice of the Three Heart Challenge, which to some extent makes sense, and in other cases feels cheap.

Yeah, but it wasn't meant to be designed as a gameplay option for a harder difficultly. If that were the case, you should be asked when obtaining a heart piece (by whatever means) if you want to keep it or not. Which is not a bad idea actually. I hate having to memorize which chest contains a heart piece or not before I accidentally open it, not being able to refuse the heart piece. . .

But it's important to note that Zelda would be a tricky franchise to include multiple difficulty settings in. For one, it would only be used for combat, which in the grand scheme of things is probably only about 1/3 of the gameplay. Exploration and puzzles couldn't really be enhanced, unless Nintendo decided to spend time altering every last task, and thus making two games' worth of challenges in one. This really leaves it all up to the enemies, but you have to be careful about how you handle them. If you simply make it so that it requires more hits to hurt them, and they do more damage to you, you'll have a pretty mediocre result. They may be more dangerous, but you then run the risk of very repetitive, boring fights. Most minibosses and bosses in the series these days are like puzzles in that you need to complete a certain sequence of actions in order to damage them. Having to do the same scripted motions over and over again could get quite boring. The best example I can think of is Argorok; great boss fight, inventive battle tactics, but three times around the Peahats in the air was enough. If on a harder mode, the game made you do that six or even nine times, it'd quickly grow stale and ultimately make the fight less enjoyable than before.

How do you avoid this without degrading the bosses to basic beat-em-ups? Well, you'd probably have to add another phase which would require different actions to hurt them, so that even while the bosses do more damage and take more damage, the fight doesn't see serious repetition. I wouldn't say it's impossible for Nintendo to do this, but I also wouldn't say it'd just be a week-long job, especially with the probability that we'll see a growing number of bosses and minibosses as the campaigns get larger and larger. It's not a cut-and-dry situation in the least.

I have to say, all your ideas seem great and should be utilized for a more difficult Zelda.

You give a good, logical point. Programming more (difficult) puzzles just for the sake of a higher difficulty option seems tedious and unlikely. Plus Nintendo only has so much media space that they can use. It's a win-lose situation. Either Nintendo makes a Zelda game for the casual market, or for the core market. Miyamoto says they try to make a balance, but that's actually impossible unless there's some sort of difficultly level. It always leans to one side or the other.

To be fair, most games with optional difficultly have those exact same applied "drawbacks" (from your point of view) of what you wrote. It's not like it ruins the game. It's often a very fun experience; if it only even be the first couple of times.

Adding to your said ideas, I say they should implement what they had in Master Quest. Make it so that more of the harder enemies appear soone. It worked rather well for Ocarina of Time. It wasn't exactly a major difference, but it did provide a challenge for most.

Also, not necessarily give the enemies higher HP or attack (not that it's out of the question), but rather, up the AI a little bit for the enemies (plenty of games have shown it can easily be applied to a game). Don't make such obtuse enemies. Give a little variation to their attack patterns and don't make them seem so predictable Most, if not, all enemies always seems to take the defensive majority of the time. Why not make them more aggressive, with maybe (slightly) more powerful hits (with aggressiveness, there's always more powerful blows). Don't make them so wide open for an attack almost 90% of the time either. . .

Or just make the games entirely harder all around. Why should the Zelda series be (slowly) mainly geared towards the casual gamer? It'll never happen though. Nintendo wants money.

Originally posted by Dark Link
I look upon Miyamoto when I see the downfall of difficulty for the Zelda series. I'd say Aonuma might change Zelda's direction for the better if Miyamoto wasn't watching him like a hawk.

No doubt, Aonuma definitely wants to bring the series to different waters, but Miyamoto wants it to stay more traditional. I believe it'll be one of the greatest things to happen to the series when Aonuma gets complete control over the franchise.

Yeah, but it wasn't meant to be designed as a gameplay option for a harder difficultly. If that were the case, you should be asked when obtaining a heart piece (by whatever means) if you want to keep it or not. Which is not a bad idea actually. I hate having to memorize which chest contains a heart piece or not before I accidentally open it, not being able to refuse the heart piece. . .

Yeah, that is one of those instances where it "feels cheap", especially because most gamers partake in a couple of sidequests and extras during the main campaign.

I have to say, all your ideas seem great and should be utilized for a more difficult Zelda.

You're too kind.

To be fair, most games with optional difficultly have those exact same applied "drawbacks" (from your point of view) of what you wrote. It's not like it ruins the game. It's often a very fun experience; if it only even be the first couple of times.

The thing is, though, most action/adventure games don't feature puzzle-like bosses. Outside of Shadow of the Colossus, Okami and Zelda (give or take a few other games), action/adventure titles generally have beat-em-up bosses. With those, it doesn't matter how you hurt, you just hit them with anything and you're making progress. They're already repetitive as it is, so making the fight longer doesn't change that much.

