FMW

Hey guys, just a quick heads up for you. Gametrailers (and presumably other sites before long) have a couple of Japanese trailers. These trailers are filled with spoilers. If you wish to avoid spoilers, do NOT watch the Japanese trailers. ...yes. I watched them. I watched them all. Multiple times. Don't judge me!! I don't have self control issues!

I have purchased Puzzle Quest: Challenge of the Warlords off of DSiWare. It's a good game. There is a problem though. There's only 1 3DS in my household, and my sister is also hooked on Puzzle Quest now. Blood has been spilt I purchased Rayman off of DSiWare as well. It's a good game. I really dig the music and the graphics. I love how at every checkpoint the game takes a photo of your face. Making funny faces for the camera fits with the rest of the game really well. The game might be a bit too hard for me though, it's rather unforgiving. I have pre-ordered and paid off Zelda: Skyward Sword. I hope that the game gets enough pre-orders that my local Gamestop will run a midnight launch. I'll check back in two weeks and see if they are.

I'd like to preface this by saying that this is how I feel but I don't by extension believe anything else is wrong. I just aim to articulate the other point of view as well. After this we'll both say "cool, I still like/don't like modern Nintendo" and nothing is going to have changed. I'm not aiming to convince anyone of anything, that's why I asked before posting this. Nintendo games tend not to allow for much player freedom. There is one and only one correct solution to everything, the player runs through the games like a mouse in a maze just trying to overcome the obstacles presented. It's exceedingly rare in a Nintendo game to make your own fun, you just experience the pre-developed fun. The downsides to this were listed above. I think perhaps the best way to describe the good side of this is to call back to Zelda again. Zelda games are, in the dungeons, totally linear. The dungeon experience hasn't really changed since Ocarina of Time. The puzzles in a Zelda dungeon are rarely individually difficult, but each has the potential to trip a player up. There's almost always a larger meta-puzzle to the dungeon that you'll need to wrap your head around to get everywhere within it. In the best dungeons there is an "aha" moment, it's the moment where you see how it all fits together. This is where you figure out how to get to the boss door (which was usually right under your nose) or how to change the water flows to get somewhere or how all the puzzles in the Temple of Time are actually designed to be reversed with a statue in tow. This moment of epiphany doesn't make me smile because I'm clever for figuring it out. Most of the fun is in seeing how the meticulously designed dungeon fits together like clockwork. It isn't so much an "aha" moment as it is an "oh, wow, that's how it works" moment. To step back from individual examples, think of the "rats in a maze" comparison. In a Nintendo game the player willfully jumps into the maze and does what they're told because the maze is filled with cool shit. The player submits to the authorial intent of the game creators in return for a more polished experience than other styles of game design have yet been able to create. The player cedes control over the experience because he wants to see what the designers have created. I feel like there are two ways video games can give us an experience no other medium can. One is what I described to you previously. A game can offer the player new ways to interact with virtual worlds, creating new opportunities for fun. No other medium can do this, no other medium can change the user input so drastically. The sky is the limit for video game potential. Video games offer something else that no other medium can though - discovery. No other medium lets a player explore every nook and cranny of the game universe, no other medium has the user dictating where he goes and when he goes there. My point of view is that Nintendo games have never gotten dull because they've never run out of new things for me to discover. There's always something else to find, something around the next corner, something over the next horizon.

Yesshua My steam library: Half Life 2 and the Humble Bundles Not much of a PC gamer

Well, here we are. Battlefield 3 releases in just three days time. If we factor in time zones and midnight launches we're 48 hours away now. And... there are no reviews. If this was a movie this would be a bad sign. Is this a bad sign? How long do review embargoes normally last? I know the first review for Zelda Skyaward Sword is going up on the 25th, a full 25 days before release (and I hate the reviewer who's already played it. So much.) But that's for a magazine, and they need to get reviews in early for publication dates and blah blah blah. So what's normal? Is this a bad omen?

