By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Phoeniks.Wright on 02 July 2011
Edit Thread
Khuutra said:
Mr Khan said:
Cheebee said:

Lol. QFT. ^^

To play devil's advocate (and god only knows why, as i should and do discourage this line of thinking), but the counterpoint here is that the market dictates what should be made, not the niche that is gamers. Remember that this comes from the school of thought that deems Galaxy 2 (utterly beloved of gamers) a waste of time on Nintendo's part compared to a possible other NSMB game, though the argument would be harder to hold up in this case, because there is no old-school oriented Zelda with which to make direct sales comparisons.


A fair point but not strictly applicable in the context, where Phoeniks indicated that people like him, me, and [other gamers] are the ones who decide what Zelda should be.

I really feel obliged to answer to all your points, so here goes:

Khuutra, I am not holding two diametrically opposed ideas. I have a certain view of what a Zelda game should be, and you have your own. Other player's views also matter, so then we need to decide which one to choose. You say that most players disagree with me, but how many people is that really? The game journalists, and people on this and other forums? How much does that amount to? A few hundred thousand? ( ignoring the fact that you haven't personally heard all these people ). Already they don't represent all of the buyers of Zelda games, so we have to look at the sales.

The major argument in my favour is that the 1st Zelda was a massive success, so they should strive to replicate what made it such a success. It also happens to be the 2nd or 3rd best selling Zelda game, at a time when the population is smallest relative to the Zelda series existence. Finally, the latest Zelda, spirit tracks, sold only about half of it's predecessor, which is pretty bad, and it represents a lot of the things that has made the series worse, so people don't want that direction. So my opinioin seems to represent the majority's, and thus that's what Zelda should be.

Mr Khan, what I think about that is that making 2D mario should be a much bigger priority than 3D mario, since the sales for the former are so much bigger, yet this is not the case. Contrary to what some people might think, 3D mario is not 2D mario in 3D, but a different game. Which is fine, the two can coexist, but 10 million sales in 8 weeks versus 9 million over 4 years?  It's quite obvious which one has priority, and is more liked by people.

Dahuman, the remarks you're making are incredibly superficial. It almost sounds like the usual tripe I read on other game forums. I won't expad on all your examples, but aking the 1st two games, they are more similar to each other than the later games. Whilst the newer Zelda games are about the story, and puzzles ( mostly ), the 1st two are action-RPG's, mixing fast arcade combat, and RPG elements, like an open world ( at least I think it's the case for Zelda 2, never managed to get past the 1st dungeon ). Zelda 2 merely accentuated the RPG elements, by adding more NPC's and actual stats with leveling up. So no, I am not trolling myself here.