E3 2008 | Discussion

[PoorLepRecon]

Some news about future Zelda games...

 

 

 

http://www.nintendoeverything.com/?p=2069

 

 

 

I'm starting to lose my faith in Nintendo. They have fully adopted the casual games market and seem to be converting thier entire company to producing casual games. Not to say they don't have any, I'm just saying they are producing way more casual than hardcore. I may need to save up for a 360 or a PS3 if I want any good hardcore games anymore....

[adam_ross0]

I'm starting to wonder why I bought a Wii in the first place. I mean..I will have Brawl, Mario Kart Wii, Spore, maybe Okami, maybe SM Galaxy and AC: City Folk..but what will I have to look forward to after that? I hope E3 is better next year.

[adam_ross0]

Sorry, Double Post :oops:

[Macmaster92]

Some news about future Zelda games...

 

 

 

http://www.nintendoeverything.com/?p=2069

 

 

 

I'm starting to lose my faith in Nintendo. They have fully adopted the casual games market and seem to be converting thier entire company to producing casual games. Not to say they don't have any, I'm just saying they are producing way more casual than hardcore. I may need to save up for a 360 or a PS3 if I want any good hardcore games anymore....

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm that imakes no sense at all :-k The reason the Wii has been such a big hit is because its been targeting casual gamers and hard core gamers, to an extent. If they just go for casual they will have a problem. This years E3 was horrible. :|

 

 

 

This is what I think: Wii will become casual, 360 will become casual, not as much as the Wii, and Ps3 will remain the "hardcore" gamers console. This years E3 was horrible. :|

[InkofDeath]

This is what I think: Wii will become casual, 360 will become casual, not as much as the Wii, and Ps3 will remain the "hardcore" gamers console. This years E3 was horrible. :|

 

Exactly what I stated in a previous post in here. Mulitple people thinking of this, is very bad indeed.

 

 

 

I was really hoping for a 'tough' game, as Twilight wasn't difficult. I was hoping for some hardcore thinking, as well as hardcore puzzles to advance in the infamous dungeons of Zelda. Guess it'll be something like Connect Four.

[Nadril]

This is why I only have my 360 for exclusives and stick with the PC. As many hardcore or casual games as you want.

[InkofDeath]

This is why I only have my 360 for exclusives and stick with the PC. As many hardcore or casual games as you want.

 

Cross-Platform. :

[ReapMe]

disliked nintendo's showing

 

gears of war 2 and LBP were best of e3 to me

 

loved microsoft + netflix :D

 

 

 

this e3 kinda blew overall though

[Nadril]

This is why I only have my 360 for exclusives and stick with the PC. As many hardcore or casual games as you want.

 

Cross-Platform. :

 

 

 

Seriously though, open source programing == the best. It's why the other consoles can't compete with the PC.

[PoorLepRecon]

This is what I think: Wii will become casual, 360 will become casual, not as much as the Wii, and Ps3 will remain the "hardcore" gamers console. This years E3 was horrible. :|

 

Exactly what I stated in a previous post in here. Mulitple people thinking of this, is very bad indeed.

 

 

 

I was really hoping for a 'tough' game, as Twilight wasn't difficult. I was hoping for some hardcore thinking, as well as hardcore puzzles to advance in the infamous dungeons of Zelda. Guess it'll be something like Connect Four.

 

 

 

From a company that revolutionised the gaming world, they have finally started to turn their backs on their past and turn towards a casual gaming future. Another fact that I dislike about Nintendo nowadays is that they rely too much on Mario, Metroid, and Zelda for their consoles. Sure they have other series like Pokemon and Star Fox, but they arn't creating any new hardcore game series. We are all stuck with yet another remixed game. Not to say they arn't fun to play, but really, how is there any real difference in games like zelda? The same basic formula remains from the original game, and though it works, it could be mixed up a bit, just to shake things up for a little.

