Has Miyamoto Completely Sold Out?

Originally Posted by Average Gamer

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?

Having two phases in a boss is acceptable, but if they go overboard like the first Kingdom Hearts did a couple of times then things would get a bit annoying, especially if the boss is way overpowered. On the other side of the spectrum, in Links Awakining the final boss had six different forms, the only problem was that each form was pretty weak and it didn't really take much work to take any of the forms down. I think everyone would be satisfied if the boss had one form but hat one form posed somewhat of a challenge.

Just be glad they don't pull a Smash TV and constantly fall apart until you're fighting nothing but a molecule after 2 straight hours of attacking...

Originally Posted by jehuty

Having two phases in a boss is acceptable, but if they go overboard like the first Kingdom Hearts did a couple of times then things would get a bit annoying, especially if the boss is way overpowered. On the other side of the spectrum, in Links Awakining the final boss had six different forms, the only problem was that each form was pretty weak and it didn't really take much work to take any of the forms down. I think everyone would be satisfied if the boss had one form but hat one form posed somewhat of a challenge.

Yeah KH went a little overboard with the phases, but i personally found it to be the perfect amount of difficulty. I don't know about you all, but i found that medium was the "perfect" amount of difficulty.

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

But some would say that TP wasn't that easy, some would say it's harder than a lot of the other entries.

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.

Oh yeah, that.

Let's look at the direct quote-

After [Metroid Prime 2], we heard two things loud and clear: One was that the re-traversal needs to make more sense. The other is the overall difficulty. So the challenge is, how do we address that without dumbing down the experience? How do we make it accessible to more people without simply making it easier? We spent a lot of time making sure we did that right.

Then the article proceeds to praise the difficulty. This is all after the guy said he died once on each of the three early bosses.

Now, I'm all for anything being open to interpretation, but I find your concern based on that just plain silly.

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).

How the hell can they remove advanced techniques? If the move sets are anything like the original, it's so simplistic and basic that they really have nothing to remove that's as advanced as other fighters.

And based on how different each combatant's attacks, specials and Final Smashes appear to bem I don't see why someone would worry right now that it's being watered down. It actually looks more complex than before.

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

I don't see the appeal, personally, considering that 90% of the action/adventure genre is linear as it is.

I know that some people like linearity because to them, it feels more like a fictional adventure, like ones they see in movies or tv shows. To them, it feels more natural that they're only seeing one area at a time, and follow a scripted order of events, so that every last bit gets its moment in the spotlight. Another thing someone (I believe CPW) brought up a while ago, is that nonlinearity could easily spoil the game for you. If you didn't know where to go, it's possible that you could see every last area of Hyrule in the first couple of hours without progressing the story.

Those aren't necessarily my reasons, I just don't give a care if a game's linear or not as long as it's good.

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.

Then why is it bad if TP doesn't focus on that?

I hope you realize that before RE4, most Resident Evils had a fair degree of nonlinearity. It's not like RE4 was continuing a trend or anything.

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.

Personally, no. From what I've heard of Maniac's difficulty, it doesn't even sound enjoyable. That, and it's more important for Nintendo to make an Easy mode rather than a Maniac mode in America because the Fire Emblem fandom here is just beginning to bloom, and that with a lower difficulty it's easier to draw in new fans, especially these casual gamers who Nintendo has attracted.

I don't see why they couldn't include all four difficulty settings, but if Maniac doesn't make it here I won't care.

Originally posted by Average Gamer
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?

Because we're talking about different difficulty settings, and if they wanted a harder mode for Zelda games they'd have to create those extra phases so the fights aren't too repetitive.

Originally Posted by Mirren

Because we're talking about different difficulty settings, and if they wanted a harder mode for Zelda games they'd have to create those extra phases so the fights aren't too repetitive.

Yet in the post you spoke of the extra boss phases in, you only mentioned adding more boss phases. Therefore, it sounds like all that a difficulty setting would do is add an extra boss phase or two, which, considering that the rest of the game is the same, is rather pointless and it would be more sensible to just include that phase in the regular boss fight.

And minibosses.

Those extra boss phases would be in addition to uping their damage done to you, and how much damage they need to be killed. Same with all minor enemies.