With with puzzle-combat, the only way to hurt a boss is through a scripted series of actions, and only those will work. And it's not like it's always that fast paced, you'll usually find your actions for a puzzle fight being individual actions, not a barrage of slashes like in, say, God of War.

Also, not necessarily give the enemies higher HP or attack (not that it's out of the question), but rather, up the AI a little bit for the enemies (plenty of games have shown it can easily be applied to a game). Don't make such obtuse enemies. Give a little variation to their attack patterns and don't make them seem so predictable Most, if not, all enemies always seems to take the defensive majority of the time. Why not make them more aggressive, with maybe (slightly) more powerful hits (with aggressiveness, there's always more powerful blows). Don't make them so wide open for an attack almost 90% of the time either. . .

Or just make the games entirely harder all around. Why should the Zelda series be (slowly) mainly geared towards the casual gamer? It'll never happen though. Nintendo wants money.

Basically. Nintendo could easily just make the games harder, but that would mean less of an expanded appeal.

Personally, for future Zeldas, I'd rather see Nintendo take the time to make an alternate difficulty setting which would feature those extra phases of battle for bosses and minibosses. If it would mean a three year wait yet again, and a slightly shorter campaign than Twilight Princess, I'd like to see them go for it. I'd rather see a twenty-five or thirty hour story mode with hard enemies than a forty hour story mode with easy enemies.

But alas, multiple difficulty settings don't seem to be on Nintendo's top priority list for Zelda...

Originally Posted by Mirren

You really can't say that the change for Zelda is significant, since the series has never been very challenging to begin with.

And when did Retro say that? I honestly don't recall anything of the sort.

You're right, Zelda has never been that hard but that doesn't justify TP being that easy.

And they said that in an interview with X-Play posted about a month and a half ago... basicly they said they recieved complaints that Echoes was too hard (from whom? Maybe Miyamoto and his dog) so they'll be making this one easier. As always, they try to disguise it under a carefully chosen set of words, but the fact remains that they admitted that this game is going to be easier.

Originally Posted by Mirren

Why do you think it's going to be watered down? What makes you think that things like Battalion Wars and Fire Emblem will be easier? How will Brawl be watered down if it has multiple difficulty settings? How much more could you even water down for a 2D Party Fighter?

Seriously, what are you basing this on?

All right, I'm giving this to you with Fire Emblem, specially since it's already out and the people who've played it say it's very challenging. Don't know about Batallion Wars. Brawl might get watered down in a different way: removing advanced techniques, hindering it's competitive capabilities (it's very unlikely but possible).

Still, there isn't much to say here. I know I'm complaining about games that aren't even out so I'm just speculating. But I have my reasons to worry, specially after this interview. There's nothing left but wait until the games come out.

Originally Posted by Mirren

It's true, when done right non-linearity can be great.

Problem is, making it good enough to have a notable impact is tough. There's nonlinearity that enhances a game, but then, fairly often, there's nonlinearity which really wouldn't change the quality of the game whatsoever.

Nintendo used to make non-linearity good. They should at least try to make their games less linear. I don't bother with it with some genres, but in games like Zelda it almost feels like a must

Originally Posted by Mirren

Okay, what does that have to do with anything?

And by the way, never call Shadow of the Colossus an action game. Even the combat is more puzzle-like than actual fighting, which is why it's one of the best games to come out of the last few years.

You're saying some recent acclaimed games are linear, I'm just stating that it depends on the genre. I know Shadows of the Colossus isn't an action game, I was just generalizing. However, games like RE4 focus more on the enemies, storyline and that kind of stuff instead of non-linearity, so it's not a deciding factor in that case.

Originally Posted by Mirren

Mario platformers generally haven't been that difficult to begin with, so if Galaxy is a wee bit easier it won't be a drastic change, and judging by some of the sequences it won't be a cake walk 24/7. Brawl won't be easy because it'll most definitely, like the previous iterations, have very high difficulty settings and will still be able to provide a challenge since one of its pillars is multiplay. Corruption, I still want to see where Retro said they're dumbing it down.

Are you sure? Some old Mario games used to be very hard, and recent ones like Sunshine still were quite challenging sometimes. But yeah, they're not impossible either. I just hope they don't make it incredibly easy.

Originally Posted by Mirren

And for the love of God, Goddess of Dawn doesn't need maniac mode to be hard. It just needs Normal mode and you're still in for a helluva ride. But the fact that they'll probably (and by probably, I mean, a 90% chance or more) give us Hard more.

Path of Radience was by no means a walk in the park, but it wasn't that challenging compared to some previous Fire Emblem games. Personally I'm not that worried about this franchise, since there's no easy way to dump it down. But Maniac mode would be neat wouldn't it? I'll still be satisfied with a hard mode, but the more the better.

Hey Mirren, While you do fight a lot of bosses, they aren't the main backbone of the series either. If Nintendo made additional boss phases, why not just use them in general instead of forcing players to replay the game on a mode that's more or less the exact same game except for longer boss fights?