FMW

0602 - 6436 - 1971 I don't have any games that go online yet, but I look forward to kicking all sorts of ass when Mario Kart 7 lands. I've added everyone on the list so far as a friend. What games have you guys had fun going online with?

Is that one of the MMZ games where you have to S-rank a boss to get its ability? I sure hope not! I haven't netted myself anything better than a B on any of the levels! And usually it's more like a C or a D.

That's easy. I greenlight Metroid V.

I'm playing Ocarina of Time 3D and enjoying it. I'm always amazed just how much content was crammed into that game. I never have found all the skull tokens or all the soft earth patches, and I'm sure there are other side quests I haven't found and don't even know exist. I'm also playing Mega Man Zero Collection. There's a big big problems with Mega Man Zero, you can't restart a level when you die, you need to go back to the last place you saved. Mega Man Zero is STUPID hard. This is making progress... frustrating. MMZ 2, 3, and 4 all fixed this though, so I'm just trying to motivate myself to power through it so I can get to the rest of the games.

Since my previous post I have completed for the first time: Prince of Persia The Sands of Time Prince of Persia The Warrior Within Prince of Persia The Two Thrones Prince of Persia 2008 Prince of Persia The Forgotten Sands Portal 2 Trine Sin and Punishment Star Successor

His/Her Webcomic's cool. (I'm allowed to abbreviate "is" in, right? Contractions are fair game?)

Fascinating. (Raises Eyebrow)

Actually, I think Kirby is one of the more exposed Nintendo mascots. The DS has two original games (canvas curse and mass attack just released in Japan) as well as a remake. The GBA had an original game (the amazing mirror) as well as a remake. The Gamecube had a spinoff that reviewed poorly but sold well regardless (air ride). The Wii has one original game (epic yarn) and another on the way. Now this isn't a really HEAVY density of software, but it's right up there with Zelda and Donkey Kong as far as Nintendo mascots. Kirby sure gets more face time than Starfox, Captain Falcon, or Samus. By the way, it's past time that we accepted that Metroid isn't Nintendo's third big franchise. In terms of software density and sales both Donkey Kong and Kirby are more deserving of that distinction.

Ok, this seems fair. The exchange rate is bad going from the Yen to the Dollar right now, so Nintendo doesn't want to localize small titles. That's logical. I accept that. I guarantee that Nintendo not aiming for the gaming enthusiasts with their new consoles, but for the most mainstream audience. Why? Because that's a more profitable audience. That's also logical. I also accept that. Why on Earth would Nintendo launch new hardware, the Wii U, at a time when international business is of minimal profit?

Game Informer is a valuable resource for those looking for information on shooters and other Western developed games. I recognized years ago that they are not to be trusted regarding JRPGs or other niche titles that come from Japan. And I totally understand where that comes from. They're owned by GameStop, and Japanese games haven't been selling as well in the US this generation. There must be enormous pressure to cover all the million sellers and potential million sellers in depth. Catherine is... not. Unfortunately.

Come on Johnny, give me something to work with here. We can't have a discussion if you just "disagree" without justification. I'll walk you through my reasoning, and you tell me where I go wrong. Sound good? You say that it is the designer's job to create a control scheme that works well for the target audience. The target audience of a sequel are people who played the previous installments. In the case of a really long running franchise like The Legend of Zelda, there have been a ton of previous installments - so many that it would not be unfair to call the target audience experienced gamers. Zelda is not "casual". Now if it's the job of the designer to create a control scheme comfortable for the target audience, and the target audience has had thumb based control drilled into them by other games and also past Zelda games for over a decade, then the most comfortable control scheme will always be thumb based and similar to past control schemes. Therefore it is fair to say that a non-thumb based control scheme in a Zelda game is a failure of design because it's going to be intrinsically less comfortable for the series fans than anything else. The same rational should apply to all franchises, not just Zelda. That's how we get to: "No entry in a franchise played by game veterans should force them out of their comfort zone regarding the control scheme". You needn't agree with me, but I'd really appreciate it if you would identify the link in my chain of reasoning that you disagree with and explain. That way we can understand each other.