Reading this thread, I noticed one super interesting comment and it leads me to another way to frame this. Rocky said that Super Mario Galaxy 2 was a cash in. Super Mario Galaxy 2 was filled with new music, new levels, and new powerups. The content the player runs through is almost 100% new stuff (I think there are two repeated boss battles? So I guess that would make it 118/120 new content. So... 98.3% new). BUT: The way the player runs through the content is exactly the same as in the original. The moves and physics are ripped directly out of the first, it's the same exact thing. It is, in essence, a level pack. The player isn't given any new ways to interact with the game, they're given more of the game to interact with. I feel like Nintendo does that a lot, and perhaps is the root of much of the discontent expressed in this thread. I personally am pretty alright with just being given more of the game to interact with. The new levels are high quality levels, and there are a lot of them. I feel like I got a good deal when I bought the game. I had a lot of fun. I feel like there's a very valid argument to be made against such a design philosophy. Video games are interactive, so when a sequel doesn't give a player any new way to interact with it then the merit of the game becomes entirely dependent on how clever the level designer/story writer is. That's the same way non-interactive mediums work. I could build a strong argument that taking all the new ideas out of the player's hands is inherently less than the medium can achieve. Such a sequel is an opportunity for a designer to strut his/her stuff and the player is simply permitted to come along for the ride. I'm not going to expand on that argument because I don't subscribe to it. I think that it's a valid argument though and Nintendo definitely doesn't cater much to people with that mind set. I would like to leave two questions for Rocky: 1: Is what I said a fair assessment, or am I extrapolating your views in a totally incorrect way? 2: Would you be interested in hearing the counter-argument to what I just described?

Everyone looks for something different in a video game. Everyone notices and cares about different parts of the game. It cannot be argued that Zelda games do not change drastically from installment to installment. There are clear, significant differences. It also cannot be denied that the franchise moves conservatively and keeps many elements the same. The people who are more interested in the elements Nintendo doesn't change much (inventory, dungeons, combat, damsel saving, and enemy types to name a few) are going to see the Zelda franchise as going stale. Because yeah, all those things are the same. You use mostly the same items in mostly the same ways to slay mostly the same enemies in mostly the same dungeon types. You are still saving damsels in distress (mostly). The consumers who see Zelda as "stale" are not wrong. Parts of the franchise haven't significantly changed since Ocarina of Time. The people who are more interested in the elements Nintendo does change continue to be enthralled with the franchise. The elements that change include, but are not limited to; narrative content, characterization, art, music, and overworld navigation. These things change drastically from entry to entry. If a person cares about these parts of a video game then Zelda games bring them a new and fantastic experiences with every release. People who love Zelda games are not necessarily "blinded by hype" as there are definitely aspects of the franchise that continually change and remain relevant. And to tie this into the thread overall, I think this applies to most of what Nintendo does. They make very polished video games that only change part of the franchise they are based upon. This approach cannot please everyone. I would like to take Donkey Kong Country Returns as an example. It is, by most standards, a very conservative game design It changes some things in the franchise but leaves many parts untouched. Many people dislike this game. For some, it's stuck in the past. It's a 2D platformer with an animal mascot - it's straight out of the SNES era! It lacks online multiplayer, DLC content, leaderboards, and HD graphics. It doesn't leave any room for player choice at all, it's just a simple obstacle course. This game doesn't take advantage of 10 years worth of technological advances and really gives players no reason to come back to it once it's completed. The game seems as though it would be better served as an XBLA downloadable title for $15. For others, this game is untrue to it's roots. The graphics are ugly 3D rather than awesome 2D sprite animation. The music is made by a different (and infinitely inferior apparently) composer. King K-Rool isn't even here, nor is the tag gameplay of the originals! Some people feel that DKCR strips everything that made the franchise special away from it. The extended Kong family is gone, most of the animals friends are gone, and did I mention that the motion control is the worst thing that ever happened? Because it seems to be. These people feel Retro changed far too much. And then, for some, the game is fantastic. I happen to fall into this category. All Nintendo games face this same split audience problem. Some want Metroid to go back to 2D. Some want Metroid Prime to continue. NOBODY agrees on where Samus should go as a character Some want Zelda to go back to 2D and the 2D art style. Some people want Zelda to grow to the scale of an Elder Scrolls game and embrace player choice in an open world. Some people want Zelda to finally get voice acting. Some people want Zelda to cut back on the storytelling and become more of an abstract fairy-tale type yarn again. Some people think 2D Mario will always be the best. Some people think 3D Mario is best. Some say Mario should have open ended areas to explore like in SM 64. Some prefer more linear challenges for their Mario fix. To summarize: Every Nintendo franchise is stale, and every franchise is full of new ideas. One glance at message boards will show that some people think EVERY franchise has changed too much or too little. Nintendo splits the difference, leaning usually conservatively.

