My problem with Nintendo and the 'If it ain't broke' theory. Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT | |
Ignoring all the arguments about innovation and whatnot, I'm just going to say that Majora's Mask is my favourite of the entire Zelda series. Why? Because it felt the most unique out of the rest. A completely different world, a distinct time mechanic, different modes of play via transformations, a strong focus on masks, a gradual sense of impending doom... even if the other games do have their unique mechanics and styles, they don't form the same "whole" that pulled Majora's Mask out from the mould. | |
Ah. Hmm. One can easily argue that God of War is DMC but with greek mythology. X jump. [] light hit. Triangle heavy hit. Air combos, ground comboes...I can go on and on with this. What helps make a game different is whether or not the same game engine was used. Wind Waker looks nothing like Skyward Sword no matter how "HD" you make the game. To me, even though Nintendo makes "similar" games, they usually start that game from scratch instead of using a previous engine....though it ends up with a similar game again. While most modern games just copy/paste the previous engine so the similarities are far more noticeable that way. For example, Vice City and Vice City Stories was more or less the same engine, but hardly see them get flack for it. Down on his luck gangster hero for a few games straight isn't exactly changing the mold is it. How about I put it this way, short and simple. If you enjoy the game, than do so and have fun. If you don't, than that is your own opinion and it doesn't mean your wrong or right. I love Megaman Legends and believe it is the best MM game that will ever exist. There is also many "critics" who say otherwise but that is all our own opinion. | |
I don't recall playing ANY RPG that wasn't like that. | |
Mario Sunshine: Except With a new Hub World, physics engine, enemies, an extra villain. An actual story. Mario Kart: OMG, a racing game rehashes old (great and loved by the community) tracks!? God forbid ANYONE dare go outside a counterclockwise track! Smash Brothers... Really? You are grasping so hard it hurts. Mechanics overhaul, introduction of more than twice the original number of characters, as NEW characters. Featuring the biggest jump in character roster than most games feature. Has only 3 iterations yet you mentioned NOTHING of Street Fighter. Legend of Zelda: So I guess you hate EVERY action Adventure game because you just said, no matter what, you're still dungeon crawling to save the same meaningless entity who will not reward you. Good show. So, if you want to pick and choose your arguments, at least try to look intelligent.
Call of Duty Every one of those game's parent companies tries to convince you that each iteration was new, and different. | |
Oh you guys. The humour is prevalent in these ones. I can't really say about the stories for Metroid and LoZ being repetitive but I can say that Mario's definitely is with it sometimes being set in a different setting though. Although I could also point out that LoZ, Metroid and Mario still all use the same formula for their game design. Though thats because people enjoy it mostly and probably to make it easier for Nintendo to make those games. Captcha: watch C-beams glitter what the hell are C-beams? | |
Now that seems rather disingenuous, given that you differentitated God of War by saying:
Really, the least you could do is use consistent standards and comparisons, and with that as a defense of God of War, then the following works as a defense of the Zelda Franchise: Ocarina of Time: Describes one of the earliest incarnations of Link and Zelda, and provides the origin story for Ganon. Focuses on Ganon's attempt to acquire the triforce, and the aftermath of that attempt on Hyrule and the Sacred Realm (The latter of which was corrupted into the dark realm). Majora's Mask: Link goes down the rabbit hole into a dying world, arguably the most character driven of any Zelda title due to the characters' constant awareness of their imminent doom and their need to find their own closure before the three days are up (which provides the bulk of the gameplay). Oracle of the Seasons/Ages: Link is forced to deal with tyrants who have altered the nature of the world itself by imprisoning one of two oracles. Each is a complete game on its own, but linking the two games reveals that two witch followers of Ganon are manipulating events to orchestrate ganon's revival. Twilight Princess: Link's attempt to save a childhood friend leads him to discover the encroaching darkness and its corrupting influence on those around him. Late in the game, Ganon is revealed as having driven the plot in an attempt to escape from the Twilight Realm into Hyrule. To borrow your phrasing: I could go on. To be less condescending though: If you're going to mince details about one series to insist on its internal differentiation, you could at least afford the series you're comparing to it the same courtesy. | |
But then he would have to admit his entire point is moot and he has no idea what he's talking about and is just being a hater. Surely that would be madness! | |
