| Dodece said: @archbrix 1. My point stands entirely unchanged. You read a value judgment where none existed. I merely pointed out that at the end of the day there is no physical limitation preventing a backward compatibility with a non motion controller. The point is entirely valid whether you prefer motion control or not, and intuitiveness is not any kind of requirement. It isn't holding back non motion based consoles now or in the past. It will not hold back future consoles either. 2. The historian argument is one of the tiredest cliches on this forum. What Nintendo did a quarter of a century ago does not excuse, or justify what Nintendo is doing today. Time changes things, and not always for the better. Whether you like it, or not developers are required to prove themselves anew with each new game they release. No developer gets a free ride through life. To put it bluntly past credentials mean jack shit. The only things that matter is what they are doing in the here and now. The development process Nintendo uses now is a shadow of its former self. What you have to understand is this. Nintendo does not believe in developing a series, but instead in reiterating a series. They simply copy a old game, and shine it up to look new. However it isn't new it is the same game as the last time and the time before that. A few new gimmicks, but no foundational changes. This is what I am talking about they are not really developing a series. They are just bringing back last generations game with a new paint job. That to me is lazy. So lazy in fact that the rest of the developer community wouldn't even dare consider doing this. They know if the new game they make is a spitting image of the last one they would find themselves both lambasted, and totally despised by the fans. Nintendo seemingly pulls their gag off with spacing. Keeping the games far enough apart so almost nobody notices it is the same game all over again. They are keeping expectations low in this way as well. If you saw these sames games two or three times a generation. You would demand to see major improvements. No it is not something other developers do too. To claim that all but a very small minority are anywhere close to Nintendo in this regard is just plain silly. If the Halo series saw the amount of improvement in ten years that games like Mario Kart have seen in fifteen. The players simply wouldn't have tolerated that at all. They simply demand so much more, and I cannot fathom why Nintendo loyalists do not demand the same. Why should you be happy in getting such little improvement. When what you deserve are quantum leaps. Seeing as you asked me questions I will ask you one. What standards are you holding Nintendo up to with their big franchises. I know where I would have expected them to be right now. I want to know is it something like no real change in a game is a good change. I know a lot of Nintendo loyalists are afraid of any change. Sounds boring to me personally. Just curious where you stand at what point will you get upset with Nintendo if you do not see real changes being made. |
1. My point stands entirely unchanged as well. Like I said, it is not impossible to make a bowling or tennis game playable on a standard controller, but the experience of control is completely different than it is using a Wii remote or Move wand. I prefer motion controls only where motion controls should be applied, not where they are forced on you. You seem to regard motion controls only as the latter as opposed to realizing how they can favorably overhaul certain types of games. Do you think that Wii Sports would have been the system selling phenomenon it was if you controlled it with a standard controller?
2. I do believe that past credentials mean more than "jack shit", but the "here and now" was already addressed by me in the form of Wii's motion controls and the DS' touch screen. Sony and Microsoft have followed Nintendo's motion lead for a reason, and what portable device these days doesn't have a touch screen? Just because you didn't see these ideas as innovative in gaming doesn't mean no one else did.
To answer your question, I will somewhat agree with you that Nintendo does often rehash many of their franchises again and again (just as I mentioned before), but at the same time, changing something too much results in it ceasing to keep its identity. Seriously, how is Halo really all that different than it was in 2001? If it became something like, say, Fallout 3, the people who expect Halo would be disappointed, and I wouldn't blame them... that's not what they anticipated. I don't want Zelda to become Skyrim or Mario Kart to become Gran Turismo. If I want those games, I'll play those games. I will only concede to the fact that first, Nintendo should branch out into more cinematic presentation and story with some of their games, and second, they should come up with some new franchises in general.