Originally Posted by Mirren

And minibosses.

Those extra boss phases would be in addition to uping their damage done to you, and how much damage they need to be killed. Same with all minor enemies.

I noticed the mini-boss comment. I'm just pointing out that you only mentioned adding an extra phase to the bosses/mini-bosses in your post.

If you want to make Zelda harder, all you really can do is make enemies strike a bit faster and up the damage a bit.

Originally posted by Average Gamer
I noticed the mini-boss comment. I'm just pointing out that you only mentioned adding an extra phase to the bosses/mini-bosses in your post.

I didn't feel the need to say it again since Dark Link had already, and since it's a no-brainer suggestion.

If you want to make Zelda harder, all you really can do is make enemies strike a bit faster and up the damage a bit.

But Nintendo doesn't seem apt to do that, so my idea was going towards their current philosophy.

Random notes on bosses:
On the subject of Zelda bosses, not once have I found that the overall design of a boss or the tactics involved were shabbily done. I have found, however, that they tend to be (1) too short, ending too quickly thanks to your power level; (2) too staightforward, not complicated enough to make for a real challenge.

Let's take Blizzeta as an example. Great boss fight. Could have easily been improved by having a third phase, or at least a third set of tactics. What I have in mind is having her throw the icy furniture at you, with you knocking it back at her with the Ball and Chain.

Armogohma? Way too simple and formulaic, once you figured out you could control the smashing statues. Should have featured a ground-battle portion beyond that silly final blow, or at least a bit more strategy involving the statues.

Argorok? Would have been better if it moved around more during the last stage, and if you weren't simply circling it by Clawshotting between Peahats. Make the Peahats move at your command; make waiting for him to torch you before you approach him more strategic.

Originally Posted by Mirren

But some would say that TP wasn't that easy, some would say it's harder than a lot of the other entries.

But it's quite clear that Twilight Princess is easy, or at the very least dumbed-down to the point where difficulty isn't present (which would be the same thing). The enemies are very stupid, more so than Ocarina of Time or Majora's Mask. They are no longer aggressive, and as long as you have your shield up, you are invincible. In OoT/MM, enemies would jump behind you if you had your shield out, and they'd attack you. Then there are the puzzles. TP had some clever puzzles, but you were constantly guided through them all by cutscenes that give away the answer. Twilight Princess is a dumbed-down Zelda game.

Now, Mirren, you said that the difficulty in Zelda has been dumbed-down because Nintendo/Miyamoto wants more money, right? So, you agree with my thread that Miyamoto has sold out to the casual gamer because that is where the money is at?

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.

Which is why Eonuma's Phantom Hourglass, a Zelda game that has no influence by Miyamoto, has been crowned the easiest Zelda game ever? Eonuma is no better than Miyamoto, and possibly worse. He is all about getting less experienced fans, which would be find if he remembered the verteran fans as well.

Originally Posted by Average Gamer

If you want to make Zelda harder, all you really can do is make enemies strike a bit faster and up the damage a bit.

No, there is more they could do:

1. Ditch the tutoral cutscenes, and the hand-holding all together.
2. Make enemies and bosses less formulaic.
3. Make the game less linear. This kind of goes back to ditching the hand-holding.
4. The diologue must be fixed. NPCs sound like robots saying things like "What's that crack in the wall over there?" Again, the hand-holding.

Originally posted by KeeSomething
But it's quite clear that Twilight Princess is easy, or at the very least dumbed-down to the point where difficulty isn't present (which would be the same thing). The enemies are very stupid, more so than Ocarina of Time or Majora's Mask. They are no longer aggressive, and as long as you have your shield up, you are invincible. In OoT/MM, enemies would jump behind you if you had your shield out, and they'd attack you.

I only remember a couple that would actually do that, and by a couple I mean now where near enough to warrent saying that the enemy bestiary is aggressive on a whole. As long as you Z-Targeted, they'd rarely try to dip and duck around you, the only ones I remember doing that routinely are Lizalfos/Dinolfos and Stalfos. Gerudo Warriors may have, I don't remember exactly, and I will give a nod to the Iron Knuckles simply because you couldn't block their attacks.

