artur-fernand said:
|
It's the attitude more than the specifics that are stupid. They are contrasting Xenoblade as a launch title against "the days of Wii Sports" when of course Nintendo was wholly devoted to the casuals and would never launch a new platform with a epic 40-hour anything. I can't speak for you, but to me it's very easy to imagine Nintendo launching a platform with a 40-hour RPG in the days of them launching a platform with a 40-hour action/adventure game. Zelda is not technically an RPG, but it leans in that direction at times, enough so that Monolith Soft has received credit for aiding with the development of the last couple of Zelda games.
This is a ridiculous mistake that I would cry revisionism over if I thought for a second the writer knew what he was talking about. Kohler would have been much better off comparing Xenoblade to the original 3DS (Pilotwings, Nintendogs+Cats) and Wii U (NSMBU, Nintendo Land) launch titles. Instead he took an unfounded potshot at 2006-2007 Nintendo, at a time when they were actually kicking ass. People don't want to remember Twilight Princess, Radiant Dawn, Metroid Prime 3, and Mario Galaxy all releasing within one year of each other.
I wonder where this guy got his "40 hour" figure from too, since according to How Long to Beat, even players who rushed through the game took over 50 hours. The typical playtime is closer to 70-80 hours. Anyway, Twilight Princess falls firmly in the 40-60 hour range, which is not too shabby.
Oh look, he's also misinterpreting Miyamoto's comments about passive gamers, a popular trend lately. GARME JURNALIZM
