What has Nintendo done to upset you?

[LancerStaff]

Still waiting for this trend to die. I have played so many triple-A games with open worlds for the sake of having open worlds.

Yeah... Actually I hate BotW for doing it too. It looks hilariously boring and empty right now, and previous games' overworlds and overall balancing aren't exactly making me hopeful.

Like, the whole weapon system right now is almost exactly like Sticker Star. Why bother fighting for weapons when you have weapons? Why bother getting food when you aren't fighting? It's also basically repeating the thing where you get all the dungeon tools right away which I really didn't like... And the puzzles largely have been the typical, boring "use item here" stuff which really shouldn't still be a thing after 30 years. Skyward Sword fixed a ton of things and they went backwards on it because muh open world. It's just frustrating to see.

 

[Iceweasel]

People complained about dual analog because it wasn't tank controls/keyboard and mouse.

Okay, I've sat back and read your spurious, unsourced claims for too long. Citation ****ing needed. Tank controls are universally loathed, and game makers realized this a long time ago and stopped using them.

 

[LancerStaff]

http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/alien-resurrection-review/1900-2637344/

Third paragraph. Bazinga.

 

[finalark]

http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/alien-resurrection-review/1900-2637344/

Third paragraph. Bazinga.

Jesus Christ, the controls described are standard FPS controls these days.

The world has changed.

 

[Iceweasel]

http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/alien-resurrection-review/1900-2637344/

Third paragraph. Bazinga.

...Huh. I might expect an article like that from the early PS1 days, when analog joysticks were a new thing, but PS2?

Maybe he prefers keyboard/mouse. I'm not the biggest fan of dual-stick controls for an FPS either, but it's better than the alternative a pad offers.

 

[SimonBarSinister]

Initially, no. They just wanted to make something that could play games in a new, better way. Hence "Revolution."

A new way isn't necessarily a better way, and since the Wii's lifetime I believe Nintendo has yet to figure this out. What Nintendo says is a "better way" to play games shouldn't be taken as gospel. Because, ultimately, every single player in existence has their own preferences when it comes to gaming, be it consoles, controls and everything in between. At that point, it hardly matters what Nintendo thinks. Some players agree with their philosophy, some don't, and that's all there is to it.

No, I'm saying that difficultly was potentially a necessary evil for games of the era. If SMB1 was as easy as SMW then people could beat the whole thing with no prior experience in a few hours... NES isn't my favorite console but I do love me some Megaman.

Necessary evil? You say that as if the developers didn't want at least some challenge in their games.

Everything is a gimmick, so yeah. SMW's world map is as much of a gimmick as motion controls. SMB's scrolling levels were a gimmick.

Then everything is the same.

Mario had a dork age too yaknow. Remember when they decided that strapping a squirt gun to his back was a good idea?

Yeah, I do remember that. And you know how long that lasted? One game.

Sonic's sword added more to the basic formula, lol.

The Black Knight was a spinoff. A spinoff normally has more creative liberties than their mainline counterparts and doesn't need to stay true to form.

Somehow FLUDD was okay and motion controls aren't...

.....Is that what other people tell you?

Change isn't good, and yet people are hyped for BotW.

Correction, change isn't ALWAYS good. But there are those moments when strokes of genius occur. Would you have liked Kid Icarus Uprising as much as you do if it was developed much like its predecessor? Well, there's no real way to know for sure, but as it is Uprising is a fantastic game. And just like I consider the Prime series the superior incarnation of Metroid (this is not to say the mainline games are bad in any way). Sometimes change can breathe new life into an established series. SOMETIMES. Other times, we get stuff like Sticker Star (not inherently bad, just not what Paper Mario is supposed to be) and Color Splash.

Sure, BotW is being hyped up like all hell, but no one can say how good it really is. Only time will tell.

 

[finalark]

Change isn't good,

I think I just found out why Lancer hates everything.

 

[LancerStaff]

A new way isn't necessarily a better way, and since the Wii's lifetime I believe Nintendo has yet to figure this out. What Nintendo says is a "better way" to play games shouldn't be taken as gospel. Because, ultimately, every single player in existence has their own preferences when it comes to gaming, be it consoles, controls and everything in between. At that point, it hardly matters what Nintendo thinks. Some players agree with their philosophy, some don't, and that's all there is to it.


Necessary evil? You say that as if the developers didn't want at least some challenge in their games.


Then everything is the same.


Yeah, I do remember that. And you know how long that lasted? One game.


The Black Knight was a spinoff. A spinoff normally has more creative liberties than their mainline counterparts and doesn't need to stay true to form.


.....Is that what other people tell you?


