What has Nintendo done to upset you?

[FunAtParties]

Nintendo let Rare go because all their talent was gone at that point. Wasn't that hard of a decision, honestly...

Talent comes and goes in the industry all the time, the reason to buy the studio is the IPs, new talent can fill in later. Rare made a point of wanting to be purchased by Nintendo before they sold to Microsoft, if Nintendo ponied up when they had the chance, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

My personal complaint is Nintendo's jumping ship of Wii U, and secrecy behind the NX. After 2014, Wii U had some momentum behind it even with the marketing disasters and third parties moving on the PS4 and Xbox1. Instead of keeping at it and trying to give a couple more good years to the Wii U and the loyal fans that bought it, after last year's E3 it was all but apparent Nintendo was abandoning it sooner than we thought. It's probably not the worst decision, but it was finally starting to look decent and I think the announcement of a new Animal Crossing and Metroid could've made waves, but they obviously disagree and now we move to the future, one that we know very little about.

We've known about the NX for over a year now, it's all but confirmed the Wii U's replacement, LoZ Wii U was once again delayed most likely to help give it a decent launch. We know that Pikmin 4 exists in some sense, Retro has been working on something for a long, long time, a new 3D Mario game is supposedly in development, and they're all likely being pushed back for NX. All this has or can be inferred, but none of it's confirmed, which isn't a bad thing... yet. Now we have E3 2016 a couple days away, and even with it's ever worsening reputation it's still seen as the biggest gaming press event of the year... and the NX won't be there.

I honestly don't get why, if Nintendo wants to get people excited for their new project wouldn't you think they'd take advantage of the biggest event of the year? Everyone likes this company that does their own thing, but after around 2 decades of that biting them in the ass, you'd think they'd say 'huh maybe it's time to adapt'. Each of their last 4 home consoles, as much as I've enjoyed 3 of them, have been failures in their own specific ways that have hurt them in the long term. Nintendo's blue ocean **** is not working, they need to make a console that can compete power-wise, attract third parties, and bridge the game between family entertainment and hardcore gaming. As impossible as they want to make it seem, they've never even attempted to do anything of this nature; they've relied on gimmicks the last two gens, shunned online until recently, and have made life hell on third parties since the beginning, now's the time to change and a great way would be to kill it this year at E3, but seeing that they won't be doing THAT I have no reason to believe anything else will change either.

 

[Synnett]

"Gimmick" here is just a derogative buzzword that can apply to literally any game, and it's usually indicative of somebody coming in on modern Nintendo wanting to hate a game.

Wat

That's bias right here. Gimme a source.

On the Gamecube's side, it still sold pretty well. (It's Nintendo's fault for putting the budget too high, as many customers didn't feel the need to buy another console after the N64, they pretty much moved on - which happened with the Wii too.) In fact, its appeal was in the games offered for the console, with a tons of them being memorable, like the Super Monkey Ball series, the two Zelda games, Smash Melee, Mario Sunshine, Metroid Prime, Luigi's Mansion, F-Zero GX, Paper Mario, Pokemon XD and Stadium, Karaoke Revolution Party, the Need for Speed games, etc. A great, quality variety that the later consoles lacked. I mean, Wii Sports was fun, but no one plays it nowaday, not very memorable. Also, many franchises had to drop because of that gimmicky controller, a good example being the Need for Speed series, the last one on a nintendo console being Carbon on the gamecube. Of course it still had Super Paper Mario, Mario Galaxy, Raving Rabbids... and that's pretty much it, which is the issue. The Zelda game for the console was so bad that I regretted buying a Wii altogether. Also, the simplicity of the Gamecube, which is grab a classic controller and sit down, is really a plus for me.

For me, the Gamecube is number one, followed by the N64 and the SNES/NES. I mean, gimmicks can be fun, but it's so hard to exploit to get a good game, and most of the time they are just annoying and a parasite to the game, which could have worked very well with the pro controller. When those gimmicks are simply forced into the game, that's when it becomes annoying. And now, with the Wii U, the gimmicks with that gamepad were so invasive that barely any good games came out for the Wii U, even that the best game on the console, Sm4sh, does not even use it.

And the fact that I still choose to go buy some Gamecube games instead of playing on my PC and Wii U might ring a bell.

 

[Iceweasel]

And the fact that I still choose to go buy some Gamecube games instead of playing on my PC and Wii U might ring a bell.

Protip: Use your Wii to dump your GC games. Now you can play them on your PC. It's even better than the originals, since you can upres to 1080p.

 

[Cardboardtubeknight]

I hate Nintendo so much that I love them

 

[SimonBarSinister]

People can't justify it by itself anymore unless it does something else or it's "amazing" like the Wii was... Most people spend more time watching then playing on their gaming systems nowadays. If TVs had the hardware then we'd see the equivalent of Candy Crush outselling even the biggest names in gaming.

Can you back that up? Because I find that claim to be a little far-fetched.

Sales, third party support, same things as the Wii U really.

I don't believe the GCN bombed as hard in those areas as the Wii U.

"Gimmick" here is just a derogative buzzword that can apply to literally any game, and it's usually indicative of somebody coming in on modern Nintendo wanting to hate a game.

I don't know about you, but I'm not using the word in that sense. I'm referring to "gimmick" as a means of interaction in gaming (AKA the controller). Call me old-fashioned, but just give me a controller with buttons and analog sticks on it and I'll be good to go. For the most part, none of the bells and whistles offered now has been as fun as what was available 2 generations ago.

LoZSS and SF0 are going to be looked back as masterpieces misunderstood for their time much like LoZMM was.

Nah. I don't know about Skyward Sword, but for SFZ the insistence of the Gamepad's controls will forever be a mark against it. Let's be honest, who actually wanted to play a Starfox game like that? I know I didn't. I think Nintendo fooled themselves into thinking that was the case. And besides, if people don't like aspects of certain games now, what could possibly change their minds later?

Anybody can enjoy any modern Nintendo game regardless of so-called "gimmicks." "Gimmicks" made Nintendo to begin with.

Explain.

 

[Iceweasel]

Explain.

Well, ROB was intended to revive the American market after the Atari crash. Besides that... I dunno. The SNES CD never came out, though I guess you could make a (weak) case for calling the Super FX chip a gimmick. The Virutal Boy was a gimmick, but that hardly made Nintendo. Heck, it's one of the industry's most infamous failures, and came well after they were an established force in the market.

Maybe he's referring to Player 2's Famicom controller? Unless he can dig up sources, I'm going to say that the microphone did absolutely nothing to move Famicom games or hardware. Besides Zelda 1, I can't even think of a game that used it, though I haven't exactly looked.

Maybe, if we really stretch it, he's talking about the FDS. Which we never got in the states and had a notoriously high piracy rate in its native Japan, so it's unlikely that it "made Nintendo", from a financial standpoint.

Heck, even ROB is kind of questionable. The way most sources tell the story, NoA included ROB with the NES as a bundle to disguise the fact that it's a video game system, if not outright try to deceive retailers.

 

[ILOVESMASH]

One thing that has really upset me as of late is the really limited power of the 3ds. Constant slowdown in alot of games, bad textures, and pop in issues are becoming more and more irritating for me to deal with in the 3ds games I play. I really hope Nintendo makes their next handheld system significantly more powerful (at least able to run games at HD resolutions) so these issues no longer occur.

 

[SimonBarSinister]

Well, ROB was intended to revive the American market after the Atari crash. Besides that... I dunno. The SNES CD never came out, though I guess you could make a (weak) case for calling the Super FX chip a gimmick. The Virutal Boy was a gimmick, but that hardly made Nintendo. Heck, it's one of the industry's most infamous failures, and came well after they were an established force in the market.

Maybe he's referring to Player 2's Famicom controller? Unless he can dig up sources, I'm going to say that the microphone did absolutely nothing to move Famicom games or hardware. Besides Zelda 1, I can't even think of a game that used it, though I haven't exactly looked.

Maybe, if we really stretch it, he's talking about the FDS. Which we never got in the states and had a notoriously high piracy rate in its native Japan, so it's unlikely that it "made Nintendo", from a financial standpoint.

Heck, even ROB is kind of questionable. The way most sources tell the story, NoA included ROB with the NES as a bundle to disguise the fact that it's a video game system, if not outright try to deceive retailers.