Then there are the puzzles. TP had some clever puzzles, but you were constantly guided through them all by cutscenes that give away the answer. Twilight Princess is a dumbed-down Zelda game.

I remember a few that did that, but not much more. I definitely think you're over-exaggerating. And if I'm wrong, I also remember distinctly that a lot of the puzzles revolved more around a challenge in actually completing them, not figuring them out.

Now, Mirren, you said that the difficulty in Zelda has been dumbed-down because Nintendo/Miyamoto wants more money, right? So, you agree with my thread that Miyamoto has sold out to the casual gamer because that is where the money is at?

For Zelda? Yes and no. On one hand, he has low-blowed us for making most of the recent games easier, but on another hand Zelda's also been giving us longer, more varied campaigns and more creative bosses/minibosses than any other franchise out there.

As for the long time Nintendo franchises on a whole, nope.

Which is why Eonuma's Phantom Hourglass, a Zelda game that has no influence by Miyamoto, has been crowned the easiest Zelda game ever?

No, really? From what I've heard that title still goes to WW.

Eonuma is no better than Miyamoto, and possibly worse. He is all about getting less experienced fans, which would be find if he remembered the verteran fans as well.

In terms of difficulty he's probably just as bad. But overall, no way, not a chance. Unlike Miyamoto, he doesn't want Zelda to grow stagnant.

Originally Posted by Mirren

I only remember a couple that would actually do that, and by a couple I mean now where near enough to warrent saying that the enemy bestiary is aggressive on a whole. As long as you Z-Targeted, they'd rarely try to dip and duck around you, the only ones I remember doing that routinely are Lizalfos/Dinolfos and Stalfos. Gerudo Warriors may have, I don't remember exactly, and I will give a nod to the Iron Knuckles simply because you couldn't block their attacks.

Ocarina of Time had Lizafols, Stalfos, Iron Knuckles, Moblins, and Wolfos. Majora's Mask had Dinofols (complete with fire breath that you cannot block), Iron Knuckles, Death Armos, and many enemies that were just placed in awkward spots (like near a ledge) or minibosses that would kill you.

I remember a few that did that, but not much more. I definitely think you're over-exaggerating. And if I'm wrong, I also remember distinctly that a lot of the puzzles revolved more around a challenge in actually completing them, not figuring them out.

Every dungeon has a cutscene showing you what to do. I'm not exaggeratig here. And can you give me an example of a puzzle that was hard to pull off once you knew how to do it?

For Zelda? Yes and no. On one hand, he has low-blowed us for making most of the recent games easier, but on another hand Zelda's also been giving us longer, more varied campaigns and more creative bosses/minibosses than any other franchise out there.

The campaign is only longer because of stalling which results in a lamer story, and the complete lack of feeling liek you are saving the world. The bosses have gotten worse, if you ask me, and they certainly aren't the most creative bosses in any franchise. The boss battles in Wind Waker and Twilight Princess completely sucked for the most part. They were too formulaic, too short, and tedious to fight over again (Stallord comes to mind). If you want creative bosses battles that require skill and strategy, Metroid, Shadow of the Colossus, and Final Fantasy are the way to go.

No, really? From what I've heard that title still goes to WW.

I've heard that Phantom Hourglass was the easiest even without knowing Japanese. That's almost insulting that anyone can find an adventure game that easy when they have no clue what they are doing or what people are saying. Then again, I'll have to play it myself.

In terms of difficulty he's probably just as bad. But overall, no way, not a chance. Unlike Miyamoto, he doesn't want Zelda to grow stagnant.

What makes you think that? Pre-PH, Aonuma just wanted to recreate everything Aonuma did.

Originally posted by KeeSomething
Ocarina of Time had Lizafols, Stalfos, Iron Knuckles, Moblins, and Wolfos. Majora's Mask had Dinofols (complete with fire breath that you cannot block), Iron Knuckles, Death Armos, and many enemies that were just placed in awkward spots (like near a ledge) or minibosses that would kill you.

Oh come on, Moblins? They only attack you from one angle, there's not enough room in that hedge-maze for multiple attack angles. And as long as you lock onto a Wolfos they won't go anywhere you can't follow. Death Armos can only attack from one angle, also, straight down.