Correction, change isn't ALWAYS good. But there are those moments when strokes of genius occur. Would you have liked Kid Icarus Uprising as much as you do if it was developed much like its predecessor? Well, there's no real way to know for sure, but as it is Uprising is a fantastic game. And just like I consider the Prime series the superior incarnation of Metroid (this is not to say the mainline games are bad in any way). Sometimes change can breathe new life into an established series. SOMETIMES. Other times, we get stuff like Sticker Star (not inherently bad, just not what Paper Mario is supposed to be) and Color Splash.

Sure, BotW is being hyped up like all hell, but no one can say how good it really is. Only time will tell.

Okay, and people didn't like twin sticks either and yet nobody would complain if that was the only control scheme nowadays. In 10, 15 years will people still be complaining about gyro? Most likely not because they're objectively superior to twin sticks. Motion controls are set to become even more intergrated into gaming as a whole with the advent of VR.

Some wanted challenge, others just wanted a means to make their game last longer. SMB1 would of been way more popular if it were easier and had more levels.

Two technically if you count the other collectathon, and the whole "abandoning 2D Mario for 15 years" thing.

People still treated it like a main game though...

All the time. Because motion controls are evil and everything pre DS is gospel, apparently.

I think I just found out why Lancer hates everything.

...I'm saying it in regards to people complaining about literally every gaming innovation ever.

 

[SimonBarSinister]

Okay, and people didn't like twin sticks either and yet nobody would complain if that was the only control scheme nowadays. In 10, 15 years will people still be complaining about gyro? Most likely not because they're objectively superior to twin sticks. Motion controls are set to become even more intergrated into gaming as a whole with the advent of VR.

Objectively superior or not, players still have their preferences in controls, and that's the benefit of having multiple control styles. And what's up with you and bringing up the whole "dual sticks" thing? It's like you're saying shooters are the only games being played nowadays.

Some wanted challenge, others just wanted a means to make their game last longer. SMB1 would of been way more popular if it were easier and had more levels.

SMB was already ridiculously popular back in the day (it made Nintendo a success after all), and one page ago you said it was already easy so there'd be no point in making it easier. And making more levels just to make a game last longer seems quite shallow. If you ask me, that is unnecessary padding. I'm all for making games last longer, but there are more creative ways to do it than just more levels.

Two technically if you count the other collectathon, and the whole "abandoning 2D Mario for 15 years" thing.

Mario 64 was a change in direction as opposed to previous entries, but it was in no way a bad game. And so what if there wasn't a 2D Mario game in 15 years? It's not like there was a shortage of good Mario games that could hold us over within that time frame.

People still treated it like a main game though...

Then I guess some people can't tell the difference.

All the time. Because motion controls are evil and everything pre DS is gospel, apparently.

Motion controls have their place, but when they start arbitrarily changing how I play my favorite games, that's when I have a problem.

...I'm saying it in regards to people complaining about literally every gaming innovation ever.

I've said it once and I'll say it again: Innovation just for the sake of innovation is meaningless. There has to be an actual need for it, and even then there's no telling if the masses will just follow along with it.

 

[LancerStaff]

Objectively superior or not, players still have their preferences in controls, and that's the benefit of having multiple control styles. And what's up with you and bringing up the whole "dual sticks" thing? It's like you're saying shooters are the only games being played nowadays.


SMB was already ridiculously popular back in the day (it made Nintendo a success after all), and one page ago you said it was already easy so there'd be no point in making it easier. And making more levels just to make a game last longer seems quite shallow. If you ask me, that is unnecessary padding. I'm all for making games last longer, but there are more creative ways to do it than just more levels.


Mario 64 was a change in direction as opposed to previous entries, but it was in no way a bad game. And so what if there wasn't a 2D Mario game in 15 years? It's not like there was a shortage of good Mario games that could hold us over within that time frame.


Then I guess some people can't tell the difference.


Motion controls have their place, but when they start arbitrarily changing how I play my favorite games, that's when I have a problem.


I've said it once and I'll say it again: Innovation just for the sake of innovation is meaningless. There has to be an actual need for it, and even then there's no telling if the masses will just follow along with it.

Being able to completely fill a controller, being able to build around a mechanic instead of being useless and half-baked, and so on... Twin sticks is an easy example. I shouldn't have to come up with a new example every time I bring it up.

It's incredibly easy for the era but it would of been more popular if it were more accessible.

...You just trying to be contrary? Because you've sure picked a stupid thing... SMB1 had 32 levels. SMW had 96 exits and the actual levels were usually twice as long. Maybe 20 exits could be called padding, so the game is easily four times as long.