I think ROB is more of an accessory, an option. It wasn't something that made the NES what it is. That would be the games that allowed the NES to make a name for itself. And wasn't ROB only used for like, 2 incredibly niche games? Not much of a selling point if you ask me, especially for an accessory.

Isn't the Super FX chip (and other related hardware components) more of a hardware advancement than a console gimmick? It did allow the Super NES to reach higher graphical limits (in select games anyway), but for the most part it just made games look graphically superior rather than affect how we played them.

 

[LancerStaff]

Wat

That's bias right here. Gimme a source.

Remember how "everybody" hated the gyro in Splatoon? Nowadays you wouldn't be caught dead playing without it. The "gimmick" hate is blind and dumb, and exists in every generation. See Majora's Mask and the initial hate of the time travel gimmick, and SMS and the hate of the squirtgun.

On the Gamecube's side, it still sold pretty well. (It's Nintendo's fault for putting the budget too high, as many customers didn't feel the need to buy another console after the N64, they pretty much moved on - which happened with the Wii too.) In fact, its appeal was in the games offered for the console, with a tons of them being memorable, like the Super Monkey Ball series, the two Zelda games, Smash Melee, Mario Sunshine, Metroid Prime, Luigi's Mansion, F-Zero GX, Paper Mario, Pokemon XD and Stadium, Karaoke Revolution Party, the Need for Speed games, etc. A great, quality variety that the later consoles lacked. I mean, Wii Sports was fun, but no one plays it nowaday, not very memorable. Also, many franchises had to drop because of that gimmicky controller, a good example being the Need for Speed series, the last one on a nintendo console being Carbon on the gamecube. Of course it still had Super Paper Mario, Mario Galaxy, Raving Rabbids... and that's pretty much it, which is the issue. The Zelda game for the console was so bad that I regretted buying a Wii altogether. Also, the simplicity of the Gamecube, which is grab a classic controller and sit down, is really a plus for me.

Nobody bought the N64, so your logic is faulty...

The Wii had SMG1 & 2, the first (completely original) console Warioware and Wario Land, MK8, the first 2D Mario on a console since SMW, a really good Kirby spin-off and the first mainline entry on a console since 64, the first DKC game in forever, Brawl, Xenoblade, Sonic Colors, Rayman Origins, two Zeldas, Punch-Out, Metroid Prime 3 and the whole trilogy collection, and a ton of Mario sports games.

The Wii U has Cat Mario, NSMBU and NSLU, DKCTF, an actual good successor to Starfox 64, MK8, Xenoblade X, SSBU, the Bayonetta series and W101, Rayman Legends, Pokken Tournament, Splatoon, Hyrule Warriors, Zelda U, and two Zelda ports, Mario Maker, Yoshi's Woolly World, worthwhile spin-offs in Captain Toad and Kirby and the Rainbow Curse, and a lot of notable indie support like Shovel Knight.

Probably one of the biggest reasons I don't like the GC was that it lacked a fun mainline Mario. I stand by my opinion that SMS was garbage and fell in every pitfall that everybody else had already vaulted over the previous generation. It's "gimmick" was far more intrusive then any
control "gimmick" you can find in an official Nintendo game and was 1/4 padding just so they could say it had as many shines as 64 had stars.

See, I love games like LoZSS and SF0 because there's a ton of room for growth and improvement because of the controls. Compare somebody just scraping by in the final fight in SS to a speedrunner, or somebody's first Aquarosa fight to Gamexplain's strategy. I don't really care for the shoehorned motion controls in SS but I don't think they really detract from the game either... SS also fell victim to an unfortunate localization change where for some reason the text was made slower for no good reason, which on top of how English is inherently slower then Japanese, made it unbearably slow. I honestly want to replay SS again but it definitely needs some polish in some areas like WW. Still playing SF0 though.

Can you back that up? Because I find that claim to be a little far-fetched.

Most gaming being done on non-gaming hardware nowadays should've been a hint.

How many PS4 and XBONE commercials for the actual hardware even had gaming as the main selling point? At best you have gaming on a laundry list of other features for the "all in one" XBONE.

I don't believe the GCN bombed as hard in those areas as the Wii U.

Still wasn't a winning strategy. Since the GC using weaker hardware with a "gimmick" has netted them success more often the not counting the DS and 3DS. Looking at just consoles it's 50/50, and arguably the Wii U only failed because of how it was unveiled. Nintendo's going to take that risk again with another tablet controller if the patents are anything to go by.

I don't know about you, but I'm not using the word in that sense. I'm referring to "gimmick" as a means of interaction in gaming (AKA the controller). Call me old-fashioned, but just give me a controller with buttons and analog sticks on it and I'll be good to go. For the most part, none of the bells and whistles offered now has been as fun as what was available 2 generations ago.

SS and SF0 don't work without motion controls though... They're completely unique experiences that only work with Nintendo's hardware. Similarly Splatoon and Mario Maker benefit a ton from the unique controller. You say gimmick, I say innovation.

Nah. I don't know about Skyward Sword, but for SFZ the insistence of the Gamepad's controls will forever be a mark against it. Let's be honest, who actually wanted to play a Starfox game like that? I know I didn't. I think Nintendo fooled themselves into thinking that was the case. And besides, if people don't like aspects of certain games now, what could possibly change their minds later?

I was skeptical too, since that was a gigantic fundamental change... So big it made Sakurai decide against using the Starfox IP when creating KIU.

It actually allows for a greater level of mastery then what 64 had, and it makes replaying levels even more fun. If you're the type of person who'd put 64 back on the shelf after simply beating Andross, you're not the intended audience for SF0.

People changed their minds on MM. If there's a good game in there, why wouldn't they change their minds?

Explain.

Everything was a gimmick at one point. Even something as simple as scrolling backgrounds was a gimmick. If the internet existed back then like it does today you'd have people complaining about how Mario switched from single screens to levels multiple screens long. Even back then they were always advertising graphics and the size of the worlds... "Open world" is quickly becoming the new mainstream gimmick that FPSes were, and now everybody wants to shoehorn it into everything regardless of if they actually understand what it means or not.

The line between "innovative gameplay element" and "gimmick" is 100% arbitrary. Smash's king of the hill gameplay is a gimmick. Kirby's copy ability is a gimmick. SMS's FLUDD is a gimmick. MM's time travel is a gimmick. MKDD's two man karts are a gimmick. Gimmick =/= motion controls, and gimmick =/= bad. Every major Nintendo game has a gimmick.

 

[Doctor Wario]

Personally, I would have really liked to see super mario maker on the 3ds. Becasue I don't have a wii u, I can't play it, and it looks like a really fun game. I wish they would make a port over to the 3ds.

 

[Iceweasel]

The line between "innovative gameplay element" and "gimmick" is 100% arbitrary. Smash's king of the hill gameplay is a gimmick. Kirby's copy ability is a gimmick. SMS's FLUDD is a gimmick. MM's time travel is a gimmick. MKDD's two man karts are a gimmick. Gimmick =/= motion controls, and gimmick =/= bad. Every major Nintendo game has a gimmick.

So, according to you, things like 3D, analog joysticks, and new genres weren't introduced to sate consumer demand for more immersive games, address potential pitfalls with using the new advances, or try styles that didn't work on less powerful systems, but used as dancing bears for idiots to buy?

 

[LancerStaff]

So, according to you, things like 3D, analog joysticks, and new genres weren't introduced to sate consumer demand for more immersive games, address potential pitfalls with using the new advances, or try styles that didn't work on less powerful systems, but used as dancing bears for idiots to buy?

I'm saying they're on the same level as 3D screens, touch screens, motion controls, and games that don't work without them.

They're all hooks for people to bite. Just because you like a plain metal hook doesn't mean that other fish can't like frog lures.

 

[Iceweasel]

I'm saying they're on the same level as 3D screens, touch screens, motion controls, and games that don't work without them.

They're all hooks for people to bite. Just because you like a plain metal hook doesn't mean that other fish can't like frog lures.

Everyone hates the 3D screen for being a POS that doesn't work, drains power, lags the game, and in some cases drops the framerate from 60 to 30.

The touch screen isn't all that useful. The only decent usage I've seen for it (besides just being another screen, which is really awesome to allow complex games on tiny screens) is to allow input in the Yu-Gi-Oh games, which is a pain without it.

Casuals (and some non-casuals who got suckered in) liked the motion controls, and even they quit. It's about as dancing bear as it gets.