 

 

 

Alright I'm done for now. :roll:

[InkofDeath]

Though Kcd, they aren't the same games, sure, same characters, but not the same game, or storyline all the time.

 

 

 

In Mario, it's different every time. The game play, well used to be different every time, from side scrolling, to nonlinear game play. It's what made them viable to play. Sure they had the same story with Bowser, but the game play was different. Just like with Mario Tennis, or Mario Kart. Same characters, different game play. It's what makes them work every time.

 

 

 

For games like Zelda you have the infamous dual-time line thing going on. It's always intriguing to people, thus the game will be successful. Every game has had something new to it, which has made the series succeed.

 

 

 

Not all games succeed like this, not all games with different game plays succeed. These games just shine brightly because they always bring something different to the table, have great non-repetitive story lines.

 

 

 

True, Nintendo isn't releasing new hardcore games, but they don't need to be new titles. Old titles are still viable options if the game play is turned towards a 'hardcore' crowd, with new game play features...etc.

 

 

 

New titles, or old titles, doesn't matter. What matters is the game play within each game. I don't care if I have to play as a darn monkey to get the best game play there is. The best puzzles. The best storylines, that are comical. I don't care if it's a 2-D monkey for a 30 stretch game line. Characters are just overrated rectangles interacting by pre-based animations, or sequences. What I'm playing for isn't those, thus they are irrelevant. What's relevant is the game play. It can be the same characters, we don't need, or in some cases want new titles, or characters.

[Faux]

Though Kcd, they aren't the same games, sure, same characters, but not the same game, or storyline all the time.

 

 

 

In Mario, it's different every time. The game play, well used to be different every time, from side scrolling, to nonlinear game play. It's what made them viable to play. Sure they had the same story with Bowser, but the game play was different. Just like with Mario Tennis, or Mario Kart. Same characters, different game play. It's what makes them work every time.

 

 

 

For games like Zelda you have the infamous dual-time line thing going on. It's always intriguing to people, thus the game will be successful. Every game has had something new to it, which has made the series succeed.

 

 

 

Not all games succeed like this, not all games with different game plays succeed. These games just shine brightly because they always bring something different to the table, have great non-repetitive story lines.

 

 

 

True, Nintendo isn't releasing new hardcore games, but they don't need to be new titles. Old titles are still viable options if the game play is turned towards a 'hardcore' crowd, with new game play features...etc.

 

 

 

New titles, or old titles, doesn't matter. What matters is the game play within each game. I don't care if I have to play as a darn monkey to get the best game play there is. The best puzzles. The best storylines, that are comical. I don't care if it's a 2-D monkey for a 30 stretch game line. Characters are just overrated rectangles interacting by pre-based animations, or sequences. What I'm playing for isn't those, thus they are irrelevant. What's relevant is the game play. It can be the same characters, we don't need, or in some cases want new titles, or characters.

 

 

 

:lol: How many more times does Mario need to save the Princess or Link to save the world?

 

 

 

They've been whored out enough. Let them rest.

[InkofDeath]

:lol: How many more times does Mario need to save the Princess or Link to save the world?

 

 

 

They've been [bleep] out enough. Let them rest.

 

Missed the entire point, the characters don't matter. Also, Mario doesn't always save the princess, Link doesn't always save the world. It's this, them not staying true to the storyline, yet still contributing something to the storyline that is allowing them to be successful.

 

 

 

As well, characters don't matter, storyline + gameplay is the secret, both excel at this, and as long as they excel at this, there's no reason to put them to rest.

 

 

 

Games like Halo, that have 2 successors, or things like CoD series (where the War bit gets old in some areas) are told to be retired because they reach the max game story reality, or the game play is repetitive through-out each new series. While CoD may be a bad example, it's worth putting on there. Zelda, & Mario have remained classic, yet still surprising. Thegames released with the characters have always been innovative, and have had a different style of game play (Ok, Zelda is, go do these 5 dungeons, then do these 8, then do these 15 dungeons, cutscene, 3 more dungeons, cutscene, fight, cutscene, end fight, but it's how you complete each dungeon in each game that makes it so different and varied, it's how you move, how you walk, how you die even).