I think what the OP is getting at is that the games Nintendo makes all seem to fill the same kind of niche and as a company they seem happy to be there, except for venturing out and appealing to more casual gamers and making things like motion controls and 3D handhelds, which are seen as little more than gimmicks. Yes they do some interesting things, but notice almost all of those games that are cited as being different are side games, mostly for handhelds. And while other companies do some of the same things for awhile, they don't even approach the 30+ years that nintendo has been doing it, except maybe blizzard because they only release a new installment every 10 years or so. I personally don't really enjoy this because I'm never surprised by anything once I start playing a Nintendo game. It might be well made, but they're never really ground-breaking. Their games will just never be as good as their earlier games for me, because they're not new anymore. There will never be a Mario that really matches up with my first time playing Super Mario World, or a Zelda that matches up with my first time going through Windwaker, or a Metroid that matches up to my first time with Metroid Prime, because they were all new experiences for me. I know this is a totally subjective view, but why would I be spending my time and moeny failing to recreate those times of novelty when I can buy games from other companies that actually ARE new and different experiences? | |
Nintendo are the most innovative and imaginative games developer in the world. And I don't even play their fucking games. The innovations introduced in the Mario series along belittle everything that has been introduced in every title in the last console generation combined. If you don't like it, don't play it. But seriously, this is just sad. | |
Mario = Every year has seen a new mario across 2 systems As good as all of these games are Nintendo gives them (with the exception of Mario and Zelda) ZERO support and only brings out the other games just to convince the gamers that Nintendo actually cares about them. A wii-only household is IMPOSSIBLE for "serious gamers" if you play with another console or PC that's fine but to honestly say that the Wii is some sort of hardcore heaven because of Zelda? That's bull**** | |
Really? I think Pokemon is probably the MOST repetitive game on the face of the planet, (exception for sports sims of course)but it manages to get away with it because each game is essentially an expansion of the last one. The story is a thin veneer at best, and ALWAYS plays out the same way, but people keep buying it for basically a roster expansion. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing, but defending Pokemon as innovating from game to game is rather silly.
I don't know what this means. Please elaborate? | |
You forgot to mention it has seen only 3 releases, each one on a different console, each multiplying the content of the previous game and dramatically changing the mechanics.
Worldwide play across a handheld console. | |
That's what he means by system seller, they put it on a new console to get people to buy that new console.
They had the trading from previous games thing since Gen 2, and we're on Gen 7 now, do you still want to trade on something that's a decade old? And worldwide play is impressive in the age of wifi everywhere? Really? EVERY game with a multiplayer focus does that. Yes, they keep up with current technology and keep allowing you to trade pokemon from previous games. That doesn't make Pokemon the same as Portal. | |
I think we can all agree that most games have the same character templates: -Hero The problem with Zelda and Mario is that these templates are always stuck to the same characters: Link/Mario is the hero, Zelda/Peach is the damsel, and Ganon/Bowser is the villain. After a multitude of games with these characters filling the same role everytime, they just start to feel stale. And they lack any indication that they might act in a new and surprising manner. This was one of the reasons why I liked Wind Waker, because atleast Zelda was a different character... untill she put on a dress and became the same old boring damsel again. | |
I agree with a lot of what the OP is saying but it's soemthing inherent in all long running series. Nintendo keeps their games nice, safe and familiar in the same niche that they have always occupied. You know exactly what you're gonna get from just about any one of their titles. The difference is that they don't bother writing a plot that'll actually disguise the fact that the gameplay is so similar. It kinda defeats the point of a series as far as I'm concerned. Incremental gameplay changes aren't really enough to make me buy into a sequel. If it plays pretty much the same and there isn't a plot worth paying attention to then it isn't worth making as far as I'm concerned. Yes this goes for everything before some idiot decides that my general opinion is referring only to Nintendo. | |
Their fans ask for more of the same and they're happy to give them it. I don't see the problem, just stop buying Nintendo mascot titles and you're golden. | |
Wrong. The reason people give Nintendo a hard time and not other series is because for the most part they've been making the same game over and over since the N64; so about 16 years. Not to mention that in that time the underlying mechanics not only haven't changed much, they usually haven't changed at all. If you can't see how some iterative improvement across a 3 game series within the span of a few years is different than games which, even if they had the same level of iterative improvement, have been getting made for more than 3 times as long then you're just being willfully blind. | |
Mario games to me always seemed about the fun mechanics and level design rather than any over arcing plot. Or rather, the journey instead of the destination. | |
A cult. That box was their indoctrination device. "N64" is short for "Neural Indoctrination Unit 64" and is the 64th iteration of the device. Obviously, you are strong-minded to have resisted the siren call. | |
oh...my...GOD! lies! it was all a lie! this prophet..this PLUMBER! he is the harbinger of our doom! wake up sheeple! the reckoning is upon us! | |
Most varied series is Mario the guy has been in almost every genre know to gaming.