Speaking of padding... SM64. Ugh. I hated the game as a kid. It abandoned nearly every Mario convention just 'cuz. Bland, empty, boring. Clunky, overcomplicated controls, tons of padding, weak graphics, poor camera. Unimaginative power-ups, garbage bosses, mediocre enemy design. This isn't a Mario game. It's a ****y collectathon with Mario's face on it. Why couldn't of it been more linear and focused like Galaxy or Cat Mario? Those are real, mainline Mario games. There were none for 15 years.

People said the same thing about twin sticks, man. You've still completely failed to explain why motion controls are bad.

You have to innovate or games just get stale. Every game ever has introduced innovations for innovation's sake. What are you complaining about? Why is improving the control in Starfox bad while gutting Mario good? Because that's what you grew up with?

 

[Iceweasel]

Motion controls are set to become even more intergrated into gaming as a whole with the advent of VR.

Possibly true.

they're [gyroscope controls] objectively superior to twin sticks

HAHAHA, no. I have yet to play any game with gyro-enabled controls where they didn't give me some amount of trouble. Not too long ago I was playing OoT3D in bed and I had to to turn off gyro aiming because it jittered all over the place and I couldn't get my first slingshot upgrade.

Later, in Castle Town, I was trying to get my other slingshot upgrade while playing on the can and the gyro kept returning me to slightly left of neutral whenever I'd go back to neutral. After I failed my first attempt because of this, before starting my next I turned to the right so that the gradual shift would be easier to deal with, and it completely forgot where neutral was, so I had to do my second try while sitting 90 degrees to the left of my normal position. To recap, it wouldn't properly go back to zero, which caused me to fail, and for my second try I turned to the right so the issue would be easier to deal with, which caused the code to have a panic attack that required me to nearly do a 180 to face left instead of right or straight ahead.

It's not just that game. Skyward Sword's Beetle had to be recalibrated almost every use, and would decalibrate itself during use on two different Motion Pluses. When playing DKCR, there were plenty of time I tried to roll but it didn't register and many more when I didn't want to roll but did anyways. One of my biggest complaints about the Wii version of Star Wars: The Force Awakens was how spotty the motion controls were, especially that Wiimote rotation thing you had to do to win in saber lock.

Gyro controls might become more prevalent with the expansion of phone games and VR, but they're objectively worse than traditional controls.

Some wanted challenge, others just wanted a means to make their game last longer. SMB1 would of been way more popular if it were easier and had more levels.

What? You are aware that everybody and their mother has played that game and almost all of them liked it, right?

All the time. Because motion controls are evil and everything pre DS is gospel, apparently.

Everybody loves the DS. Were the two screens a gimmick? Yes. Was the touch screen a gimmick? Yes. How did games use them? Casual bait games used them as a selling point, real games used them to cover the system's shortcomings and provide more complex games than would otherwise be possible. One screen was used for the main game, with nonessential HUD info moved to the other screen. This helps to hide the DS's small screens and allows for a larger play area, which in turn allows for more things to happen at once. The touch screen could be used for fast weapon switching and health kit use, which fixes the problem of the DS's SNES-syle buttons not giving as many inputs as a modern console's gamepad.

The games are all that matter. The DS had great games because the developers used the system's gimmicks to fix problems unique to providing a richer, fuller, more console-like experience on a system with a tiny screen and without enough buttons. In other words, the system was gimmicky, but plenty of its games weren't.

 

[LancerStaff]

Possibly true.


HAHAHA, no. I have yet to play any game with gyro-enabled controls where they didn't give me some amount of trouble. Not too long ago I was playing OoT3D in bed and I had to to turn off gyro aiming because it jittered all over the place and I couldn't get my first slingshot upgrade.

Later, in Castle Town, I was trying to get my other slingshot upgrade while playing on the can and the gyro kept returning me to slightly left of neutral whenever I'd go back to neutral. After I failed my first attempt because of this, before starting my next I turned to the right so that the gradual shift would be easier to deal with, and it completely forgot where neutral was, so I had to do my second try while sitting 90 degrees to the left of my normal position. To recap, it wouldn't properly go back to zero, which caused me to fail, and for my second try I turned to the right so the issue would be easier to deal with, which caused the code to have a panic attack that required me to nearly do a 180 to face left instead of right or straight ahead.

It's not just that game. Skyward Sword's Beetle had to be recalibrated almost every use, and would decalibrate itself during use on two different Motion Pluses. When playing DKCR, there were plenty of time I tried to roll but it didn't register and many more when I didn't want to roll but did anyways. One of my biggest complaints about the Wii version of Star Wars: The Force Awakens was how spotty the motion controls were, especially that Wiimote rotation thing you had to do to win in saber lock.

Gyro controls might become more prevalent with the expansion of phone games and VR, but they're objectively worse than traditional controls.



What? You are aware that everybody and their mother has played that game and almost all of them liked it, right?