Most games can work without the gimmicks. Most of the rest aren't worth thinking about, from a businessman or gamer POV.

 

[LancerStaff]

Everyone hates the 3D screen for being a POS that doesn't work, drains power, lags the game, and in some cases drops the framerate from 60 to 30.

The touch screen isn't all that useful. The only decent usage I've seen for it (besides just being another screen, which is really awesome to allow complex games on tiny screens) is to allow input in the Yu-Gi-Oh games, which is a pain without it.

Casuals (and some non-casuals who got suckered in) liked the motion controls, and even they quit. It's about as dancing bear as it gets.

Most games can work without the gimmicks. Most of the rest aren't worth thinking about, from a businessman or gamer POV.

3D when implemented properly won't lag the game or cut the framerate. The majority of Nintendo games have no performance differences with 3D on or off... There's an odd example in Kirby Robobot where it lags in certain rooms with and without the 3D.

Being able to judge distances with a glance is absurdly useful and incredibly immersive. There's some situations where keeping 3D on isn't feasible but most of the time I could stay in the sweetspot even with the old models. New model only requires you to keep your head still, which ain't exactly hard. If you're curious, the N3DS screen is largely the same as the old screen, but with a smaller true sweetspot. It uses the infared camera to switch the left and right picture around depending on which sweepot you're looking at, and doesn't cost much more then a normal 3DS screen.

You been living under a rock? Touch screens greatly speeds up menus and allows for more organized information in RPGs, and in adventure games it allows you to keep a map or inventory open 24/7 without needing to interrupt action. The people who don't want a touch screen are in the minority... Even the PS4 controller has some limited touch capability.

People still like motion controls, especially gyro aiming. Casuals still like motion controls, otherwise Just Dance wouldn't still be selling like hotcakes. Motion controls when done right add a lot to a game, like SMG for example. Within a generation or two gyro is going to be standard on "normal" controllers just like sticks are.

 

[KirbCider]

It upsets me a little with how they've handled Amiibo. Admittingly they've been doing better; however it was a poor start with them.

When they were released and progressed a lot of them had very few stock, to the point where you might as well treat Amiibo Releases like Black Friday or risk not getting the one you wanted. I'm glad they decided to change that though, and they even decided to restock a lot of the rarer ones so everyone had their chance at getting them more or less. They've still failed to restock a lot of them though which I also consider to be an issue due to some are required (well, not necessarily) to get plenty of in-game extras.

Fire Emblem Fates, Mario Maker, Mario Kart 8, Yoshis Wooly World, Kirby Planet Robobot, etc are prime examples of this.

It may not be a big deal to some, but a lot of people (like myself) enjoy getting the extras. A lot of folks may argue that they haven't restocked any of the older ones that need it because it could ruin their sales of the newer ones. I can sort of see that because they want the newer ones to sell well. They could always take breaks between releasing new ones to restock the older ones though if need be.

But the whole attitude of "We'll give you in game exclusives if you have these Amiibo, but too bad we haven't restocked them!" is upsetting. A prime example of this would also be the Splatoon Amiibo before they got their restocks as well. Again, a lot of people may not treat this as a big deal, but it can be upsetting to others. Other than that I also hate how they treated the Animal Crossing Amiibo, along with the game they made for it as a Cash Grab. Yeah, Amiibos are doing well and all but that was the laziest thing ever.

I'm at least happy they've done better with the stock, and giving them more functionality more or less.

 

[SimonBarSinister]

Most gaming being done on non-gaming hardware nowadays should've been a hint.

How many PS4 and XBONE commercials for the actual hardware even had gaming as the main selling point? At best you have gaming on a laundry list of other features for the "all in one" XBONE.

If my memory serves, The X1 was initially hammered for being just another all-in-one device like everything else on the market instead of being a gaming machine, which is its primary purpose. Any X1-related commercials you see nowadays are geared toward the games it can play, which should be its main selling point. It is a gaming machine after all. The PS4 was met with a more favorable opinion because it was unveiled as what it is, a high end gaming machine. Anything else it can do is an extra feature.

Still wasn't a winning strategy. Since the GC using weaker hardware with a "gimmick" has netted them success more often the not counting the DS and 3DS. Looking at just consoles it's 50/50, and arguably the Wii U only failed because of how it was unveiled. Nintendo's going to take that risk again with another tablet controller if the patents are anything to go by.

The Wii U has plenty of things going against it. For one thing, compared to its peers it's vastly underpowered (which probably led to the lack of third-party support), it has gone through dry spells (concerning Nintendo IPs), lack of a robust online infrastructure, few games utilizing the Gamepad in meaningful ways, or at all, the 3DS getting more attention all around and other issues I'm not thinking about as of this moment. At this point, it seems like Nintendo doesn't want to admit the Wii U was a mistake and are distancing themselves from it as soon as they can. And if they really are going for another gimmicky console like the Wii U, then they clearly haven't learned from their mistakes. Nintendo shouldn't try to reinvent the wheel for the billionth time. You've already got the damn wheel, just keep it rolling.

SS and SF0 don't work without motion controls though... They're completely unique experiences that only work with Nintendo's hardware. Similarly Splatoon and Mario Maker benefit a ton from the unique controller. You say gimmick, I say innovation.

Innovation only works when it's needed or when it's actually useful. SS and SFZ don't do anything that you couldn't already do with a standard controller. Innovation just for the sake of innovation is meaningless. And besides, what was stopping Nintendo from including the Gamepad as an optional control scheme for SFZ instead of making it mandatory? That isn't innovative, that's just bottle-necking. We're forced to go down that route instead of choosing it.

It actually allows for a greater level of mastery then what 64 had, and it makes replaying levels even more fun. If you're the type of person who'd put 64 back on the shelf after simply beating Andross, you're not the intended audience for SF0.

Well I'm not that kind of person as I had lots of fun replaying Starfox 64. I didn't need a control gimmick to bring me back into the game, it brought me back to it on its own merits as an enjoyable game. Same goes for Assault.

Everything was a gimmick at one point. Even something as simple as scrolling backgrounds was a gimmick. If the internet existed back then like it does today you'd have people complaining about how Mario switched from single screens to levels multiple screens long. Even back then they were always advertising graphics and the size of the worlds... "Open world" is quickly becoming the new mainstream gimmick that FPSes were, and now everybody wants to shoehorn it into everything regardless of if they actually understand what it means or not.

The line between "innovative gameplay element" and "gimmick" is 100% arbitrary. Smash's king of the hill gameplay is a gimmick. Kirby's copy ability is a gimmick. SMS's FLUDD is a gimmick. MM's time travel is a gimmick. MKDD's two man karts are a gimmick. Gimmick =/= motion controls, and gimmick =/= bad. Every major Nintendo game has a gimmick.

I think you're using the word "gimmick" in an extremely broad sense, whereas I'm being very specific in my use of the word. Calling every single detail a gimmick kind of dilutes your explanations, and quite frankly, it's making me question your credibility. It's like calling a hammer every tool in existence, when it's clearly a hammer. And just to be clear, I never called gimmicks bad, and gimmicks can certainly mean motion controls (many notable games on the Wii were built around the controls). I just believe that implementing an ever-pervasive gimmick (most notably control-related) into a series that doesn't really need it is not a very good idea, especially if we're going to be locked into it or if it's designed poorly, but mainly the first one.

 

[LancerStaff]

If my memory serves, The X1 was initially hammered for being just another all-in-one device like everything else on the market instead of being a gaming machine, which is its primary purpose. Any X1-related commercials you see nowadays are geared toward the games it can play, which should be its main selling point. It is a gaming machine after all. The PS4 was met with a more favorable opinion because it was unveiled as what it is, a high end gaming machine. Anything else it can do is an extra feature.

Just saw a PS4 advertisement that barely even mentioned gaming an hour ago man.

The Wii U has plenty of things going against it. For one thing, compared to its peers it's vastly underpowered (which probably led to the lack of third-party support), it has gone through dry spells (concerning Nintendo IPs), lack of a robust online infrastructure, few games utilizing the Gamepad in meaningful ways, or at all, the 3DS getting more attention all around and other issues I'm not thinking about as of this moment. At this point, it seems like Nintendo doesn't want to admit the Wii U was a mistake and are distancing themselves from it as soon as they can. And if they really are going for another gimmicky console like the Wii U, then they clearly haven't learned from their mistakes. Nintendo shouldn't try to reinvent the wheel for the billionth time. You've already got the damn wheel, just keep it rolling.