Now this is an interesting idea. We've established that non-traditional controls throw veterans off. If we extend this idea just a bit further then, we come to the following conclusion: "No entry in a franchise played by game veterans should force them out of their comfort zone regarding the control scheme". Do you agree with this statement? I think it's a pretty logical extension of your idea. I disagree with the statement, but before I post an argument against against it I want to make sure I'm not going off on a tangent you didn't intend. God forbid I make too many assumptions about your opinions. You make me want to cry Slagathorian. I included that because I didn't want this to become a referendum on the way the game controlled. That's been hashed out in countless message boards across the net and at the end of the day it boils down to "I liked it"/"I didn't like it". I wasn't making the argument that the touch only controls weren't a problem at all. I was not talking about the touch controls. I was talking about the content of the game and how it compares to other Zelda games. I thought I'd made some connections that others might not have and were worth discussing. The main body of my post inspired exactly two responses, and those last few words netted... all of this delightful and productive discussion.

Quote from Phallus: In my opinion, the job of the control scheme is to best suit the requirements of the game it is made for. Your description of the what a control scheme is meant to do sounds a lot like the streamlining/dumbing-down of video-games (especially RPGs) to appeal to a wider audience. I don't want video-games to appeal to everyone, what's wrong with having a learning curve? Going back to the fighting game example, the controls are not at all designed to accommodate newcomers - so much so that the introduced a easy mode with a different control scheme in MvC3. The problem is that simplifying controls limits the amount of control you have over a character (and makes the game a lot easier). Another example: if Mario had the same Hold Button + Directional Stick free-running controls as Assassin's Creed it would be a completely different (probably quite boring) game; since the dawn of video-games controls have played a part in controlling their difficulty. Designing a control scheme is not just about making the controls easy for anyone to master (in fact I wish game designers would get over the idea that everyone should be able to (or want to) play there games, we have genres for a reason) it's about giving the player the right amount of options, at the right level of accessibility so that the level of difficulty in mastering the controls is appropriate to the context of the game you are playing. Response from Johnny: Working well does not mean they should be easy to the point of playing the game for you. You are assuming an awful lot about my opinions. Something Johnny said to Phallus earlier: I'm sorry but this is pretty terrible bullshit. A control scheme is supposed to work as well as possible for as many people as possible. If people (and Slagathorian isn't the only one having issues with it) are having problems, then that's up to the developers to create a better control scheme. Personally I thought the touch controls felt inaccurate as fuck. Not to the point where the game was too hard, but to the point where it was completely unenjoyable because I felt like I wasn't in control. What I have to say to Johnny regarding this exchange: Phallus may have misinterpreted your opinions and extrapolated them in ways you didn't intend, but he responded respectfully and intelligently to his understanding of your post. You called his opinions flat out bullshit. Who are you to chastise him for "assuming an awful lot" about what you say after you treat his words in such a way? P.S. Sorry - I can't figure out how to use the image uploader or the "quote" tool. I trust y'all can figure out what I'm doing.