Everybody loves the DS. Were the two screens a gimmick? Yes. Was the touch screen a gimmick? Yes. How did games use them? Casual bait games used them as a selling point, real games used them to cover the system's shortcomings and provide more complex games than would otherwise be possible. One screen was used for the main game, with nonessential HUD info moved to the other screen. This helps to hide the DS's small screens and allows for a larger play area, which in turn allows for more things to happen at once. The touch screen could be used for fast weapon switching and health kit use, which fixes the problem of the DS's SNES-syle buttons not giving as many inputs as a modern console's gamepad.

The games are all that matter. The DS had great games because the developers used the system's gimmicks to fix problems unique to providing a richer, fuller, more console-like experience on a system with a tiny screen and without enough buttons. In other words, the system was gimmicky, but plenty of its games weren't.

Literally every speedrunner and pro Splatoon player uses gyro because it's superior. It's literally impossible to get the Splatoon speedrun WR with twin sticks. You just suck at using it... I won every slingshot and archery game first try with gyro. The Beetle never got noticeably off across three playthroughs. No idea about Star Wars, but DKCR didn't use gyro but the significantly less accurate accelerometer.

No, not quite. It could of done better if it were easier.

A big part of it is that there's plenty of games that couldn't work without touch. Kirby Canvas Curse, Professor Layton, Nintendogs... There were actual new ways to play.

 

[SimonBarSinister]

Being able to completely fill a controller, being able to build around a mechanic instead of being useless and half-baked, and so on... Twin sticks is an easy example. I shouldn't have to come up with a new example every time I bring it up.

So just because a controller has a particular function that means it absolutely needs to be implemented when it might not be needed? Sounds like useless shoehorning to me. I couldn't care less about what's objectively superior and what isn't (or what other people say is or isn't). What I DO care about is what controls I'M comfortable with.

It's incredibly easy for the era but it would of been more popular if it were more accessible.

Implying that it wasn't already very accessible. It was already an easy-to-learn type of game (stupidly easy I might add, not sure how it could possibly be any more so) and gained the recognition of players around the world, which is no small feat. So yeah, trying to make it more accessible than it already was would be a redundant action.

...You just trying to be contrary? Because you've sure picked a stupid thing... SMB1 had 32 levels. SMW had 96 exits and the actual levels were usually twice as long. Maybe 20 exits could be called padding, so the game is easily four times as long.

Charming response you've got there.

More levels come with advancements in hardware, I get that, but I'm just saying there are more ways to keep the player playing the game than just more levels.

Speaking of padding... SM64. Ugh. I hated the game as a kid. It abandoned nearly every Mario convention just 'cuz. Bland, empty, boring. Clunky, overcomplicated controls, tons of padding, weak graphics, poor camera. Unimaginative power-ups, garbage bosses, mediocre enemy design. This isn't a Mario game. It's a ****y collectathon with Mario's face on it. Why couldn't of it been more linear and focused like Galaxy or Cat Mario? Those are real, mainline Mario games. There were none for 15 years.

Clunky? Maybe. Overcomplicated controls? Not so much. But if you don't like the game there isn't much I can say to that.

I liked it though.

People said the same thing about twin sticks, man. You've still completely failed to explain why motion controls are bad.

Probably because I've never outright stated that motion controls are bad. I just believe that implementing them where they're not needed is not the best of decisions. I've pretty much had my fill of motion controls during the Wii's lifetime. I mean, Corruption? I was cool with that. TP/SS? That's fine, too. Starfox? Now you're going too far.

You have to innovate or games just get stale. Every game ever has introduced innovations for innovation's sake. What are you complaining about? Why is improving the control in Starfox bad while gutting Mario good? Because that's what you grew up with?

Yes, but innovation should feel like a natural progression. There is also such a thing as taking things too far, which is precisely what happened with SFZ. The controls in SFZ are NOT an improvement, as you're willing to claim. They were an outright change, a change brought on by a foolishly desperate attempt to justify the use of the Gamepad's motion controls, completely unwarranted at that. This felt nothing like an evolution to the series. This was forced. And you can see the results for yourself.

You say people dislike new things because they aren't old things but did you ever consider that, in SFZ's case, there was a good chance players wouldn't be too thrilled with how Nintendo forced them into using a control scheme that they might not have wanted to use in the first place? If the controls were really so great, then why does SFZ not have the reception it supposedly deserves? I'm willing to bet this is why. If it wasn't for the controls being designed the way they are, I guarantee that SFZ would've done better across the board.

When did I ever say anything about gutting Mario being a good thing? How did you even come to that conclusion?

 

[LancerStaff]

So just because a controller has a particular function that means it absolutely needs to be implemented when it might not be needed? Sounds like useless shoehorning to me. I couldn't care less about what's objectively superior and what isn't (or what other people say is or isn't). What I DO care about is what controls I'M comfortable with.