[PoorLepRecon]

Yes I understand that each of those new iterations into each of the series brings something new to the game, I'm sort of agreeing with shadow though. How many times exactly do we need to rescue Princess Peach. I mean mario games have the same overall goal for the most part, rescue Princess Peach. The gameplay may have changed to the point that it is fun to play again, but sometimes games just need to end, just like a good t.v. show. Now, I'm not saying Nintendo is going to give up the most famous video game character to ever be created, but I was just using mario as an example. More originial titles need to be developed from nintendo.

 

 

 

And Nintendo needs more 3rd party support #-o We hardly get any decent games from non Nintedo developers due to so many of the ones who are creating games for us are creating casual crap games that have no business being published.

[Macmaster92]

This is what I think: Wii will become casual, 360 will become casual, not as much as the Wii, and Ps3 will remain the "hardcore" gamers console. This years E3 was horrible. :|

 

Exactly what I stated in a previous post in here. Mulitple people thinking of this, is very bad indeed.

 

 

 

I was really hoping for a 'tough' game, as Twilight wasn't difficult. I was hoping for some hardcore thinking, as well as hardcore puzzles to advance in the infamous dungeons of Zelda. Guess it'll be something like Connect Four.

 

 

 

From a company that revolutionised the gaming world, they have finally started to turn their backs on their past and turn towards a casual gaming future. Another fact that I dislike about Nintendo nowadays is that they rely too much on Mario, Metroid, and Zelda for their consoles. Sure they have other series like Pokemon and Star Fox, but they arn't creating any new hardcore game series. We are all stuck with yet another remixed game. Not to say they arn't fun to play, but really, how is there any real difference in games like zelda? The same basic formula remains from the original game, and though it works, it could be mixed up a bit, just to shake things up for a little.

 

 

 

Alright I'm done for now. :roll:

 

 

 

You know, you are right kcdragon. Nintendo needs to come up with a new character that would be in a hardcore game. I love the classics but a breath of fresh air would be nice.

[PoorLepRecon]

This thread has evolved from discussing E3 to discussing the future of these companies and what changes they need to do (mainly nintendo, we havn't started on microsoft and sony yet :roll: )

 

 

 

I'm glad you agree with me Mac, glad to see I'm not the only one. I also think the need to diversify their focus on different genres. I mean Nintendo only develops one fps (metroid)and one space shooter game (star fox), and those are just 2 examples. How hard would it be to add on 1 or 2 more series in a genre to work with. That way they have more to choose from if they do want a sequel, and also they can choose to make them centered around different markets. Instead of creating an even easier zelda, create another action game that is focused for more casual gamers, while leaving zelda for a more hardcore market.

[Faux]

Missed the entire point, the characters don't matter. Also, Mario doesn't always save the princess, Link doesn't always save the world. It's this, them not staying true to the storyline, yet still contributing something to the storyline that is allowing them to be successful.

 

 

 

As well, characters don't matter, storyline + gameplay is the secret, both excel at this, and as long as they excel at this, there's no reason to put them to rest.

 

 

 

Games like Halo, that have 2 successors, or things like CoD series (where the War bit gets old in some areas) are told to be retired because they reach the max game story reality, or the game play is repetitive through-out each new series. While CoD may be a bad example, it's worth putting on there. Zelda, & Mario have remained classic, yet still surprising. Thegames released with the characters have always been innovative, and have had a different style of game play (Ok, Zelda is, go do these 5 dungeons, then do these 8, then do these 15 dungeons, cutscene, 3 more dungeons, cutscene, fight, cutscene, end fight, but it's how you complete each dungeon in each game that makes it so different and varied, it's how you move, how you walk, how you die even).