You know, this wasn't the main point of my post (or, really the point at all)... whatever - Let's jump in. I verify that the touch controls in this game are mechanically sound. Every action necessary to complete the game can be executed reliably and accurately. I'm able to do everything, and I own the same game code that you all do, so that means that the game program isn't intrinsically inaccurate. However, this doesn't make the control scheme "good". All this proves is that it's "functional". Fighting games are an excellent genre to bring up in this discussion. These games are not easy to control. Basic actions require complicated inputs, and high level competitive play demands such precision that specialized joysticks are necessary. Does this mean that the games control poorly? No. From fighting games we can extrapolate that the goal of a control scheme is not always to provide the most invisible or intuitive conduit between player and avatar. So now we have a question: Why do people struggle sometimes with functional control schemes like this one? My theory is unfamiliarity. We don't hear much about "Nintendo thumb" anymore. Why? Partially because most buttons are softer to the touch now, but I'll bet is also because people use their thumbs more. I've seen kids who flip light switches with their thumbs. Weird to me, but it's natural to them - it's their dominant digit. All gamers have had to learn a certain amount of thumb dexterity, so thumb based control schemes come naturally. This control scheme requires different muscle movements than others, and I'll bet that's caused many an experienced gamer to dislike it. I think I even have an example of someone disliking a control scheme because of unfamiliarity. An earlier commenter said that the DS is uncomfortable to hold in one hand for extended periods of time. Let me take a guess, are you holding your DS like this when you play? I tried this at first, because that's the natural way to hold a DS. That's how it's always done. I ran into the same problem that you did, holding the DS in one hand made that hand hurt. However, I found an alternate grip that worked far better. I included a photo of it below: http://s1221.photobu...02.jpg&newest=1 This grip worked perfectly for the game. The DS weight was distributed pretty evenly along my palm and my four fingers. My thumb up top rests on the R button, which is the only button really needed to play the game. I'll bet most people never even tried this grip despite it being the most logical way to access the necessary controls comfortably. Why? It's weird and contrary to years of learning. So where does this leave us? We've established that this control scheme is functional. It's irregular and irregular control schemes throw veteran players off, but we've also established that it isn't always a bad thing for controls to be tricky. To my mind, this leaves us with a single remaining question this boils down to: does this game take advantage of the touch control scheme in a unique and fun way? Does this game present puzzles and interactions impossible otherwise? If so, that justifies the control scheme. If Nintendo created an experience impossible without with this technology, then they are absolved of guilt. Just like weird fighting game controls actually allow for a profound level of depth impossible otherwise, these controls must serve a greater purpose. Being different for the sake of being different is not acceptable. So do they? Think about the puzzles, items, and bosses. Think about the game structure and perspective. Consider how the touch screen contributed or detracted from the different parts. And then post.

Well hang on - you seem to be judging the console based on the marketing at E3. Nintendo, in their 45 minute introduction, focused exclusively on the new control interface. Therefore you are passing judgement based on the controller and not on any of the other details we've since learned. That seems... odd. It's alright to get excited about features that aren't marketed heavily. I'm excited for the Wii U, but for reasons that are separate from the marketing. I'm excited that I won't need to pay for extra controllers at all. I paid that for the Wii, and I don't need to again. This is good. This was not advertised heavily. I'm excited for the potential creative application in hardcore single player games. This was not advertised in Nintendo's conference. They didn't show the Wii U Pad contributing anything special to their list of M rated franchises. However, I'm still excited about it (see my previous post). I'm excited to see 3DS connectivity options. Nintendo has been toying with this since Pokemon Coliseum, and the results hit more often than they miss. We know they'll be using the tech in Smash Bros, so I'm sure it will crop up elsewhere also. This was not heavily advertised. I'm excited to play games on the controller without the TV screen. Honestly, the controller screen is probably going to be higher quality than anything in my house (I don't own anything HD) so that will be a huge plus. Screen quality was not mentioned in the marketing. That's why I look forward to this device. The fact that the E3 presser didn't cover this stuff doesn't make it less valid. So yeah, I'm basically with Faiblesse Des Sens on this one. There's more than one aspect to hardware, more than one feature set to be considered.

Honestly, I agree with you regarding local multiplayer. There is some potential for asymmetrical play, but that's going to require a ton of creativity and "out of the box" thinking. I'm not looking forward to the Wii U for it's local multiplayer potential. I'm sure it will be available for Smash Bros or whatever, but I don't see the Wii U pad adding too significantly to those designs. Single Player games experiences, on the other hand, excite me greatly. Imagine Metroid Prime where you have the scan log at your fingertips constantly. Or where you hold up the controller when using a special visor, and the controller screen provides the visor overlay. What if the map was always up on the controller screen so you didn't need to swap to it constantly, and it could just be spun around using the touch controls? What if sound effects used the mic in the pad? I mean, that's just off the top of my head for a single game. The same sorts of possibilities are open for Zelda, Starfox, Fire Emblem... Actually, Fire Emblem doesn't need any motion or anything. Just make the controller a constant character statistics database and you'll have drastically improved the game already.

Hang on, let me just make sure I read that right. You say that "about the only thing you want out of the console" is 4 player local coop using Wii U pads to give separate displays? Well, I guess that's unfortunate for you then. I am sorry. Nintendo offers a ridiculous number of play options with this new device and it's really sad that you only want one very specific method of interaction that isn't available. Out of curiosity, have you have an overwhelming affection for this style of play for a long time? Have you considered hand held gaming? You can get this same fix on your Wii using DS connectivity in FF Crystal Chronicles: Echoes of Time. If the central TV screen isn't key to what you're wanting to play, then even more options open up. There are a TON of PSP and DS games that have fun local multiplayer. Every person has a separate screen, but they all exist in the same virtual space. That's the same thing, minus the TV screen in the middle. Have you dabbled in that at all? Oh yes and there's also a camera in the controller. I forgot that one.

