LordTheNightKnight said:
|
No the point is it was still a failure, regardless of reason
LordTheNightKnight said:
It seems the word is thrown around just because a lot of you think there isn't another word or term to describe these. |
Making money alone doesn't mean it isn't a flop, if it fails to do what it is intended to do, and actually causes a decline its a flop, a failure, as you yourself admitted it was
axt113 said:
Actually yeah, see more people buying it means it has greater appeal, and how do you explain the success of NSMB if games can't have consistent appeal? Also, yeah you can say 3D Zelda is the problem, since its fan-base hasn't kept pace with increases in population or console base, in addition, if OoT was able to sell as well as it did, then it is a sign of 3D decline if it cannot get back to that point even on a far larger base, in fact two console bases |
You misunderstand. I mean that a larger potential userbase (console installbase) doesn't equate to a game having increased appeal.
The New Super Mario Bros. games were the first traditional 2-D Mario platformers in something like a decade. It's not a good point of comparison for whether or not stagnation has much to do with sales.
And no, you can't say that - because that implies that 2D Zelda isn't a problem, which it clearly was (every subsequent 2D Zelda sellingl ess than the last, which was not true of the 3D games). So you acknowledge that 2D Zelda was declining, by your logic?
Umm, Lttp sold more than LoZ 2, and Link's awakening sold more than LttP, so I think you may want to recheck that theory
Actually yeah it does, because if there was any real stagnation, people would have gotten their nostalgic fix with the DS version of NSMB, but the Wii version is still selling strong
No it doesn't but it does indicate that there is plenty of opportunity for people to own the game, and that they choose not to, indicates a lack of appeal
axt113 said:
|
Yes, it does. The term in show business means an utter failure, which includes being a financial failure. Take that out, and "utter" cannot apply. So if it makes money, even if it fails in other ways, it cannot by definition be a flop, no matter how much you try to shoehorn in the term. It doesn't make it a flop. It just makes you look ignorant of the term.
A similar thing happened with Batman Returns. It made a lot of money, but the merchandising was nowhere near as good as the first movie, so that's why the series went in the direction of Batman Forever. So it was a similar failure, but not a flop.
A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.
Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs
| axt113 said: Umm, Lttp sold more than LoZ 2, and Link's awakening sold more than LttP, so I think you may want to recheck that theory Actually yeah it does, because if there was any real stagnation, people would have gotten their nostalgic fix with the DS version of NSMB, but the Wii version is still selling strong No it doesn't but it does indicate that there is plenty of opportunity for people to own the game, and that they choose not to, indicates a lack of appeal |
Oh dear. So Wind Waker selling more than Majora's Mask, and Twilight Princess selling more than Wind Waker - that counts for something, right? No, by your previous logic, that is all irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the series was on a long slow decline from the first game. 2D Zeldas never recovered, and no 2D Zelda got as close to the first game as TP got to OoT.
"Stagnation" is nont two games within four years of each other. You're ignoring perspective, here.
A lack of appeal (which I agree with) does nont equate to the idea that 2D has inherently more appeal than 3D. That conclusion has not been logically arrived at yet.
Khuutra said:
Oh dear. So Wind Waker selling more than Majora's Mask, and Twilight Princess selling more than Wind Waker - that counts for something, right? No, by your previous logic, that is all irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the series was on a long slow decline from the first game. 2D Zeldas never recovered, and no 2D Zelda got as close to the first game as TP got to OoT. "Stagnation" is nont two games within four years of each other. You're ignoring perspective, here. A lack of appeal (which I agree with) does nont equate to the idea that 2D has inherently more appeal than 3D. That conclusion has not been logically arrived at yet. |
Now the maze/arcade gameplay aspect might have more merit, since while I like Minish Cap, it does not quite have that despite being 2D.
A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.
Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs
Khuutra said:
Oh dear. So Wind Waker selling more than Majora's Mask, and Twilight Princess selling more than Wind Waker - that counts for something, right? No, by your previous logic, that is all irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the series was on a long slow decline from the first game. 2D Zeldas never recovered, and no 2D Zelda got as close to the first game as TP got to OoT. "Stagnation" is nont two games within four years of each other. You're ignoring perspective, here. A lack of appeal (which I agree with) does nont equate to the idea that 2D has inherently more appeal than 3D. That conclusion has not been logically arrived at yet. |
No, my point is that its not whether one game sells more than the previous game, its that they don't expand beyond its previous high-water mark, no 3D game has gone beyond OoT, and your argument that no 2D game got as close is false, as actually Link's awakening got closer to LOZ 1 than TP did to OoT; but that's still irrelevant as neither broke their high-water marks, but with 3D the decline has been worse considering the rising population of the market and the console base.