 

 

 

No, you're kidding yourself. If Nintendo did the game with another set of characters, it will FAIL. You know why? Because Nintendo depends on the popularity of their main characters like Mario, or Link to boost the sales. You think as much people will buy Mario Kart if it didn't have Mario in the title?

 

 

 

Nintendo knows they'll keep making money off these franchises as long as they make them. In the gaming world, Sony fanboys are supposed to be the cows. But you know what? I think Nintendo fans fit that suit better.

[Macmaster92]

Missed the entire point, the characters don't matter. Also, Mario doesn't always save the princess, Link doesn't always save the world. It's this, them not staying true to the storyline, yet still contributing something to the storyline that is allowing them to be successful.

 

 

 

As well, characters don't matter, storyline + gameplay is the secret, both excel at this, and as long as they excel at this, there's no reason to put them to rest.

 

 

 

Games like Halo, that have 2 successors, or things like CoD series (where the War bit gets old in some areas) are told to be retired because they reach the max game story reality, or the game play is repetitive through-out each new series. While CoD may be a bad example, it's worth putting on there. Zelda, & Mario have remained classic, yet still surprising. Thegames released with the characters have always been innovative, and have had a different style of game play (Ok, Zelda is, go do these 5 dungeons, then do these 8, then do these 15 dungeons, cutscene, 3 more dungeons, cutscene, fight, cutscene, end fight, but it's how you complete each dungeon in each game that makes it so different and varied, it's how you move, how you walk, how you die even).

 

 

 

No, you're kidding yourself. If Nintendo did the game with another set of characters, it will FAIL. You know why? Because Nintendo depends on the popularity of their main characters like Mario, or Link to boost the sales. You think as much people will buy Mario Kart if it didn't have Mario in the title?

 

 

 

Nintendo knows they'll keep making money off these franchises as long as they make them. In the gaming world, Sony fanboys are supposed to be the cows. But you know what? I think Nintendo fans fit that suit better.

 

 

 

The reason, the majority, of people buy Mario Kart versus lets say Crash Bandicoot, is not because it has Mario on the tittle. Its because it has the Nintendo characters and items from games we all know and love in an entirely new mix. Just like SSBB.

[Adam007]

Missed the entire point, the characters don't matter. Also, Mario doesn't always save the princess, Link doesn't always save the world. It's this, them not staying true to the storyline, yet still contributing something to the storyline that is allowing them to be successful.

 

 

 

As well, characters don't matter, storyline + gameplay is the secret, both excel at this, and as long as they excel at this, there's no reason to put them to rest.

 

 

 

Games like Halo, that have 2 successors, or things like CoD series (where the War bit gets old in some areas) are told to be retired because they reach the max game story reality, or the game play is repetitive through-out each new series. While CoD may be a bad example, it's worth putting on there. Zelda, & Mario have remained classic, yet still surprising. Thegames released with the characters have always been innovative, and have had a different style of game play (Ok, Zelda is, go do these 5 dungeons, then do these 8, then do these 15 dungeons, cutscene, 3 more dungeons, cutscene, fight, cutscene, end fight, but it's how you complete each dungeon in each game that makes it so different and varied, it's how you move, how you walk, how you die even).

 

 

 

No, you're kidding yourself. If Nintendo did the game with another set of characters, it will FAIL. You know why? Because Nintendo depends on the popularity of their main characters like Mario, or Link to boost the sales. You think as much people will buy Mario Kart if it didn't have Mario in the title?

 

 

 

Nintendo knows they'll keep making money off these franchises as long as they make them. In the gaming world, Sony fanboys are supposed to be the cows. But you know what? I think Nintendo fans fit that suit better.

 

Not really. In Japan, Nintendo's most sold game is Wii Sports. It's about the Nintendo brand, not the characters. But if they do have a successful set of characters, what's wrong with using them? It does help sales showing familiar characters, but it's not necessary for sales. Games like Nintendogs, Wii Fit, and Brain Age have showed to be successful without mascots, and they're taking that direction with Wii Sports Resort and Wii Music.