Huh, the day I stopped loving Nintendo... I guess the closest I come is back when I bought a PS2, it's the one time I purchased non-Nintendo hardware. The Gamecube library had run somewhat dry (though there were great games I didn't know I was missing at the time) and so I bought a Playstation. I'm glad I did, that system has a RIDICULOUS library of great games - I'll never come anywhere close to playing them all. I have never felt the need to supplement my Wii with a PS3 because my DS has filled in any/all game library gaps. For this most recent generation I've never needed more than Nintendo hardware. So... I guess I love them again? How do you define love for a company anyway? All my favorite Wii games are Nintendo games, but all my favorite DS games are third party developed. The third party games have been filling most of my playtime, but they're on Nintendo hardware. Does that mean I love them as a hardware developer but not as a software developer? The whole concept is silly. So yeah, that's my story with Nintendo. I'm not planning on buying a Wii U right now because so far I've been given no reasons too. No games, no hardware specs, no release date, no price, and no Metroid. I think it's silly to try and analyze Nintendo's target market with the Wii U because they haven't announced any games yet. In their press conference they said broader and deeper, we and you. But of course they'll say that. Every company claims to be targeting everybody. Maybe Nintendo really will offer good software for both markets. Maybe not. Either way they'll SAY they will. There isn't sufficient data to draw any reasonable conclusions about the hardware right now.

So what I'm getting about this game is that we've got Wind Waker up in the sky, and Minish Cap down on the ground. I'll explain: The sky is very big, is traversed entirely without loading times, and you do it on a red vehicle. It's a bird rather than a boat this time, but I see great similarity. It looks like Skyloft will be a hub for this game similar to Windfall Island in Wind Waker. The trailer showing off Godess Cubes shows a glimpse of the Sea of Clouds map and yeah, this looks like it was ripped directly out of the Wind Waker play book. Which is a good thing! Windfall Island... I STILL never found all the side quests there. But down on the ground all the previews say that the world is dense and navigating TO a dungeon is a feat similar to clearing a dungeon on it's own. This reminds me of Minish Cap because that game had the most ridiculously densely designed map I've ever had the pleasure to explore. I've never found everything in any of the Zelda games, but I suspect of the one's I've beaten I got the lowest percentage of secrets in Minish Cap. So rather than choose breadth (Wind Waker's Ocean) or depth (Minish Cap's Overworld) it seem Nintendo decided to give us both! Hooray!

This is a big deal for Koji Kondo the Nintendo composer. Rumor had it that he threatened to resign when Twilight Princess didn't get an orchestra. This soundtrack will have all stops pulled out. I'll be interested to see if Nintendo attempts any of the musical layering and transitioning that they did with the old MIDI soundtracks. If that isn't possible with orchestrations then it's a trade off well worth it, but it would be even cooler if I could have both.

Yes indeed, Skyward Sword is a prequel type story. It has been said to be first in continuity, coming in before Ocarina of Time. No mention has been made of The Minish Cap, which also comes in before Ocarina of Time. We don't yet know how those two relate. Since the kingdom of Hyrule doesn't exist yet in this one though I'm gonna go ahead and guess that it comes before Minish Cap too. This game is looking like it will cover the creation of the artifacts that then carry down through the rest of the games. It's been announced that we'll be creating the Master Sword. I'm willing to bet our actions will also create the Triforce and maybe the Ocarina of Time as well. One other thing that's going to be created for the first time in this game is the Hylian Shield Crest. If you look at the trailers (particularly the romance trailer (beautiful music!)) you'll see a repeated crest. It's on Link's collar, on the giant angel statue at the base and also at the platform higher up. It's on Zelda's blue hip half skirt type thing. That crest has been in the franchise since Ocarina of Time on the Hylian shield and elsewhere, but there's always been a Triforce in the middle. This version doesn't have the triforce. I never read anything into the red bird shape on the Hylian shield before though! Way cool.