It had third party support in the beginning though, but then they dropped out because they didn't sell unless it's name was Rayman. Besides the some RPGs and colorful platformers third parties generally do terribly on Nintendo consoles, and this has been proven time and time again. Nintendo can't and won't ever get mainstream third party support ever again no matter what they try, and they realize this. That wheel has stopped dead and is flat as hell. That's why after the GC they've been entirely going blue ocean.

Innovation only works when it's needed or when it's actually useful. SS and SFZ don't do anything that you couldn't already do with a standard controller. Innovation just for the sake of innovation is meaningless. And besides, what was stopping Nintendo from including the Gamepad as an optional control scheme for SFZ instead of making it mandatory? That isn't innovative, that's just bottle-necking. We're forced to go down that route instead of choosing it.

Aren't even enough buttons on the controller to play SF0 without gyro. How isn't aiming and moving separately helpful? You'd never notice it in 64 because it's designed for it. Trying to fight even the first boss without gyro is incredibly difficult, and not in a fun way either. First alt boss would be impossible since you'd run out of time. Really, just playing the game instead of sreaming gimmick at it like a ninny makes it incredibly obvious how important the gyro is to have.

Similarly with SS the gameplay as it is wouldn't work without major changes. I mean, it's the first Zelda with even decent combat. How is that not a big deal?

Well I'm not that kind of person as I had lots of fun replaying Starfox 64. I didn't need a control gimmick to bring me back into the game, it brought me back to it on its own merits as an enjoyable game. Same goes for Assault.

The gimmick is that it's something to improve and get better at, not to just flail your arms around. The learning curve is what makes the game fun, and by extension learning how to improve your scores. Assult desperately lacked this... In an Arwing the most depth you had was CSing the obvious enemy formations and hunting for the dumb flags. Zero has a lot more then that, like getting and keeping hyper lasers for the double CS and the bonus for picking up extra upgrades, reshooting enemy fighters, and most importantly it lifts the CUS mechanic from 64 wholesale and gave it it's own convenient button.

I think you're using the word "gimmick" in an extremely broad sense, whereas I'm being very specific in my use of the word. Calling every single detail a gimmick kind of dilutes your explanations, and quite frankly, it's making me question your credibility. It's like calling a hammer every tool in existence, when it's clearly a hammer. And just to be clear, I never called gimmicks bad, and gimmicks can certainly mean motion controls (many notable games on the Wii were built around the controls). I just believe that implementing an ever-pervasive gimmick (most notably control-related) into a series that doesn't really need it is not a very good idea, especially if we're going to be locked into it or if it's designed poorly, but mainly the first one.

"In marketing, product gimmicks are sometimes considered mere novelties, and not really that relevant to the product's functioning, sometimes even earning negative connotations. However, some seemingly trivial gimmicks of the past have evolved into useful, permanent features."

"In marketing terminology, the term gimmick refers to a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries."

This describes copy abilities just as well as motion controls. I don't understand the problem. Again, I'd sooner call SMS a gimmicky POS then SS.

 

[SimonBarSinister]

It had third party support in the beginning though, but then they dropped out because they didn't sell unless it's name was Rayman. Besides the some RPGs and colorful platformers third parties generally do terribly on Nintendo consoles, and this has been proven time and time again. Nintendo can't and won't ever get mainstream third party support ever again no matter what they try, and they realize this. That wheel has stopped dead and is flat as hell. That's why after the GC they've been entirely going blue ocean.

It's most likely Nintendo's own fault that they're in that position to begin with. They aren't showing it, but they probably regret some the decisions they've made in the past few generations. I wouldn't exactly blame third parties for all but abandoning the Wii U, I mean, it's not like Nintendo ever gave them a good reason to develop games for it. I guess developers aren't looking for weird gimmicks for use in their games (totally understandable), and the lower power certainly wasn't an appealing factor. It seems to me that the wheel is flat because Nintendo decided to shoot it themselves.

Aren't even enough buttons on the controller to play SF0 without gyro. How isn't aiming and moving separately helpful? You'd never notice it in 64 because it's designed for it. Trying to fight even the first boss without gyro is incredibly difficult, and not in a fun way either. First alt boss would be impossible since you'd run out of time. Really, just playing the game instead of sreaming gimmick at it like a ninny makes it incredibly obvious how important the gyro is to have.

Similarly with SS the gameplay as it is wouldn't work without major changes. I mean, it's the first Zelda with even decent combat. How is that not a big deal?

How many buttons do you actually need for SFZ? I count 9 functions that you need buttons/control sticks for, not counting buttons for copied functions. And what do they have to with the gyro controls? Gyro is just for aiming. Anyway, my issue with SFZ's controls is that the ability to fly in one direction and shoot in another detracts from the challenge (and subsequently fun) of dogfighting. The way SFZ is set up, you can literally just breeze by a group of enemies and do a drive-by. And the ability to spam those OP as hell charge shots speaks for itself. Where's the fun in that?

Is swinging your arms around wildly to slash at things considered "decent combat"? I don't think it is. I prefer the moves from WW and TP.

The gimmick is that it's something to improve and get better at, not to just flail your arms around. The learning curve is what makes the game fun, and by extension learning how to improve your scores. Assult desperately lacked this... In an Arwing the most depth you had was CSing the obvious enemy formations and hunting for the dumb flags. Zero has a lot more then that, like getting and keeping hyper lasers for the double CS and the bonus for picking up extra upgrades, reshooting enemy fighters, and most importantly it lifts the CUS mechanic from 64 wholesale and gave it it's own convenient button.

I won't dispute that part of the fun in Starfox games is trying to boost high scores. Still think Assault is a lot of fun though.

"In marketing, product gimmicks are sometimes considered mere novelties, and not really that relevant to the product's functioning, sometimes even earning negative connotations. However, some seemingly trivial gimmicks of the past have evolved into useful, permanent features."

"In marketing terminology, the term gimmick refers to a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries."

This describes copy abilities just as well as motion controls. I don't understand the problem. Again, I'd sooner call SMS a gimmicky POS then SS.

The copy abilities are gameplay features that define Kirby. It's standard fare for the series. A gimmick will typically affect that gameplay in certain ways, like Kirby 64's double copy ability system for example.

Eh, I think they're both pretty gimmicky.

 

[LancerStaff]

It's most likely Nintendo's own fault that they're in that position to begin with. They aren't showing it, but they probably regret some the decisions they've made in the past few generations. I wouldn't exactly blame third parties for all but abandoning the Wii U, I mean, it's not like Nintendo ever gave them a good reason to develop games for it. I guess developers aren't looking for weird gimmicks for use in their games (totally understandable), and the lower power certainly wasn't an appealing factor. It seems to me that the wheel is flat because Nintendo decided to shoot it themselves.

You can blame the N64 for that. "The sons shouldn't atone for the father's crimes" and all that jazz.

How many buttons do you actually need for SFZ? I count 9 functions that you need buttons/control sticks for, not counting buttons for copied functions. And what do they have to with the gyro controls? Gyro is just for aiming. Anyway, my issue with SFZ's controls is that the ability to fly in one direction and shoot in another detracts from the challenge (and subsequently fun) of dogfighting. The way SFZ is set up, you can literally just breeze by a group of enemies and do a drive-by. And the ability to spam those OP as hell charge shots speaks for itself. Where's the fun in that?

Is swinging your arms around wildly to slash at things considered "decent combat"? I don't think it is. I prefer the moves from WW and TP.

Bombs, lasers, CUS and camera locking are on the shoulders, while boost, brake and banking are on the right stick. Like this, all these options plus aiming are available all at once. Moving aiming to something else would then either require a third hand and an N64 controller or having to chose between two important actions instead of getting both.

The game accommodes for the extra control by requiring it's use though. It's not just easier because of it... It's like saying SMB is easier then Donkey Kong because you have a run button. Like I said most boss fights would be nearly impossible without it. Generic enemy formations have never been problematic outside of when they'd go for an objective or smash your wings. SF0's tend to be more engaging, though not necessarily because of the controls every time.