I think that the disappointment over only 1 Wii U pad at a time is a little bit silly. Yes, it is sad. FF Chrystal Chronicles and Four Swords are fun fun games. But just because the Wii U can't duplicate those types of experiences doesn't mean that there isn't limitless potential for other kinds of fun. The local cooperative multiplayer with screen controllers idea is only one of the thousands of possibilities this presents. I mean, this is the controller that can do everything. And what it can't do, you can use your Wii controllers to fill in the gaps. Dual Analog? Check. Touch Screen? Check. Balance Board? Check. Accelerometer? Check. Microphone in Controller? Check. Wiimote/motion plus/nunchuck support? Check. Two separate simultaneous screen feeds? Check. 3DS connectivity? Check. Classic Controller? Check. 5 person local multiplayer? Check. I honestly think it's hilarious that people are upset that this console won't support the four swords play method. That's just about the only thing that this console DOESN'T do.

Fascinating! Only one Wii U tablet per console! This deserves analysis all on it's own: 1. This is good - because these things would cost an arm and a leg to buy as separate controllers. It isn't practical. 2. This is bad - experiences like FF Chrystal Chronicles or Zelda 4 Swords are impossible. It cannot be overstated what a shame this is. Unless... how could 3DS connectivity work? 3. This is good - no wonder so many single player games have been announced! This is designed more as a tool to enhance a single player experience than anything else. The shovelware local multiplayer games we all imagined right away won't exist (so much). 4. This is bad - Nintendo could have made some FANTASTIC local multiplayer games with 4 of these. Mario Party games, Wii Sports... sure, shovelware mini-game fests would have followed, but the first party content would have been incredible. 5. This is good - Whatever form of local multiplayer exists on the Wii U will use the controllers people already own. This makes picking up a Wii U a better bargain. You will already have the hardware for local multiplayer if you owned a Wii. 6. This is bad - controllers break. Controllers with touchscreens will break faster. Large tablet like controllers with giant touch screens could fairly be considered fragile. Nintendo says the controllers won't be available for individual sale. Does anyone else see a problem with this? 7. This is bad - 3 and 4 player local multiplayer will be asymmetrical. You could get 2 players to work fine (one player on the pad, one player on the TV screen with a classic controller) but smash bros and Mario Kart and the like won't really be fairly represented with 3-4 people. 8. This is bad - this is complicated. There are a LOT of combinations of hardware now. Games could be designed for any combination of the following: Balance Board, Wii U Tablet, Wiimote, Wiimote with Motion Plus, Wiimote with classic controller, Wiimote with Nunchuck, Dual Wielding Wiimotes, Dual Wielding Wiimotes with Motion +. Now throw in the special plastic shells of the wheel and the zapper. This is a developer's nightmare. You either take advantage of everything and shrink the audience to the people who own all the parts, or you need to design it so it's adaptable to different hardware (a TON of extra work), or you take advantage of only the basic Tablet and leave most of this potential behind. 9. This is good - Oh my god. Just look at the list of all that hardware up there. I could spend the rest of my LIFE thinking of fun game designs using various combinations of those. The potential is limitless. Sure, the marketability sucks (see comment #8) but if Nintendo can get good hardware penetration on most of this stuff we will surely see fantastic games unlike anything ever seen before. Sure, the console can now do the vanilla old dual analog HD stuff the other two consoles do, but when I look at all this potential I wonder why you would ever want to?

I don't care how pretty it looks because I don't own an HD TV! It's all the same to me!

The other big story of this show are the things that Nintendo DIDN'T talk about. They didn't talk about a new online strategy, and they didn't talk about any RPGs. My gut feeling is that if Nintendo was actually investing in making a real online service, they would have told us about it. I also feel like if Xenoblade or The Last Story or Layton vs. Phoenix were coming to the US, they would have told us. This show was very focused on the hardcore, so if these producst/services were coming this would have been the perfect time to tell us about it.