Zelda's problem is Nintendo thinks a Adventure Games are RPGs

[theRepublic]

loves2splooge said:

Sean Malstrom may be public enemy #1 in the Nintendo subforum but it's worth noting that gaming wouldn't have expanded so much this gen if it wasn't for Nintendo deliberately targeting the "lapsed gamer" (which is basically his schtick. He thinks Nintendo should cater to this demographic). Adults who grew up with the Arcades, Atari, 8-bit and 16-bit Nintendo and Sega, etc. but then lost interest in gaming once it started shifting towards 3D, becoming more complex and adding more buttons and sticks to the gamepads. Recently when chilling with my ex-girlfriend she told me that she hates videogames because she sucks at them. I bet if I brought my Wii or DS Lite to her place and set it up with some pick up and play games, she'd change her mind. After all, she is a fan of boardgames (like many women). I see no reason why she couldn't be converted into liking videogames.

Malstrom may have only a little Wordpress and forum corner. But there are tens of millions of people who can sort of relate to the basics of Malstrom's old-school philosophies. The Wii and DS brought back a lot of adults to gaming and also brought in new adults. These games focused on a "back to the basics" type of experience for gaming with a more simplified control scheme than the dual-analog modern gamepad.

I really think that Nintendo should create a 2D New Legend of Zelda to compliment the 3D Zelda line. There would be a strong market for it. Old-school Zelda would appeal more to fans who want Zelda with more action and non-linearity in their exploration.

"He thinks Nintendo should cater to this demographic"

Close but not quite.  Malstrom thinks Nintendo should cater exculsively to this demographic.  That's the reason he gets so much hate from the enthusiast gamer crowd.

Malstrom may be disliked in the Nintendo forum, but it is nothing compared to what he gets in the general gaming forum.  He at least has some supporters in the Nintendo forum.  I actually liked him when he stuck more to the business side of things.  It came at the right time too.  He was predicting success and then explaining it when everyone else was predicting doom.

What did it for me and a lot of others is when he started trying to critique individual games.  Everyone has their biases, but he takes his to the extreme.  He hates on pretty much everything after SMB3 for destroying gaming, and ignores any evidence that contradict his theories.  He just can't see past his own nostalgia when it comes to games.