Implying that it wasn't already very accessible. It was already an easy-to-learn type of game (stupidly easy I might add, not sure how it could possibly be any more so) and gained the recognition of players around the world, which is no small feat. So yeah, trying to make it more accessible than it already was would be a redundant action.


Charming response you've got there.

More levels come with advancements in hardware, I get that, but I'm just saying there are more ways to keep the player playing the game than just more levels.


Clunky? Maybe. Overcomplicated controls? Not so much. But if you don't like the game there isn't much I can say to that.

I liked it though.


Probably because I've never outright stated that motion controls are bad. I just believe that implementing them where they're not needed is not the best of decisions. I've pretty much had my fill of motion controls during the Wii's lifetime. I mean, Corruption? I was cool with that. TP/SS? That's fine, too. Starfox? Now you're going too far.


Yes, but innovation should feel like a natural progression. There is also such a thing as taking things too far, which is precisely what happened with SFZ. The controls in SFZ are NOT an improvement, as you're willing to claim. They were an outright change, a change brought on by a foolishly desperate attempt to justify the use of the Gamepad's motion controls, completely unwarranted at that. This felt nothing like an evolution to the series. This was forced. And you can see the results for yourself.

You say people dislike new things because they aren't old things but did you ever consider that, in SFZ's case, there was a good chance players wouldn't be too thrilled with how Nintendo forced them into using a control scheme that they might not have wanted to use in the first place? If the controls were really so great, then why does SFZ not have the reception it supposedly deserves? I'm willing to bet this is why. If it wasn't for the controls being designed the way they are, I guarantee that SFZ would've done better across the board.

When did I ever say anything about gutting Mario being a good thing? How did you even come to that conclusion?

No, but some games are better with it.

No, more accessibility = more sales. More money is never a bad thing.

And I never said you couldn't? Nintendo was very clearly willing to abandon difficultly as the games got longer though. They would of.

Mario doesn't need all these weird and useless attacks... SMG showed that two, the spin and butt stomp, were more then enough. Half these moves you wouldn't ever use outside of a speedrun because some obscure and probably unintended effect.

Starfox Zero needed motion controls to keep all of 64's actions and the ability to aim freely. There's no arbitrary "lets have twin sticks for a gen" BS, so why should it apply to motion controls?

They also took things too far with Alien Resurrection. The controls are NOT an improvement. They were an outright change, a change brought on by a foolishly desperate attempt to justify the use of the second analog stick, completely unwarranted at that. This felt nothing like an evolution to the series. This was forced. And you can see the results for yourself.

In AR's case, there was a good chance players wouldn't be too thrilled with how they forced them into using a control scheme that they might not have wanted to use in the first place? If the controls were really so great, then why does AR not have the reception it supposedly deserves? I'm willing to bet this is why. If it wasn't for the controls being designed the way they are, I guarantee that AR would've done better across the board.

Really man. How is what you're saying any different from the GS review from 15 years ago? An arbitrary sense of "too far?" Peh. It's the same gameplay as 64 with the ability to aim freely and it's designed to accommodate that.

Not necessarily you, but all the people who'll hypocritically say SMG was gimmicky and SMS was our lord and saviour.

 

[EclipseMT]

Many an issue frustrates me with Nintendo's draconian copyright policies in regards to Youtube content creation.

 

[SimonBarSinister]

No, but some games are better with it.

Is that a fact? Or is that just your opinion?

No, more accessibility = more sales. More money is never a bad thing.

No it isn't a bad thing (not sure why you felt the need to say that but whatever), but still, SMB already had its bases covered. The only thing that needed to be done at that point was to apply that success to future Mario games.

Starfox Zero needed motion controls to keep all of 64's actions and the ability to aim freely. There's no arbitrary "lets have twin sticks for a gen" BS, so why should it apply to motion controls?

SFZ's controls weren't designed out of necessity though. It was out of a desire to have the game be played in a new way just for the sake of it being a new way. There was never a need for them, yet they're there.

They also took things too far with Alien Resurrection. The controls are NOT an improvement. They were an outright change, a change brought on by a foolishly desperate attempt to justify the use of the second analog stick, completely unwarranted at that. This felt nothing like an evolution to the series. This was forced. And you can see the results for yourself.

In AR's case, there was a good chance players wouldn't be too thrilled with how they forced them into using a control scheme that they might not have wanted to use in the first place? If the controls were really so great, then why does AR not have the reception it supposedly deserves? I'm willing to bet this is why. If it wasn't for the controls being designed the way they are, I guarantee that AR would've done better across the board.

Have I been talking to a parrot this whole time?