Minibosses that would kill you? Like who?

Every dungeon has a cutscene showing you what to do. I'm not exaggeratig here.

So, one cutscene per dungeon...?

And can you give me an example of a puzzle that was hard to pull off once you knew how to do it?

The only ones that were hard were a couple of the spinner tracks and a one or two Double Clawshot sequences. I didn't mean that they were challenging, I meant that they were obviously designed to be more action-orientated puzzles rather than figure-it-out puzzles.

The campaign is only longer because of stalling which results in a lamer story, and the complete lack of feeling liek you are saving the world.

Okay, so let's completely ignore the more abundant missions between the dungeons. What the hell are you getting 'stalling' from?

The bosses have gotten worse, if you ask me, and they certainly aren't the most creative bosses in any franchise. The boss battles in Wind Waker and Twilight Princess completely sucked for the most part. They were too formulaic, too short, and tedious to fight over again (Stallord comes to mind). If you want creative bosses battles that require skill and strategy, Metroid, Shadow of the Colossus, and Final Fantasy are the way to go.

Metroid's are good, but for the most part they're still just about blasting the enemy to their death. Shadow of the Colossus's is a given because that's the entire game. Final Fantasy...eh, I don't see the logic in comparing turn-based bosses to real-time ones. It's like trying to compare Fire Emblem's to Metal Gear Solid's.

What makes you think that? Pre-PH, Aonuma just wanted to recreate everything Aonuma did.

Yeah, because you know, Miyamoto had nothing to do with the design of WW and TP...

Look at MM for one thing, that's obviously a lot of his part. And look at how WW sports a lot of new gameplay elements, a new world, lots of communication sidequests, but still retains that ALttP story progression. Or, how TP does bring new ideas like Horse Combat, a wolf form and the Twili Realm, but in the end it's all very traditional, once again with that ALttP plot.

Or, hell, the fact that Miyamoto took over Aonuma's job in the middle of TP's development.

I hate hard core gamers. I think that games tailored to your blood thirsty needs are destroying the Videogames market.
I think RE is for wussies. I think Metroid prime is for idiots.
I think that making good games is not selling out, its just no longer catering to you dumb, pale, unemployed, people that live in your mothers basement.

Originally Posted by paul1991

I hate hard core gamers. I think that games tailored to your blood thirsty needs are destroying the Videogames market.
I think RE is for wussies. I think Metroid prime is for idiots.
I think that making good games is not selling out, its just no longer catering to you dumb, pale, unemployed, people that live in your mothers basement.

That was a completely absurd statement, that was unnecessary to say the least. Especially when the thread was dying.

*Snickers* Brain Training, a revolutionary game, or a good game? What a joke, in fact most of the casual games are far from being good or memorable despite who it appeals to it's obvious to see their low-production value and gimmick.

Originally Posted by paul1991

I hate hard core gamers. I think that games tailored to your blood thirsty needs are destroying the Videogames market.
I think RE is for wussies. I think Metroid prime is for idiots.
I think that making good games is not selling out, its just no longer catering to you dumb, pale, unemployed, people that live in your mothers basement.

You must have been up all night thinking that one up.

Originally Posted by paul1991

I hate hard core gamers. I think that games tailored to your blood thirsty needs are destroying the Videogames market.
I think RE is for wussies. I think Metroid prime is for idiots.
I think that making good games is not selling out, its just no longer catering to you dumb, pale, unemployed, people that live in your mothers basement.

I live on my own, and have little time between Wedensday and Friday because of my work schedule. Challenging games that take more than a week to beat are not just for those who have a lot of free time on their hands.

I only get two to four games between my birthday and christmas. I'd like four games to last six months, so I don't beat them in one and wonder what to do with the other five for my video game fix. That's why I want long, challenging games.

The best example nowadays Nintendo-wise in pokemon, which is why I've decided to commit to it fully.

Miyamoto is a business man. To make sure his company gets their profits, he gotta find a way to make money. So, one of his business plans is to get causal players into gaming and get their money so his company canget a little cash in their pockets. Just about every businessman and woman tries to do something to make money for their company by means of expanding in different ways. This ain't selling out.

Oh well, these days, trying to make a honest buck for your company is selling out.