WW and TP's combat were braindead. Flailing around in SS gets you killed too. WW's swordplay was actually pretty decent IMO, but the problems arose because you had practically infinite ammo and you got particularly OP itemss through the story. TP's combat consisted of mashing B, using bomb arrows, or getting behind the enemy before mashing, before we get into the pathetically low damage output of every enemy in the game. Both had the problem of spin attacks being a bit too good against bosses because there wasn't ever not a reason to just spam them too.

SS had a lot more. You had a proper heavy/light system with the weak basic slashes and the strong but limited spin attacks and defensive options beyond standing in the obvious blindspots and holding one, maybe two buttons against projectiles. You either had actual dodges with invincibility or a potent stunning counterattack/less laggy "dodge" with heavier punishment for misuse. (Remember that the economy wasn't ****ed up too so losing a shield actually ment something.)

Watch some speedruns and you'll see what I mean. In TP you do the same few things over and over to win. In SS there's quite obviously a gigantic difference between a novice and a master playing.

The games I love the most are the ones I can dig deep into, ones with complexity and depth. What kind of controller I use is irrelevant as long as it works.

The copy abilities are gameplay features that define Kirby. It's standard fare for the series. A gimmick will typically affect that gameplay in certain ways, like Kirby 64's double copy ability system for example.

Eh, I think they're both pretty gimmicky.

Copy abilities were a gimmick that became a mainstay. Nobody ever said gimmicks were bad.

 

[Ulk]

My complaint is only based on rumors, but I don't like how they treat the customers of the Wii U with regard to taking the Wii U's games (Zelda U, Splatoon, Mario Maker, SSB4) and giving possibly enhanced versions of them to the NX. Had we known they were going to make it redundant and replace it in just so few years, I'm pretty sure not all of us would have decided to stick to the Wii U despite its failure.

I'm of course aware that not moving the best selling titles over to the NX, which potentially has a far superior hardware potential, would be a beyond idiotic move from their side... well from an economic point of view. Looking at distribution and marketing, this could be upsetting to some fans like it is to me, but never to the point where not doing that wouldn't be a wasted opportunity.

 

[SimonBarSinister]

You can blame the N64 for that. "The sons shouldn't atone for the father's crimes" and all that jazz.

It doesn't help if the successors keep making the mistakes of their predecessors. This in turn makes them even more foolish for not taking lessons from the past and applying them in meaningful ways to avoid those mistakes in the future.

"Those that do not know their history are doomed to repeat it."

The game accommodes for the extra control by requiring it's use though. It's not just easier because of it... It's like saying SMB is easier then Donkey Kong because you have a run button. Like I said most boss fights would be nearly impossible without it. Generic enemy formations have never been problematic outside of when they'd go for an objective or smash your wings. SF0's tend to be more engaging, though not necessarily because of the controls every time.

It's because they decided to design the game in a way that makes the motion controls mandatory. If Nintendo had designed SFZ with classic controls in mind (which I think they should've done), it would've been viewed in a much more positive light because it wouldn't have been a game that requires a gimmicky controller to play. Seriously, it wouldn't even have been a point of discussion.

WW and TP's combat were braindead. Flailing around in SS gets you killed too. WW's swordplay was actually pretty decent IMO, but the problems arose because you had practically infinite ammo and you got particularly OP itemss through the story. TP's combat consisted of mashing B, using bomb arrows, or getting behind the enemy before mashing, before we get into the pathetically low damage output of every enemy in the game. Both had the problem of spin attacks being a bit too good against bosses because there wasn't ever not a reason to just spam them too.

The main problem with WW was that it's a bit too easy in terms of Zelda games. From the enemies and bosses to the dungeons themselves, there just wasn't enough of a challenge factor that some of the previous games had. I remember TP upping the difficulty scale from WW, but still. I think, combat-wise, both games tried to compensate by throwing hordes of enemies at you at particular moments. But the only times this actually worked is with high-level enemies, most notably Darknuts. TP improved upon them by making their unarmored form much more skilled and troublesome to deal with (you were compelled to make better use of your sword skills). They were also the only enemies that could actually put out some hurt.

About the spin attacks: The Hurricane Spin is awesome. Love everything about it. Any moment that presents an opportunity, I'll just go crazy with it. The Great Spin is ok, but needing full health kind of hampers its viability. And you can't spam spin attacks so much in TP because of the delay.

Despite WW's shortcomings, it's still my favorite game in the series, and I have a soft spot for TP.

The games I love the most are the ones I can dig deep into, ones with complexity and depth. What kind of controller I use is irrelevant as long as it works.

There are two parts to enjoying games for me. The gameplay is the No. 1 factor (obviously), but the controller is also very influential in determining my enjoyment of a game. If I find the controls to be somewhat awkward and uncomfortable they will generally hamper my enjoyment. It's why I value the GCN controller so much. Many of the games I've played on the GCN had ridiculously good gameplay, and the GCN controller complimented them almost perfectly. It never really felt detrimental. SFZ's controls work, yes, but they are inherently flawed in that Starfox isn't a point-and-shoot type of game. Much of the gameplay entails dogfighting in a true aerial combat sense, and SFZ's controls detract from that aspect. As far as I'm concerned, a classic series like Starfox shouldn't be beset with invasive control gimmicks.

Nobody ever said gimmicks were bad.

That's right. All I said was that implementing them stupidly and/or out of place is a bad idea.

 

[LancerStaff]

It doesn't help if the successors keep making the mistakes of their predecessors. This in turn makes them even more foolish for not taking lessons from the past and applying them in meaningful ways to avoid those mistakes in the future.

"Those that do not know their history are doomed to repeat it."

Nothing can be done though. Even if Nintendo's hardware was ten times as strong as the competition there's no audience for it.

It's because they decided to design the game in a way that makes the motion controls mandatory. If Nintendo had designed SFZ with classic controls in mind (which I think they should've done), it would've been viewed in a much more positive light because it wouldn't have been a game that requires a gimmicky controller to play. Seriously, it wouldn't even have been a point of discussion.

It'd just be New Super Starfox though, and wouldn't be making use of the gamepad at all.

What's gimmicky about it? Your definition is broken because gimmick implies it's a hook, and yet you also claim that nobody is buying it because of it.

The main problem with WW was that it's a bit too easy in terms of Zelda games. From the enemies and bosses to the dungeons themselves, there just wasn't enough of a challenge factor that some of the previous games had. I remember TP upping the difficulty scale from WW, but still. I think, combat-wise, both games tried to compensate by throwing hordes of enemies at you at particular moments. But the only times this actually worked is with high-level enemies, most notably Darknuts. TP improved upon them by making their unarmored form much more skilled and troublesome to deal with (you were compelled to make better use of your sword skills). They were also the only enemies that could actually put out some hurt.

About the spin attacks: The Hurricane Spin is awesome. Love everything about it. Any moment that presents an opportunity, I'll just go crazy with it. The Great Spin is ok, but needing full health kind of hampers its viability. And you can't spam spin attacks so much in TP because of the delay.

Despite WW's shortcomings, it's still my favorite game in the series, and I have a soft spot for TP.

Zelda's never been that hard past aLttP... One of the universal complaints with TP was how **** easy it was. Darknuts in TP you just spam the back attack until they died, no thought, no fun, no nothing. Without it you just run by and slash then stab them in the back. WW you just spam parry, though at least you could try and bait the enemy into doing an attack.

The "super" spin attacks are fine. The normal one is too strong for it's own good since they were so strong with no drawbacks. TP's didn't have a delay on GC... The input's a little janky but that's it.

There are two parts to enjoying games for me. The gameplay is the No. 1 factor (obviously), but the controller is also very influential in determining my enjoyment of a game. If I find the controls to be somewhat awkward and uncomfortable they will generally hamper my enjoyment. It's why I value the GCN controller so much. Many of the games I've played on the GCN had ridiculously good gameplay, and the GCN controller complimented them almost perfectly. It never really felt detrimental. SFZ's controls work, yes, but they are inherently flawed in that Starfox isn't a point-and-shoot type of game. Much of the gameplay entails dogfighting in a true aerial combat sense, and SFZ's controls detract from that aspect. As far as I'm concerned, a classic series like Starfox shouldn't be beset with invasive control gimmicks.

Never once felt uncomfortable playing a game. Like, why should you feel uncomfortable moving your arms around a bit? They're not invasive or out of place, nor do they detract from the dogfighting. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about to be honest... At best it sounds like a weak excuse.