No I'm not, because it proves that people are not tired of the game play of 2d mario
Perhaps, perhaps not, depends on whether there is any correlation between base size and software sales, but even if there isn't you must agree, that it is time to see, 3D has failed, so try 2D, worse case scenario, it fails as well, and you're no worse off, best case, it succeeds and increases the franchise
| axt113 said: No, my point is that its not whether one game sells more than the previous game, its that they don't expand beyond its previous high-water mark, no 3D game has gone beyond OoT, and your argument that no 2D game got as close is false, as actually Link's awakening got closer to LOZ 1 than TP did to OoT; but that's still irrelevant as neither broke their high-water marks, but with 3D the decline has been worse considering the rising population of the market and the console base. No I'm not, because it proves that people are not tired of the game play of 2d mario Perhaps, perhaps not, depends on whether there is any correlation between base size and software sales, but even if there isn't you must agree, that it is time to see, 3D has failed, so try 2D, worse case scenario, it fails as well, and you're no worse off, best case, it succeeds and increases the franchise |
Horse spittle. Link's Awakening was - what? 1.5 million away from LoZ? Unless you would care to combine the DX version with the original version (which seems rather counter-intuitive), Twilight Princess was a lot closer to OoT (within 600,000 copies by VGChartz numbers) than LA to LoZ.
And as I said before: "rising population of the market and the console base" does not equate to an equivalent rise in appeal for a series. If the appeal of the series rose, sales would rise regardless of installbase - which is why Ocarina of Time is the best-selling game in the series in spite of being on the N64. Again: installabase has no equivalent relation to sales when it comes to Zelda.
People would be hard-pressed to be tired of the gameplay of 2D Mario wen we've had two of them in the past 15 years. That's my point. You can't get repetition or user exhaustion from two games in fifteen years. That's not how it works.
2D already "failed", but 3D cannot be said to have failed because we don't know how much each installment is expected to sell - if Twilight Princess was jsut intended to beat out Wind Waker, then it's a screaming success. You're speaking about a standard of success which may or may not be relevant. It's not useful as a talking point.
|
With all the interviews and noise at E3 2010, Miyamoto and Aonuma told us several things. One of these things is that they have been playing many of the older games, such as Nintendo classics. Another thing they have done is seriously discuss whether to make an ‘old school’ Zelda (like Link to the Past). The reader might ask, “Why are they playing older games? What is going on here, Malstrom?” It is important for people in a company to act like their customers. It is a very bad idea for people in a company to only use the company’s products. So you will see Nintendo employees freely admit they play the Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3. Their own customers play other game consoles, why shouldn’t they? But the old school gamer is very different. The old school gamer rejects all new game consoles and keeps playing their Atari, NES, SNES, Genesis, and so on. In order to tap into these type of consumers, it would help to play the games they do. One thing I have wondered is how the hell did Nintendo stray so far from its roots? The answer is that while we, the lowly gamers, play and constantly replay older games, Nintendo developers do not. For example, I replay Super Mario Brothers 3 and Super Mario World constantly. At least several times a year. I replay games like Super Metroid constantly. I replay games like Link to the Past over and over. In fact, I replayed Link to the Past instead of buying the DS Zelda games. I felt I would get more satisfaction that way. Nintendo developers have no need to replay older games. I believe after years of development, the Nintendo developer would probably get sick of the game. Now, they occasionally will play a game from their competitor. But why would a Nintendo developer play an older Nintendo game (unless they are doing a direct sequel to it)? I’m getting the impression that the success of NSMB DS changed things at Nintendo. NSMB DS brought in many of the old school gamers and this gave the green light to make games like Donkey Kong Country 4 (from Retro) to Kirby Epic Yarn (2d Kirby!). And clearly, Mario 5 would not have been desired by the Nintendo salespeople if NSMB DS was not the success that it was. With the success of games like Mario 5, we can imagine Aonuma and Miyamoto discussing whether to make an old school Zelda game. After all, the Zelda franchise has seen considerable erosion. I believe the antidote to the Core Market decline can be found in the ‘old school values’ of classic games (that defined the franchises in the first place). This is not ‘retro games’ as in Nintendo making old games again. No one wants to play ‘retro games’ with new graphics. We want new games. Mario 5 is a good example of this being done correctly. The old school values are what I would call terra firma (if a hardcore gamer happens to be reading this, it is Latin for ‘solid ground’). A game like 2d Mario is never going to ‘decline’ and will provide very consistent sales. Of course, this isn’t going to lead Nintendo to the ‘New World’ of gaming as a mass medium. Nintendo still has to make games like Wii Fit. But I believe the old school values can stop and even reverse the Core Market decline. Concerning an old school Zelda, before I have said that I did not think it necessary because Ocarina of Time is the Zelda game that is the best selling. Unlike Mario games, where 2d Mario clearly outsold any and all 3d Mario games, the big sales of Zelda very much came with games like Ocarina when the series went 3d. I thought Zelda didn’t need to go old school style in order to recapture some of its values. Intense arcade-like gameplay could be added to Zelda through Motion Plus Wii Sports Resort type mechanics, for example. The stupid interactions with the NPCs could easily be minimized or removed. But yet, there still felt like something old school Zelda was doing that modern Zelda could not do. I could not place my finger on it. Recently, I spoke to an old friend. Like me, he was a big NES Era gamer. However, he stopped playing games. He was a huge Zelda fan. Today, he despises Zelda. He is one of those who thought the art style of Wind Waker was ‘atrocious’ (he calls it “kiddy Zelda”). He did buy a Wii, and I think he did play through Twilight Princess (but I don’t think he really enjoyed it). He told me, “That game, Mario 5, was so awesome. I played the hell out of that game. Lately, my girlfriend picked up Super Mario Galaxy 2, and I played that. It just isn’t the same.” And then he turned to me and said, “You know what we need now? A new classic Zelda game!” Apparently, he wanted to play the hell out of an old school Zelda game just as he did with Mario 5. There are other indicators as well than my anecdotal network of old schoolers.