I agree with the sentiment, but lol @ "in 5 years". The polycounts and textures were laughable at launch. Nintendo made a conscious decision in developing the Wii not to focus on graphic prowess and it definitely shows in its games (though I make no value judgments about whether that was a good or bad decision). Says I: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Twilight Princess runs on the exact same tech as Windwaker. My understanding was that the Wii version featured absolutely no graphical enhancements over the original Gamecube version whatsoever. If that is indeed the case then I don't think Nintendo's decision to let graphics technology pass them by on the Wii has anything to do with any franchise entry other than Skyward Sword.

Said AC: I'm looking into trying some of the other Zelda games. Says I: You should try one of the 2D top-down view Zelda games. The other 3D Zelda games you're interested in are all fine games, but there will be a certain amount of familiarity with the mechanics and processes now that you've cleared Twilight Princess. The 2D entries really come across as a different beast. The 2D entries easily available are: Link to the past: Wii Virtual Console ($8) and Game Boy Advance Minish Cap: Game Boy Advance (Highly recommended!) Link's Awakening: 3DS eShop ($6)

How was the transition for you between SoT and Warrior Within? I beat SoT and Forgotten Sands but, couldn't get into Warrior Within. Wow I'm sorry I didn't return to this thread for three months to answer you! The transition from SoT to Warrior Within is a tough one because Warrior Within doesn't make it's improvements apparent right away. It's a step sideways for the franchise. Warrior Within makes the narrative worse and the music worse. It does improve some key things though. It took me a while to wrap my head around the new combat system so I didn't start enjoying it really until halfway through the game. Once I figured out the proper ebb and flow though it was really fun. It's cool how the combat is so much more integrated into the world this time around. Pro tip: Any enemy in the first two thirds of the game can be thrown off a ledge for a quick kill. Abuse this power whenever you find yourself at a tactical disadvantage. I also enjoyed combat more after I found the toggle to turn of the blood spatter. The level design is also vastly improved but again this isn't apparent right away. The Sands of Time was a sequence of almost entirely linear platforming challenges. Very very rarely would you backtrack in any way at all. Warrior Within relies far less on things miraculously crumbling just after you walk on them and actually makes the entire game an open world platforming/puzzle solving labyrinth that can be reverse navigated if you're very clever. Add in that there's a past and future version of the island with different paths through each and about halfway through the game you realize just how much work went into designing this death trap of a video game. So if you're having trouble with the transition just have some faith. Yes, the story is wretched now. Yes, the butt metal music sucks. Yes, the combat is different and unforgiving. If you can soldier through though, there's a really well designed action/platformer to play here. Give it another shot

Wii Sports resort is the game you're looking for. Disc Golf is seriously threatening to replace Mario Golf Toadstool Tour as my go-to game when I'm feeling down. It used to be Animal Crossing but then I let Metopia atrophy in my absence and going back there makes me feel even more down now...

Said P4: Twilight Princess often gets lumped in with Ocarina, but I think I'd disagree. It's very oversaturated (especially in the Twilight areas) and has a pretty unique aesthetic overall. It does go for the quasi-realism like OOT I suppose, whereas Wind Waker is balls-out stylized. Says I to that: I agree that Twilight Princess is artistically distinct from the N64 Zelda games. However, I think you could make a solid argument that Twilight Princess presented through the hardware of the N64 would look extremely similar to OoT or particularly Majora's Mask. Many of the effects that distinguish Twilight Princess artistically were simply not possible on the N64. Bloom lighting, certain particle effects, and even little things like how the Zora and Gorons are presented as more warlike through warpaint markings and armor couldn't have been communicated effectively on the old hardware. So I would argue that the art of Twilight Princess can be traced to the N64 Zelda games. The lack of detail in those games left a LOT of room for interpretation though so there are also many other equally valid interpretations of those same basic graphics. This is actually something I noticed when playing the prettier but artistically identical Ocarina of Time 3D. The game really doesn't have much personality of it's own. It wasn't until Majora's mask that 3D Zelda got personality. And I can DEFINITELY see a direct connection between Majora's Mask and Twilight Princess.

You know, I'm going to reserve judgement on this one. I need to play through Skyward Sword before placing a vote. Between the two others I think I would choose the Twilight Princess style. I think that Wind Waker and Minish Cap are the prettiest games in the franchise, but I think Spirit Tracks and Phantom Hourglass are the ugliest. The Twilight Princess style is good and it's consistent. That's my take at least. We'll see if Skyward Sword replaces it. It probably will to be honest - there won't be any old or portable games to drag the net value of the Skyward Sword style down.