archbrix said:
Just making Zelda a swordfighting game with no puzzles or backtracking fundamentally changes what makes Zelda, Zelda. Sure, some of the sailing and train riding could get a little boring at times, and there's always improvements that can be made, but it sounds as though Zelda's just not a game for you. And there's surely people who would agree with you, but for those of us who love Zelda, we don't want to see it stray from its essence and become another game. Which brings me to your disdain for 3D Mario. No, it's not going to appeal to as many people as 2D Mario, but it is what it is, and a lot of people love it for that. Not every single game on a system has to be completely revolutionary or a bonafide system seller in order to justify its existence. And not everything that's popular is necessarily regarded as the best, quality wise. Is American Idol the best show on TV or is Justin Bieber the best music out there? Why take away people's ability to enjoy a wide variety of experiences? Ironically, the NES, DS, and PS2, which you actually credit as being successful, had just that; a varied library of software. |
Old school Zelda and modern Zelda are not auite the same things, old school had a much greater focus on fighting, sure their was puzzles, but they were not the focus that they are now.
Quality is subjective, sales are objective, having a varied library is fine, that's the role of third parties, a first party is there to sell its hardware, to sell the oxes that people want to play Mario on