You're talking about a game I know nothing about, when I was talking about a different game. This seems to be a theme with you, talking about a completely unrelated series yet trying to make it seem relevant to the immediate conversation at hand, whether it draws parallels or not.

Really man. How is what you're saying any different from the GS review from 15 years ago? An arbitrary sense of "too far?" Peh. It's the same gameplay as 64 with the ability to aim freely and it's designed to accommodate that.

Same gameplay? Only in concept. But in execution however, SFZ is almost a completely different beast.

 

[LancerStaff]

Is that a fact? Or is that just your opinion?


No it isn't a bad thing (not sure why you felt the need to say that but whatever), but still, SMB already had its bases covered. The only thing that needed to be done at that point was to apply that success to future Mario games.


SFZ's controls weren't designed out of necessity though. It was out of a desire to have the game be played in a new way just for the sake of it being a new way. There was never a need for them, yet they're there.


Have I been talking to a parrot this whole time?

You're talking about a game I know nothing about, when I was talking about a different game. This seems to be a theme with you, talking about a completely unrelated series yet trying to make it seem relevant to the immediate conversation at hand, whether it draws parallels or not.


Same gameplay? Only in concept. But in execution however, SFZ is almost a completely different beast.

Uh, yeah? There's plenty of games that use every button on the controller effectively.

Twin sticks weren't either.

You play any dual analog shooters ever? Swap AR with it.

It's relevant because I'm taking what you're saying and applying it to a different control scheme. I see no difference, and you still haven't explained why you think it is.

Not a ridiculous amount, no. You're still flying around and CSing the living hell out of everything. It's like going from Kirby's Adventure to Super Star.

 

[SimonBarSinister]

You play any dual analog shooters ever? Swap AR with it.

Yes I have. What's your point?

It's relevant because I'm taking what you're saying and applying it to a different control scheme. I see no difference, and you still haven't explained why you think it is.

.....Because they are two completely (I'm assuming) different games with completely different control schemes? That's a pretty big difference if you ask me.

Not a ridiculous amount, no. You're still flying around and CSing the living hell out of everything. It's like going from Kirby's Adventure to Super Star.

Going from Kirby's Adventure to Super Star (Ultra) did not feel like a radical change in gameplay philosophy. Still played like I'd expect a Kirby game to play. I can't say the same thing about SFZ, because while it may seem like 64 on the outside, actually playing it feels like almost anything but.

Not to be rude or anything, but that is a bad comparison. Outside of certain games in the series, Kirby games in this day and age don't play any different than their predecessors (they even have the same controls), with the only changes being gameplay gimmicks that usually compliment his copy abilities in certain ways. You can't really compare that to SFZ, which had a drastically different focus as opposed to other games in the series.

 

[LancerStaff]

Yes I have. What's your point?


.....Because they are two completely (I'm assuming) different games with completely different control schemes? That's a pretty big difference if you ask me.


Going from Kirby's Adventure to Super Star (Ultra) did not feel like a radical change in gameplay philosophy. Still played like I'd expect a Kirby game to play. I can't say the same thing about SFZ, because while it may seem like 64 on the outside, actually playing it feels like almost anything but.

Not to be rude or anything, but that is a bad comparison. Outside of certain games in the series, Kirby games in this day and age don't play any different than their predecessors (they even have the same controls), with the only changes being gameplay gimmicks that usually compliment his copy abilities in certain ways. You can't really compare that to SFZ, which had a drastically different focus as opposed to other games in the series.

I don't think you've complained about not being able to use older shooter control schemes or about there being too many games that use it. It's not that the control schemes are different, but how you treat them.

No, not at all. In KA most abilities only had one move and were severely outclassed by shooting stars outside specific situations. In SS it's the opposite, where abilities have a ton of moves and outclass stars. There's also guarding which is basically required for the arena... SS eventually gave way to modern Kirby gameplay with tons of I-frames on every ability and countless changes to the boss damage formula.

Starfox Zero added the ability to aim separately from moving without a lock-on. Oooooo. I don't think anybody quit Starfox over this massive change. Yeah, the game feels very different, and yet Cat Mario and Mario Galaxy are basically on the opposite sides of the same genre and people didn't complain. SF0 still feels very much like 64.

 

[sijon]

Not making a OOT or MM hd remake for Wii U. I don't understand why they would bother making remakes for the 3DS. And when people try making their own, Nintendo shuts it down,

 

[Twewy]

And when people try making their own, Nintendo shuts it down,

I don't remember any OoT/MM remake projects.

 

[vertime]

I don't remember any OoT/MM remake projects.

E X A C T L Y :^)

But in all seriousness where the actual hell is a Wii U Punch Out at? Let's get some of that going instead of making me have to buy a Wii controller to play the Wii Punch Out.

