| noname2200 said: I fully and personally agree with your opinion about Nintendo's games, but as Malstrom (and liquidninja) are pointing out, it appears that many people do not share our opinion. Nintendo's core game sales have been declining until recently, and only some core games have really regained the traction that their NES counterparts had. For example, Mario Galaxy, as awesome as I thought it was, lags behind Mario 64, which lags behind Mario World, which lags behind...well, you get the point. Somewhere along the line, the series lost part of its lustre with the masses. But, Malstrom argues, when they brought the series back to its roots (New Super Mario Bros) that magic returned with it. The only part I take issue with Malstrom is in the definition of the games' "roots." I'm still uncertain as to what qualities he refers to with that term, so I haven't bought in yet. Nonetheless, the data does suggest that, while Nintendo has not lost its touch with you and I, more and more folks were no longer feeling it (until recently, and then only for selective titles).
|
Honestly I just read Malstrom's blip here as the annoying "Nintendo should make games I like because I know better," mantra. Better written and the games he wants differ greatly from people who usually say this, but that's how I feel.
The biggest tip off for me feeling this is way is"Miyamoto’s perspective is to remove all and any constraints in the Core titles. I do think this is the wrong way to go about it. He should just return to the Mario and Zelda roots."
Like you said, what are these roots he mentions? He says the NES Mario and Zelda are built on arcade gameplay. Mario I have no argument against, but Zelda? Even now, it's a very long complicated game with puzzles, numerous items, with numerous functions. If you were to play a game like that in an arcade you'd likely get tired, and maybe even bored. It's combat, all though well made, greatly pails in comparison with combat of classic arcade titles of the time.
This fracture he mentions also seems deliberately deceptive. There is indeed a fracture amongst us "core" gamers with the whole 2D and 3D thing. But I'm going to guess for most regular people the fractures exists in most 3D games were more complicated then their 2D counterparts. From Super Mario World to Super Mario 64 you went from a control pad and a few buttons to mostly run, jump, and use power-ups to a control stick, a c-pad, shoulder buttons, and a few buttons to run, jump, long jump, backflip, side somersault, swim underwater, attack, align and reposition the camera, and so on.
It's probably one reason why shooters are doing so well now, the fundamental gameplay hasn't changed much since the early DOOM days, if anything it was made easier since the earliest shooters usually had a ton of keys, locks, and switches to contend with in addition to killing everything you run into. Light gun games also didn't suffer from being 3D as well since they're gameplay remained exactly the same.
New Super Mario Bros. didn't just sell because it was throwback to the original Mario, it's because it was the first new Mario in a long time to go back to the simple run and jump set-up. All though Galaxy had an added mode where someone else could play a simple role, the main gameplay was still rooted in the more complex 3D's Marios.
I definitely think Miyamoto has the right idea in breaking down control barriers. Look at Mario Kart on the Wii. That Wheel was included so that people could immediately understand how you play the game, like an old arcade racing cabinet with a steering wheel jutting out of it. According to this site's sales, Mario Kart Wii is just a hair from passing Mario Kart DS in sales, despite being on the market for a shorter period of time and the DS having around double the Wii's install base.
Look at the Zelda series sales according to VGChartz. Ocarina is the current king in sales, then the original NES Zelda, despite the install base differences between NES and the N64. Twilight Princess has sold more then Phantom Hourglass, again despite the massive difference in install bases. Link to the Past sold only slightly more then Windwaker. The Zelda series already had relatively complicated gameplay even in the NES days, the complications added in the 3D era were comparable to the advantages it provided in already complex game.
Phantom Hourglass certainly went back to the top-down 2D perspective of the old Zelda’s, but it’s only slightly easier to play then say Twilight Princess. Also Phantom Hourglass may be easier to control, but it’s a generally more difficult and frustrating game because of the complicated timed puzzles in the Ocean King’s lair that have to be constantly repeated. Twilight Princess is probably a more accessible game for most people.
The more accessible something is, the more people can access it, and likely buy it. That’s why there’s not a lot of demand for a return to text only based games, adding graphics made them more accessible by seeing what you may interact with, instead of constantly typing look around and guess onward. Then they added the ability to skip the text entry and just point and click on the graphics with your mouse, and we got point and click adventures. Which we do get some occasional demand for a return of, and have seen some return of on the DS.
By nature, a lot of 2D games are more accessible then a lot of 3D games, but it’s certainly not the rule. Honestly I think Malstrom should stick to the business end of things. The fact he’s basing his theory on the “Core” gamers claiming Nintendo’s games are declining in quality is silly. This is the same “core” group he’s constantly lambasted and painted as a vocal minority, now they’re suddenly on to something? When I read he wants a return to Mario and Zelda’s roots, I just think he wants a return to the Zelda’s and Mario’s he simply likes best, and wrote an elaborate excuse to why he should get his way.