But why? It is a mockery of old school Zelda as the four Links do “puzzles” in separate and distinct levels. Despite that, people still gravitate to the top down view. What is it about old school Zelda that modern Zelda can never, ever emulate or copy? Maze gameplay. Throughout video games, we can see popular themes emerge. For example, one theme is how popular ‘maps’ are in video games from overworld maps in Super Mario Brothers 3 and Super Mario World to cloth maps included in Ultima games to maps in Zelda, RPGs, and other games. People love maps. Another popular theme in video games, but appears to have been forgotten today, is maze gameplay. What is maze gameplay?
The above game is Maze Craze for the Atari 2600. It was published in 1978. Do not laugh, reader. The game is actually very fun even today. It is way more fun than anything released on the PlayStation 3.
Here is an even older game. This is Gotcha from 1973.
Actually, Gotcha was the game with two domed joysticks which appeared like breasts. Here is the advert for Gotcha, and I leave any conclusions up to the reader.
The above is Beserk from 1982. It is awesome. It is considered a maze game.
Ahh, it is Wizard of Wor. The year is 1980.
Look! It is the Amazing Maze Game! It came out in 1976.
Maze War from 1972 from Xerox. This is the very beginning of the First Person Shooter. Yes, the FPS is a maze game. It is people running around a maze trying to shoot one another.
The most famous maze game, Pac-Man, from 1979. The point is that maze games were the bread and butter of early gaming. Pac-Man, the quintessential hit video-game, was a maze game. But from here on, the maze game history gets foggy and ends. What if someone made a Maze RPG? It would be so much fun. So simple, yet so interesting and timeless. What if someone already made this game?
Much has been written about the Legend of Zelda (1986), but I don’t think anyone has described it as a ‘maze’ game. Yet, it is! When the Nintendo Fun Club released the map for Zelda, it was a sensation as Nintendo realized how much value things like maps had.
It isn’t an overworld, it is a maze. And are these dungeons? No, they are yet more mazes.
When you are in a maze, what do you need? You need a map. And you know what else you need? A compass to point you to the boss. The Legend of Zelda provided these things. Modern Zelda still has the map and compass but they feel wrong, as if they are not needed. Why? It is because modern Zelda is not about mazes but about puzzles.
Zelda 2 was filled with mazes. Each palace was a massive maze. The Great Palace had people go through constant circles with invisible walls, holes where you were supposed to fall through, it was purely epic.
Again, there is no overworld. It is a maze. The maze-as-overworld really pops out in areas like Death Mountain and the Fourth Palace in the upper right corner. Zelda is the Maze RPG.
The maze continues! Look at all the maze gameplay in Link to the Past. Is it any surprise that the more memorable parts of modern Zelda were the ‘maze-like’ areas such as the Lost Woods in Ocarina of Time? The point should be made clear that Zelda was a Maze RPG, not a puzzle RPG. The reason why there should be a new old school Zelda is because modern Zelda is unable to capture that maze element. A maze requires an overhead view otherwise you end up with a labyrinth and a frustrated player. We may have an ally in helping us get a new old school Zelda game:
His favorite Zelda game is Link to the Past. I think he would be rather enthusiastic if they made another one like it. While I am looking forward to Skyward Sword, I don’t think it is possible for modern Zelda to capture the ‘Maze gameplay’. Imagine a new old school Zelda that has music like this…
|
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