On that note, the fact that the Gamecube controller has no compatibility with anything outside of Smash Bros. God, why?

Also not making any more DLC for Smash 4 after Bayonetta, who barely any of us wanted anyway.

 

[ThatsBullocks]

But she was totally the most voted character of Europe!!! [citation needed]

As for the GCN controllers on WiiU, you're being a bit irrational. There's totally no other games that have been proven by hackers to run on WiiU hardware that could ever PUT a GAMECUBE controller to use, especially not a potential selection of GAMES ON VIRTUAL CONSOLE.

 

[finalark]

I don't remember any OoT/MM remake projects.

I think I saw a trailer for one that had super pretty graphics and ran on the Unreal Engine or something. I don't think Nintendo shut it down, but I think the fans behind the project dropped it since it ended up being too much work for them.

But she was totally the most voted character of Europe!!! [citation needed]

She was the most voted realizable character. Meaning she was the most voted for character that they could feasibly get the rights to. For all we know there were three other characters ahead of her that they tried to secure the rights to but just couldn't.

Besides, Nintendo foot the bill for Bayo2, so it's really not that surprising.

 

[vertime]

But she was totally the most voted character of Europe!!! [citation needed]

As for the GCN controllers on WiiU, you're being a bit irrational. There's totally no other games that have been proven by hackers to run on WiiU hardware that could ever PUT a GAMECUBE controller to use, especially not a potential selection of GAMES ON VIRTUAL CONSOLE.

NOT AT ALL I MEAN MAKING USE OF CONTROLLERS WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?

She was the most voted realizable character. Meaning she was the most voted for character that they could feasibly get the rights to. For all we know there were three other characters ahead of her that they tried to secure the rights to but just couldn't.

You voted for Bayo didn't you?

 

[ThatsBullocks]

NOT AT ALL I MEAN MAKING USE OF CONTROLLERS WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?

You, uh, catch the "subliminal" message I put there?

 

[vertime]

You, uh, catch the "subliminal" message I put there?

"subliminal"

"painstakingly obvious"

FTFY

 

[Twewy]

I think I saw a trailer for one that had super pretty graphics and ran on the Unreal Engine or something. I don't think Nintendo shut it down, but I think the fans behind the project dropped it since it ended up being too much work for them.

IIRC that was like that "Mario running around in Unreal 4" thing where it was just a test to show what you can do with it. Granted I don't exactly follow Nintendo fan projects.

 

[SimonBarSinister]

You, uh, catch the "subliminal" message I put there?

I still don't understand why Nintendo included all of their major platforms in the VC service EXCEPT the GCN. It gave me the impression that they're actively avoiding it for some reason.

On that note, the fact that the Gamecube controller has no compatibility with anything outside of Smash Bros. God, why?

This is also another pet peeve. There are quite a few games on Wii U that could easily support the GCN controller. Mario Kart 8, Super Mario 3D World (though certain gimmick stages would be unplayable without the Gamepad), NSMB U, and not to mention the various VC games in which you can configure the controls to your liking. I mean, they already went to the trouble of making the GCN adapter, why just limit it to one game? I'm not seeing the logic behind this decision. They should've just made the adapter compatible with every game that was within the capabilities of the GCN controller.

 

[ThatsBullocks]

I just hope the NX retains a USB support and compatibility with the GCN adapter.

To be a bit fair, I remember hearing rumblings of Nintendo considering GCN VC games. If there were any plans, though, they presumably pulled the plug because they realized that the WiiU is a quickly sinking ship. If they don't launch the NX's VC with GCN then they're just shooting themselves in the remaining stump they call a foot these days.

 

[SimonBarSinister]

I just hope the NX retains a USB support and compatibility with the GCN adapter.

They'd have to, especially if they intend to have an iteration of Smash at some point. To ditch it now would be incredibly short-sighted.

To be a bit fair, I remember hearing rumblings of Nintendo considering GCN VC games. If there were any plans, though, they presumably pulled the plug because they realized that the WiiU is a quickly sinking ship. If they don't launch the NX's VC with GCN then they're just shooting themselves in the remaining stump they call a foot these days.

I seem to remember something like this going on at some point in time. I have recently thought that including GCN games in the VC service would be possible on NX since it hasn't happened on Wii U yet. Whether or not Nintendo will follow through with it remains to be seen, but I'm hoping like hell that Nintendo will try to redeem themselves a bit.

 

[finalark]

You voted for Bayo didn't you?

I voted for Isaac from Golden Sun.

 

[Goont]

To be a bit fair, I remember hearing rumblings of Nintendo considering GCN VC games. If there were any plans, though, they presumably pulled the plug because they realized that the WiiU is a quickly sinking ship. If they don't launch the NX's VC with GCN then they're just shooting themselves in the remaining stump they call a foot these days.