This right here, so many attack Zelda for always being the same game because your always saving the princess, never mentioning things like Twilight Princess and Skyword Sword each having there own unique combat system and then you have games like Wind Waker that probably wouldn't even be recognized as a Zelda game without the familiar names. And people like what they like and there is nothing wrong with wanting more of something you like. | |
OP, you need to learn the difference between a game that changes the window dressing and a game that changes the mechanics. | |
The only Nintendo games I play are Zelda ones and they seem to have some decent variety. Twilight Princess was like an upgraded OoT while Wind Waker had some new things I really liked. I enjoyed exploring the world with the sailing and I enjoyed the graphics and combat, wind waker is one of my favorite Zelda games. They all follow the same formula usaully, you go crawl through multiple dungeons to get a bunch of stuff you need to fight the big bad. You get a new weapon or piece of equipment in each dungeon and must find keys for doors, there is a big boss key to get into the boss room where you fight a giant monster of some kind. I don't know about their other games but I wouldn't call Zelda completely lacking in innovation. | |
I think its the fact that their IP's have lived far to long that's getting on peoples nerves. | |
Majora's Mask. Strangely enough, one of the most original Zeldas. Pretty sure it didn't sell well, iirc. So go figure. | |
Wow, I actually had to crack my knuckles for this one, here we go again... Mario Sunshine: And what is it you are doing in this new world? Hunting for stars (sorry, Shines) just like you did in Mario 64 and just like you'll be doing in Galaxy. And what story are you talking about? The imposter Mario or Bowser and his son kidnapping Peach? Because that's writing about on par with a saturday morning kid's show. Mario Kart: If you love those old tracks go play those old games. If I'm forking out forty quid for a brand new game then you better believe I'm don't expect to be paying for the same content I already have two or three times before. Smash Bros.: I'm not grasping at anything. The roster has expanded but every new character is a double of a previous one with only slightly tweaked movesets. Mario is Luigi; Fox is Falco; Captain Falcon is Ganondorf; Peach is Daisy on and on and on and on. It doesn't matter how big the roster is when it can still be boiled down to the original 12 characters or whatever. And you're right about Street Fighter, but that's my point. Every laughs about how bold-facedly Capcom releases the same Street Fighter games over and over but Nintendo does the same damn thing and people think it's brilliant.