 

[Sari]

I hate how Nintendo constantly reuses Mario artwork for spin-off games.

As an example, take a look at the cover for the new Mario Party game.

The pictures used all date as far back as 2013 if I'm not mistaken. They literally copy and pasted these pictures (except they changed the color of Toad's shirt). Would it have killed them to make original drawings?

 

[FallenHero]

I hate how Nintendo constantly reuses Mario artwork for spin-off games.

As an example, take a look at the cover for the new Mario Party game.

The pictures used all date as far back as 2013 if I'm not mistaken. They literally copy and pasted these pictures (except they changed the color of Toad's shirt). Would it have killed them to make original drawings?

That box art looks so boring :/ I hate boring looking box arts, though sometimes boring box arts can still look good to me if it at least has some cool art.

 

[Tino]

I hate how Nintendo constantly reuses Mario artwork for spin-off games.

As an example, take a look at the cover for the new Mario Party game.

The pictures used all date as far back as 2013 if I'm not mistaken. They literally copy and pasted these pictures (except they changed the color of Toad's shirt). Would it have killed them to make original drawings?

The sight of that box art makes me wanna break something in half. :/

 

[SimonBarSinister]

Nothing can be done though. Even if Nintendo's hardware was ten times as strong as the competition there's no audience for it.

So you're saying Nintendo's screwed no matter what they do? I don't think they're that far in the hole yet. It might take a while, but having appealing hardware with power to spare would be a good first step in reclaiming their place in the market. I want Nintendo to succeed, I really do. But they won't be able to get far if they keep breaking away from the market like they've been doing.

It'd just be New Super Starfox though, and wouldn't be making use of the gamepad at all.

And that would be totally fine. There was never a need to design a Starfox game that revolved around the Gamepad.

What's gimmicky about it? Your definition is broken because gimmick implies it's a hook, and yet you also claim that nobody is buying it because of it.

Even better question, what's NOT gimmicky about it? And I never said that nobody is buying it. I said that it would be viewed more favorably if it was designed without the Gamepad in mind.

TP's didn't have a delay on GC... The input's a little janky but that's it.

Oh. I played the Wii version.

Never once felt uncomfortable playing a game. Like, why should you feel uncomfortable moving your arms around a bit? They're not invasive or out of place, nor do they detract from the dogfighting. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about to be honest... At best it sounds like a weak excuse.

Yes, they are invasive. The Gamepad is exerting too much influence on the game because Nintendo felt the need to make a Starfox game FOR the Gamepad and it's to the point where it's not a mere enhancement of control but an outright change, and not in a good way. Starfox was never meant to be played like a point-and-shoot game because that isn't what it is. You're a dogfighter, and the game should be designed to reflect that idea. It may look like a Starfox game on the outside, but because of the Gamepad it doesn't quite feel like one.

Why should I feel uncomfortable about moving my arms around? Because I don't want to be (nor should I) be playing, of all things, a Starfox game like that. I told you before that I have my own tastes in controls, and SFZ's controls do not suit my tastes. Is that really so mind-blowing? It shouldn't be.

 

[LancerStaff]

So you're saying Nintendo's screwed no matter what they do? I don't think they're that far in the hole yet. It might take a while, but having appealing hardware with power to spare would be a good first step in reclaiming their place in the market. I want Nintendo to succeed, I really do. But they won't be able to get far if they keep breaking away from the market like they've been doing.

They're 100% screwed with western third parties, yes. They don't need them to be successful though.

Like really, I don't think there's a point in bringing over GTA, Destiny and the like. People aren't going to get a Nintendo system for one of those games when you could get it and more with a different system, since there's no way everybody would bring their games over. Nintendo exclusives really only appeal to Nintendo fans.

Nintendo should double down on their own games and make more of them, probably at the expense of graphics.

And that would be totally fine. There was never a need to design a Starfox game that revolved around the Gamepad.

Never a reason to take him out of the cockpit either. Unlike Assault's horrid ground gameplay motion controls actually add something to the game and you've failed to explain why they haven't.

Even better question, what's NOT gimmicky about it? And I never said that nobody is buying it. I said that it would be viewed more favorably if it was designed without the Gamepad in mind.

What's gimmicky about improved control? What's gimmicky about a palpable advantage?

Yes, they are invasive. The Gamepad is exerting too much influence on the game because Nintendo felt the need to make a Starfox game FOR the Gamepad and it's to the point where it's not a mere enhancement of control but an outright change, and not in a good way. Starfox was never meant to be played like a point-and-shoot game because that isn't what it is. You're a dogfighter, and the game should be designed to reflect that idea. It may look like a Starfox game on the outside, but because of the Gamepad it doesn't quite feel like one.

Why should I feel uncomfortable about moving my arms around? Because I don't want to be (nor should I) be playing, of all things, a Starfox game like that. I told you before that I have my own tastes in controls, and SFZ's controls do not suit my tastes. Is that really so mind-blowing? It shouldn't be.

Explain how it's invasive. Explain how it's bad. There's no "point and click" here, not any more then the old games since they had to leave their weak points unprotected for large amounts of time. It's the only Starfox remotely even like 64 since it came so I don't understand why you think otherwise.

Why is moving your arms around an issue though? Are they made of jelly? You treat motion controls as something that should be purged from the Earth and forgotten when there's absolutely nothing wrong with them.

 

[SimonBarSinister]

They're 100% screwed with western third parties, yes. They don't need them to be successful though.

Like really, I don't think there's a point in bringing over GTA, Destiny and the like. People aren't going to get a Nintendo system for one of those games when you could get it and more with a different system, since there's no way everybody would bring their games over. Nintendo exclusives really only appeal to Nintendo fans.

Nintendo should double down on their own games and make more of them, probably at the expense of graphics.

Well, you seem convinced that they should completely abandon that part of the market. I think that would be somewhat foolish to do. They shouldn't rely on them, no, but a healthy dose of support wouldn't hurt, I would think.

Never a reason to take him out of the cockpit either. Unlike Assault's horrid ground gameplay motion controls actually add something to the game and you've failed to explain why they haven't.

At worst Assault's ground combat was painfully slow, but it's a hell of a lot better than what Zero added with the motion controls. The only thing Zero's motion controls add is a misguided attempt at trying to justify use of the Gamepad's functionality when it was completely unwarranted. Just because you have the means to do something it doesn't mean you should go through with it, and for SFZ this is especially true. I'm sure a lot of other people have also marked the game's controls as a point of contention, and for good reason. Previous Starfox games (notably 64 and Assault) already had a working base for their controls, but trying to implement something like the Gamepad's functionality for the sake of innovation essentially achieves the opposite effect. In SFZ's case, it pretty much throws out the solid controls the series is known for and replaces it with something that you're forced into. There's nothing innovative about forcing players into using something that they don't necessarily want to use.

What's gimmicky about improved control? What's gimmicky about a palpable advantage?

That's not improved control. That's an outright change. Having a technically superior method doesn't always mean the best method, especially if it detracts from a favorable aspect.

Explain how it's invasive. Explain how it's bad. There's no "point and click" here, not any more then the old games since they had to leave their weak points unprotected for large amounts of time. It's the only Starfox remotely even like 64 since it came so I don't understand why you think otherwise.

Total BS. If there really was no point-and-shoot factor, you wouldn't even be talking to me right now. They are invasive because you're forced to play the game in a completely different way than it's predecessors, which makes the controls bad on that alone. Compared to 64 the controls have a much steeper learning curve, which doesn't help either. Part of the challenge in a game shouldn't come from fighting with the controls. And the two screen gimmick.....seriously? Needing to divert your attention from what's going on around you just to get a better shot at your target only to eventually realize you're being shot at? I'm not even sure if that's worth a response. And just to be clear, I never said anything about SFZ being completely unlike 64. I've been saying that the inclusion of the Gamepad is making SFZ play like something it's not.

You know what the real tragedy is? Because of the Gamepad's inclusion (which resulted in SFZ's status as a mixed game), SFZ will leave a stain on the series that could possibly affect its future. Kind of like how Nintendo has been handling Paper Mario as of late.

Why is moving your arms around an issue though? Are they made of jelly? You treat motion controls as something that should be purged from the Earth and forgotten when there's absolutely nothing wrong with them.

The physical ability of my arms has absolutely nothing to do with this. Motion control is useful only in certain instances (I did enjoy playing Prime 3 a lot), just not for Starfox. It's more of a hindrance than anything else.