Hopefully they're holding out for a reason. I'd love some HD remakes, or even just ports at a higher resolution. One crazy idea I have is to re-release the games vanilla, but with a wave of GCN amiibos that activate achievements. (With Miiverse stamps as a reward.) It'd be a nice way to make the games fresh without actually adding any new content.

 

[LasermasterA]

I voted for Isaac from Golden Sun.

Here have a totally random like outta nowhere.

On topic, would probably be the obviously short Wii U lifespan. And lack of Gamecube VC. No analog triggers limiting GC VC...

And no Fire Emblem: PoR + RD, combo HD re-release xD

Oh and the complete lack of Advance Wars (and Golden Sun) but I think I have already mentioned those.

 

[finalark]

And no Fire Emblem: PoR + RD, combo HD re-release xD

Consider the favor returned.

 

[Minato]

I wouldn't say upset, but I'd like to point out their marketing. The controllers allowed, what the Wii U is, New 3DS name scheme, etc. It's not that great for the last gen or so. I'm curious to see what they'll be doing with NX to help differentiate and communicate with people.

 

[Zerinus]

Well I'm not really upset yet, but Nintendo hasn't made very pleasing decisions lately. I'm pretty concerned about what Nintendo's plans are about how they're going to release the NX, but I guess by now I've realized Nintendo is pretty unorthodox with the rest of the gaming industry. I really hope it's a good kind of unorthodox, atleast for the weird March release of the NX, but even if the launch flops, im still getting an NX.

I'll have a lot of things to be dissapointed about if Nintendo doesn't hint anything on NX at Tokyo Game Show.

On another tangent, I was pretty upset after buying a Wii U for a few months and not having really much reason to play it until MK8 came out back then. Especially since I dropped my whole wallet on it at the time.

 

[Deleted member]

Two things have been on my mind.
First off is them taking down AM2R and Pokemon Uranium. Both were passion projects made for years and now they were removed for copyright infringement. I understand that Nintendo wants to protect their IPs, but these games weren't going to do any harm. AM2R was just a remake of Metroid 2 (and I doubt Nintendo will be remaking that game soon) and Pokemon Uranium isn't going to detract people from playing Pokemon Sun & Moon. It sends a bad message to me about how Nintendo has been treating some of their fans.
Second, and I hope I'm not alone here, but I found it jarring how Super Mario Maker and Yoshi's Woolly World are now going to be on the 3DS. The former I can understand for making a different experience in sharing content, but I don't understand the latter. It's like Nintendo gave up on the Wii U completely, is jumping ship to the NX and hoping it succeeds, and is putting Wii U games on the 3DS in hopes that they sell better. Also, the fact that the 3DS is getting games in 2017 tells me that the system is going to stay for a bit longer and Nintendo will be focusing the NX and 3DS.

While I can't say these things "upset" me personally, I think they could've handled these situations a whole lot better.

 

[Zerinus]

It's like Nintendo gave up on the Wii U completely

Well to be fair... at a business perspective, continuing to make games for the Wii U might be more of a risk since it is a little obvious that the Wii U has flopped?
That's how I see it.

The SMM iteration on the 3ds struck a cord in me though. I wish they released it on the 3ds initially and I would have much prefered a 3ds version because it's portable and easier to share levels w/ friends that way.

 

[LancerStaff]

Two things have been on my mind.
First off is them taking down AM2R and Pokemon Uranium. Both were passion projects made for years and now they were removed for copyright infringement. I understand that Nintendo wants to protect their IPs, but these games weren't going to do any harm. AM2R was just a remake of Metroid 2 (and I doubt Nintendo will be remaking that game soon) and Pokemon Uranium isn't going to detract people from playing Pokemon Sun & Moon. It sends a bad message to me about how Nintendo has been treating some of their fans.
Second, and I hope I'm not alone here, but I found it jarring how Super Mario Maker and Yoshi's Woolly World are now going to be on the 3DS. The former I can understand for making a different experience in sharing content, but I don't understand the latter. It's like Nintendo gave up on the Wii U completely, is jumping ship to the NX and hoping it succeeds, and is putting Wii U games on the 3DS in hopes that they sell better. Also, the fact that the 3DS is getting games in 2017 tells me that the system is going to stay for a bit longer and Nintendo will be focusing the NX and 3DS.

While I can't say these things "upset" me personally, I think they could've handled these situations a whole lot better.

Maybe AM2R could of lived if the Metroid fanbase wasn't all "why buy FF when this is free lol."

Pokemon would be on Game Freak. Considering there's an actual new set of games coming out right after everybody's into GO I'd say it is hurting them.