I notice you tactfully cut out the part where I said all other companies are guilty of the exact same thing, but (and that's why there is a but at the start of that sentence) while we deride CoD for being the same and all the grunting space marine bullshit, people still hail Nintendo as creative geniuses. But I apologise, don't let the words I actually said get in the way of your impotent bleating. | |
That's actually my favourite Zelda title, precisely for that reason. But shoosh, you're ruining my point. | |
The main problem with Zelda's repetitiveness is not about graphics (which they obviously changed in 25 years) or the story (which they have changed, in more minor ways, in 25 years); but the design. All the Zelda games I can remember revolve around your hero (Link) traveling to different dungeons (each one with different themes: there is a water level, a lava level, an underground level, etc), collecting different items (in mostly this order: a sword, a boomerang-like throw-able weapon, a bow and arrows, an explosive weapon that can break through some walls, a chain-attached weapon that can be used to cross chasms, an upgraded version of said sword), which help you solve the elemental themed level puzzles, beat the level boss (which can, most of the times, only be beaten by using the recently obtained item) and unlock areas in previously visited dungeons. Its the same layout, no matter if Link is cell-shaded, photo-realistic or a 2D sprite; or if he likes to travel by land, sea, air or on rails... That is not to say Nintendo lacks originality; but he sure doesn't like it in their mayor IPs. There is far more originality in the latest Kirby game that in the last 10 years of Zelda games. | |
See, this is my exact problem. Why does it always have to be Mario saving Peach and Link saving Zelda, (I mean aside from the massive pools of cash)? Why can't it be a new character, say a prince, who has to save a village girl from being sacrificed to a giant dragon but the village is only doing it so the dragon doesn't destroy the world and then the hero has to sacrifice himself to the dragon so there can be no damn sequels. It's not much, but at least that's a bit of role reversal. | |
Well Majora's Mask has you fighting against a possessed Skull Kid and the Majora's Mask itself. | |
This. As someone else in this thread stated, Nintendo's games could easily sell as unique and individual IPs, with the occasional case of sequels/etc. that normal series' get. But they're content to be nice and safe within the niche they've created, and so every year or two we get reports of another Mario (2D/3D Platformer) and another Zelda (Action-Adventure) and another Metroid (Action-Adventure-Shooter) and another Kirby (2D Platformer) and another Donkey Kong (2D Platformer) and another Pokemon (which hasn't changed its fundamental gameplay in sixteen years and has only convoluted it by bloating the roster and attack list by so much) then when they're finally deciding to mix it up, what do we get? Another Star Fox and another Kid Icarus and another Super Smash Bros (which is just a mash up of all the other characters you've been having fun with, kids!) and another Fire Emblem (except in the US, because obviously none of them would be interested in those titles, right? They didn't want Pandora's Tower either!). Saying absolutely nothing about the quality of each specific game (because I do think Nintendo still makes high-quality products even if I'm not interested in them), Nintendo has been afloat on the exact same IPs they originally created back in the NES/SNES days. And think about it. That was the 1980's. | |
Really, you are using those as an example? Uncharted has 4 games and 5 years, Final Fantasy has a different cast and is mechanically different in almost every single game and you are going to compare them with a franchise that has 25 years and 27 games, and I could bet you real money the next game will involve Link trying to save Zelda by getting a master sword, a boomerang and sticking bombs to walls. | |
They're not plot-driven games, for fuck's sake. They're gameplay, environment and challenge-driven. The stars are simply goal posts, and something you collect upon beating the actual challenges set before you. One moment you are to scale a mountain, the next you race against a rival character, fight a boss battle, attempt to collect flying coins by shooting yourself out of a cannon, explore underwater caverns, help a penguin mother find her baby, or storm a lego fortress that seemingly hovers above hell itself. The "story" is just a basic fairytale scenario to get you going, or to explain a shift in environments. | |
Funny, because Skyward Sword had Link trying to catch up with Zelda, as she had her own world-saving mission to take care of. Also, Link never got a boomerang and there were maybe three or four points in the game where a wall had to be bombed to get to an optional item hidden behind it. Because, believe it or not, with Skyward Sword they've actually tried to distance themselves from the traditional puzzles and the items associated with them. And Zelda hasn't had a true damsel in distress role since A Link to the Past. | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT | |
Stopped reading right there. Because after all if I stop reading that means that obviously I am an enlightened individual that knows how to put you in your place. Maybe one day I will actually look through peoples posts and absorb the whole argument before I decide to dismiss them so easily. But nope I'm a busy man that needs to argue with people on the internet, so many wrong arguments, and never enough time to even read them. But they aren't my opinions so, therefore, wrong.
TALLY-HO!