.....I think I've had enough of talking about SFZ.

 

[Sir Gengar de Èctoplasma]

Changing Paper Mario's genre just because they don't want to have two Mario RPGs.

 

[LancerStaff]

Well, you seem convinced that they should completely abandon that part of the market. I think that would be somewhat foolish to do. They shouldn't rely on them, no, but a healthy dose of support wouldn't hurt, I would think.

I think it's more like leaving an abusive relationship then anything... There's no point in accommodating for them at all when they get nothing in return.

At worst Assault's ground combat was painfully slow, but it's a hell of a lot better than what Zero added with the motion controls. The only thing Zero's motion controls add is a misguided attempt at trying to justify use of the Gamepad's functionality when it was completely unwarranted. Just because you have the means to do something it doesn't mean you should go through with it, and for SFZ this is especially true. I'm sure a lot of other people have also marked the game's controls as a point of contention, and for good reason. Previous Starfox games (notably 64 and Assault) already had a working base for their controls, but trying to implement something like the Gamepad's functionality for the sake of innovation essentially achieves the opposite effect. In SFZ's case, it pretty much throws out the solid controls the series is known for and replaces it with something that you're forced into. There's nothing innovative about forcing players into using something that they don't necessarily want to use.

Air combat was trash too. Literally just a watered-down version of what 64 had with shiny graphics.

The only people who don't think SF0 controls are an innovation are the ones who hate everything about modern Nintendo anyway. Everybody that doesn't think motion controls are sin (they're not) and has actually played the game has enjoyed it. Gyro control absolutely destroys twin sticks.

That's not improved control. That's an outright change. Having a technically superior method doesn't always mean the best method, especially if it detracts from a favorable aspect.

It doesn't detract from anything. You've, again, failed to explain why motion controls are the bane of your existence.

Total BS. If there really was no point-and-shoot factor, you wouldn't even be talking to me right now. They are invasive because you're forced to play the game in a completely different way than it's predecessors, which makes the controls bad on that alone. Compared to 64 the controls have a much steeper learning curve, which doesn't help either. Part of the challenge in a game shouldn't come from fighting with the controls. And the two screen gimmick.....seriously? Needing to divert your attention from what's going on around you just to get a better shot at your target only to eventually realize you're being shot at? I'm not even sure if that's worth a response. And just to be clear, I never said anything about SFZ being completely unlike 64. I've been saying that the inclusion of the Gamepad is making SFZ play like something it's not.

You know what the real tragedy is? Because of the Gamepad's inclusion (which resulted in SFZ's status as a mixed game), SFZ will leave a stain on the series that could possibly affect its future. Kind of like how Nintendo has been handling Paper Mario as of late.

Dear lord, the game plays differently from before! Whatever shall we do?

Pfft. The new Zelda is ten times more different the SF0 was. You're "forced" into dealing with more fundamental changes like the removal of random hearts and rupees and having every weapon be breakable then what SF0 has done.

It's only a steeper learning curve because the first two games had an almost non-existent one. Learning curves aren't bad.

You're not fighting with the controls, and you're given invincible Barrel Rolls for a reason. Really man, weak excuses.

The physical ability of my arms has absolutely nothing to do with this. Motion control is useful only in certain instances (I did enjoy playing Prime 3 a lot), just not for Starfox. It's more of a hindrance than anything else.

.....I think I've had enough of talking about SFZ.

It's not useful here because..?

Really, quit making excuses and play the stinkin' game. If you enjoyed 64 you should absolutely enjoy this.

 

[SimonBarSinister]

The only people who don't think SF0 controls are an innovation are the ones who hate everything about modern Nintendo anyway.

That's a very bold statement. And a very incorrect statement at that. That's like saying no one can be a Nintendo fan and legitimately dislike SFZ's controls. Way to play up the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

It doesn't detract from anything. You've, again, failed to explain why motion controls are the bane of your existence.

I told you, the controls detract from the game because they just throw out something that was already working fine and replacing it with something that feels completely unnatural. Again, that's not an improvement, that's a change. There is a big difference.

Pfft. The new Zelda is ten times more different the SF0 was. You're "forced" into dealing with more fundamental changes like the removal of random hearts and rupees and having every weapon be breakable then what SF0 has done.

Except the difference here is that I haven't played the new Zelda yet, so I can't decide whether or not I like the changes until I experience it firsthand. SFZ on the other hand I have played and I CAN decide if I like the controls or not, which I don't. Not sure why you brought Zelda into this when I was talking about SFZ.

It's only a steeper learning curve because the first two games had an almost non-existent one. Learning curves aren't bad.

There wasn't that much of a learning curve, but there was still room for the player to improve their skill. There is a certain risk-reward factor in diving head-first into enemy fire or having to maneuver the Arwing to line up a good shot. I mean, that's part of being in a dogfight after all. SFZ doesn't maintain this dynamic, and it's quite jarring.

You're not fighting with the controls, and you're given invincible Barrel Rolls for a reason. Really man, weak excuses.

If you have to spend time trying to work the controls in an arcade-style game like Starfox, there's something wrong there. Part of the difficulty in SFZ is coming from the controls, which was never an issue before. I've said this once before, but I'll say it again: Forcing a player to relearn how to play a Starfox game when they already knew how to is just bad design.

And we already had invincible barrel rolls, so what's your point?

Really, quit making excuses and play the stinkin' game. If you enjoyed 64 you should absolutely enjoy this.

I own and have played the game, thank you very much, so I know what I'm talking about. I want to enjoy SFZ, I really do, but the stupid controls prevent me from enjoying it as much as I want to. If the Gamepad was never a factor I wouldn't be airing my grievances right now (along with many other players I might add, at the very most a minor complaint would be that SFZ is a remake of a remake). I'd be playing it much more often than I do.

It has become painfully obvious that you and I will never see eye to eye on this, so any further discussion on the topic would just be a futile effort. Let's just agree to disagree and move on to something else, like how Nintendo's treatment of Paper Mario is making their fans die a little inside and how Color Splash should've never surfaced as a Paper Mario game.

....And with that, I'm off.

 

[Iceweasel]

Nintendo keeps portraying Link as a righty. I could maybe see it on the Wii games, but why is Link suddenly right-haded in the new Zelda just because the buttons are on the right? The buttons have been on the right on literally every Nintendo system (except maybe the arcades) ever made. For that matter, why does Phantom Hourglass make Link right-handed if the player says that they're right-handed? You can say you're a lefty and literally the only difference is that all of two drawing "puzzles" are flipped and some of the UI elements are mirrored . But in such a way that a normal human's hand will cover important bits, like the life meter.

 

[LancerStaff]

That's a very bold statement. And a very incorrect statement at that. That's like saying no one can be a Nintendo fan and legitimately dislike SFZ's controls. Way to play up the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Except it's true. Only the people who complain about damn-near everything Nintendo does complained about the controls in Starfox because of some inherent bias.

I told you, the controls detract from the game because they just throw out something that was already working fine and replacing it with something that feels completely unnatural. Again, that's not an improvement, that's a change. There is a big difference.

Zelda BotW scrapped just about everything and is receiving a ton of praise... Nothing unnatural about motion controls. Much the opposite since most people go through the "move the controller and expect something to happen" phase.

There wasn't that much of a learning curve, but there was still room for the player to improve their skill. There is a certain risk-reward factor in diving head-first into enemy fire or having to maneuver the Arwing to line up a good shot. I mean, that's part of being in a dogfight after all. SFZ doesn't maintain this dynamic, and it's quite jarring.

There was next to no risk aiming straight at anything besides the laser cannons on Titania and some bosses doing some attacks because of invincible barrel rolls. There's nothing jarring about the dynamic being gone because it was stillborn to begin with. You got so many rings (and lives from successfully flying at people while mashing Z and R) that the scratch damage ment nothing. It's so obvious you haven't spent any time on this game it hurts.

Having a learning curve isn't bad, again.

If you have to spend time trying to work the controls in an arcade-style game like Starfox, there's something wrong there. Part of the difficulty in SFZ is coming from the controls, which was never an issue before. I've said this once before, but I'll say it again: Forcing a player to relearn how to play a Starfox game when they already knew how to is just bad design.

And we already had invincible barrel rolls, so what's your point?

...lolwut? Arcade-style games are usually trial-and-error quarter-munchers that require a ton of practice to even get past level one. Starfox is quite clearly the exception here.

If forcing people to relearn games so bad then Zelda wouldn't of literally scrapped every major mechanic from previous games. It's not bad.

That scratch damage actually matters in SF0 because you can lose actually hyper lasers without having to fly into another fighter plane like a moron. Gee, wouldn't you know it? SF0 actually uses the new motion controls with new mechanics to balance old ones.

I own and have played the game, thank you very much, so I know what I'm talking about. I want to enjoy SFZ, I really do, but the stupid controls prevent me from enjoying it as much as I want to. If the Gamepad was never a factor I wouldn't be airing my grievances right now (along with many other players I might add, at the very most a minor complaint would be that SFZ is a remake of a remake). I'd be playing it much more often than I do.

It has become painfully obvious that you and I will never see eye to eye on this, so any further discussion on the topic would just be a futile effort. Let's just agree to disagree and move on to something else, like how Nintendo's treatment of Paper Mario is making their fans die a little inside and how Color Splash should've never surfaced as a Paper Mario game.

....And with that, I'm off.

You can't even properly explain why you don't like the game and are pretending to know more about it then you actually do. You've played it, but you've never actually played it if you get what I'm saying.

You've said this already... It's on you to drop this, because I don't have a reason to stop. I legit don't understand what you mean because you're dodging questions.

 

[SimonBarSinister]

Except it's true. Only the people who complain about damn-near everything Nintendo does complained about the controls in Starfox because of some inherent bias.



Zelda BotW scrapped just about everything and is receiving a ton of praise... Nothing unnatural about motion controls. Much the opposite since most people go through the "move the controller and expect something to happen" phase.



There was next to no risk aiming straight at anything besides the laser cannons on Titania and some bosses doing some attacks because of invincible barrel rolls. There's nothing jarring about the dynamic being gone because it was stillborn to begin with. You got so many rings (and lives from successfully flying at people while mashing Z and R) that the scratch damage ment nothing. It's so obvious you haven't spent any time on this game it hurts.

Having a learning curve isn't bad, again.



...lolwut? Arcade-style games are usually trial-and-error quarter-munchers that require a ton of practice to even get past level one. Starfox is quite clearly the exception here.

If forcing people to relearn games so bad then Zelda wouldn't of literally scrapped every major mechanic from previous games. It's not bad.

That scratch damage actually matters in SF0 because you can lose actually hyper lasers without having to fly into another fighter plane like a moron. Gee, wouldn't you know it? SF0 actually uses the new motion controls with new mechanics to balance old ones.



You can't even properly explain why you don't like the game and are pretending to know more about it then you actually do. You've played it, but you've never actually played it if you get what I'm saying.

You've said this already... It's on you to drop this, because I don't have a reason to stop. I legit don't understand what you mean because you're dodging questions.

Whatever you say, dude.

EDIT: You know what? This line right here,

Except it's true. Only the people who complain about damn-near everything Nintendo does complained about the controls in Starfox because of some inherent bias.

might actually be hilarious enough to be sig-worthy. So thanks for that.

 

[FallenHero]

Except it's true. Only the people who complain about damn-near everything Nintendo does complained about the controls in Starfox because of some inherent bias.

You've clearly shown that you have inherent bias towards Nintendo. You make tons of claims saying that you heard it from somewhere without being able to give any sources. Any time someone criticizes something about Nintendo you either get really defensive for Nintendo or try to give some sort of explanation for why they might be doing something like claiming videos on YouTube. A lot of your "evidence" is just based on stuff that you "heard" or what seems to just be anecdotes.

 

[FunAtParties]

Changing Paper Mario's genre just because they don't want to have two Mario RPGs.

I'd have rather seen them change Mario and Luigi then Paper Mario. I mean, I'd rather keep them the way they were without misrepresenting the franchise's foundation, but out of the two, I would think Mario and Luigi would be the most expendable. Stupid either way. I tend to think Nintendo misunderstands why people like these games. It wasn't solely because of the art style.

 

[SimonBarSinister]

I'd have rather seen them change Mario and Luigi then Paper Mario. I mean, I'd rather keep them the way they were without misrepresenting the franchise's foundation, but out of the two, I would think Mario and Luigi would be the most expendable. Stupid either way. I tend to think Nintendo misunderstands why people like these games. It wasn't solely because of the art style.

Art style is only part of a game's overall appeal (which Paper Mario has a good art style but still). The biggest factor is without a doubt the gameplay. Arbitrarily changing that just for the sake of change is exactly how Sticker Star happened. I've heard a few times that before Sticker Star became what it is, it was initially a bit more in line with TTYD, apparently something Miyamoto didn't want for the new title for some reason. But isn't being mentioned in the same breath as TTYD something every Paper Mario should aspire to?

Miyamoto wanted no more new characters (effectively destroying the partner system completely), only focusing on the basic inhabitants of the Mushroom Kingdom (toads freaking everywhere), and wanting a minimalist story (which completely goes against a notable aspect of an RPG). I really would like to know what made Miyamoto want to throw out what made Paper Mario so good in the first place.

 

[Iceweasel]

Art style is only part of a game's overall appeal (which Paper Mario has a good art style but still). The biggest factor is without a doubt the gameplay. Arbitrarily changing that just for the sake of change is exactly how Sticker Star happened. I've heard a few times that before Sticker Star became what it is, it was initially a bit more in line with TTYD, apparently something Miyamoto didn't want for the new title for some reason. But isn't being mentioned in the same breath as TTYD something every Paper Mario should aspire to?

Miyamoto wanted no more new characters (effectively destroying the partner system completely), only focusing on the basic inhabitants of the Mushroom Kingdom (toads freaking everywhere), and wanting a minimalist story (which completely goes against a notable aspect of an RPG). I really would like to know what made Miyamoto want to throw out what made Paper Mario so good in the first place.

Miyamoto is infamous for his emphasis on gameplay above all else. If the story is threatening to overshadow the gameplay, Miyamoto's response is not to try and make the gameplay even better, but to cripple the story.

 

[FunAtParties]

Art style is only part of a game's overall appeal (which Paper Mario has a good art style but still). The biggest factor is without a doubt the gameplay. Arbitrarily changing that just for the sake of change is exactly how Sticker Star happened. I've heard a few times that before Sticker Star became what it is, it was initially a bit more in line with TTYD, apparently something Miyamoto didn't want for the new title for some reason. But isn't being mentioned in the same breath as TTYD something every Paper Mario should aspire to?

Miyamoto wanted no more new characters (effectively destroying the partner system completely), only focusing on the basic inhabitants of the Mushroom Kingdom (toads freaking everywhere), and wanting a minimalist story (which completely goes against a notable aspect of an RPG). I really would like to know what made Miyamoto want to throw out what made Paper Mario so good in the first place.

Agreed. As I said, art style isn't/wasn't the only thing people liked about the series before Miyamoto decided to change it. You mentioned the rest, and to me those are the things that laid out the foundation of what Paper Mario was, somethings that should've never been changed.

Now for a mini rant.

What frustrates me the most is that people defend the new games say things like 'oh you just want to play the same game over and over again', but what they don't seem to realize is that you can make different games with the same foundation. Look at the mainline Super Mario series; the foundation for that series is platforming, level portals, and power ups, every game from the original sprite versions to 64, the Galaxy games, and even the black sheep Sunshine have kept the basic fundamentals the Mario series introduced from the very beginning, and I don't think anyone would claim that any of those games are just 'the same games over and over'. Each game has had their own spin on these elements, sometimes good sometimes bad, but they're all there and they all stay true to the series. It also doesn't stop the series from going to new places, telling new stories, introducing new elements, and introducing new characters, so I see no reason people defend Nintendo ditching some of PM's foundation acting like the series couldn't go anywhere, like there's was nothing left to do. It just makes no sense.

 

[Sir Gengar de Èctoplasma]

I'd have rather seen them change Mario and Luigi then Paper Mario. I mean, I'd rather keep them the way they were without misrepresenting the franchise's foundation, but out of the two, I would think Mario and Luigi would be the most expendable. Stupid either way. I tend to think Nintendo misunderstands why people like these games. It wasn't solely because of the art style.

I personally prefer Mario & Luigi series over Paper Mario, so I would've been more upset if it's genre changed. But still, both should've stayed as RPGs.