 

 

 

Yes I understand that each of those new iterations into each of the series brings something new to the game, I'm sort of agreeing with shadow though. How many times exactly do we need to rescue Princess Peach. I mean mario games have the same overall goal for the most part, rescue Princess Peach. The gameplay may have changed to the point that it is fun to play again, but sometimes games just need to end, just like a good t.v. show. Now, I'm not saying Nintendo is going to give up the most famous video game character to ever be created, but I was just using mario as an example. More originial titles need to be developed from nintendo.

 

 

It's always been about the gameplay, not about rescuing Peach. If that's why you play your game, to rescue Peach, then I don't know why you play video games. Rescuing Peach may give the game a story, but that's the only point of it. It's about the new gameplay each time around that keeps people coming back.

[Faux]

Not really. In Japan, Nintendo's most sold game is Wii Sports. It's about the Nintendo brand, not the characters. But if they do have a successful set of characters, what's wrong with using them? It does help sales showing familiar characters, but it's not necessary for sales. Games like Nintendogs, Wii Fit, and Brain Age have showed to be successful without mascots, and they're taking that direction with Wii Sports Resort and Wii Music.

 

 

 

Group A: Wii Sports, Nintendogs, Wii Fit, Brain Age, Wii Sports, Wii Music

 

 

 

Group B: Super Mario Bros., Legend of Zelda, Pokemon, Metroid Prime, Kirby, Star Fox

 

 

 

See the difference here? The games in group A don't need mascots because they're not targeting gamers. They are for people who don't really play games.

 

 

 

It's great that Nintendo makes a ton of cash making these games, and it's a joy for people who don't really play games. but for gamers, they're basically sold the games just because of the mascots. Not to mention Nintendo being comfortable with their current franchises means that they won't be interested in creating new IPs unlike what Sony / Microsoft is doing.

 

 

 

There's nothing wrong with rehashing the characters if you like seeing your favorite gaming company swim in money. But if you like playing games, there's a line to be drawn.

[ThurinEthir]

Despite having to have considered myself a Nintendo fanboy in the past, I'm going to have to kind of agree with Shadow on this. In the past, I've always thought "Sony and Microsoft aren't doing anything new...Just more sequels and sequels...Nintendo on the other hand..." Well, so much for that. To be honest, nearly all decent, hardcore video games are sequels. The only relatively new thing I took from E3 was the MAG that Sony is doing. Otherwise, Microsoft, but mainly Nintendo are going off their successful franchises...Sure, I like Mario, sure I like Zelda...But there has to be a limit. Nintendo has to make something new, for hardcore gamers. I thought their point was to appeal to all people, but it seems like they're leaving hardcore gamers in the dark.

 

On the other hand, I wouldn't mind if they made a new Mario or a new Zelda but with completely different gameplay. While a Mario RTS might not work, it would probably be better than a Super Mario Galaxy 2. A Zelda FPS (Shooting...Bows and boomerangs? And bombs instead of grenades?) would be better than an exact copy of Twilight Princess.

 

To put it simply, Nintendo (And I guess Microsoft, maybe Sony) needs to try something new. Taken from the SSBB Dojo, there hasn't been a new, good Nintendo franchise created within the past few years. (Not an exact quote) The last was Pikmin. In like 2002. The past 6 years have just been sequels after sequels, and it's getting boring.

 

Time to buy a PS3, I guess.

[Swordhand20]

A problem I have with Nintendo is how the "Nintendo seal of quality" means nothing anymore.

[Adam007]

Not really. In Japan, Nintendo's most sold game is Wii Sports. It's about the Nintendo brand, not the characters. But if they do have a successful set of characters, what's wrong with using them? It does help sales showing familiar characters, but it's not necessary for sales. Games like Nintendogs, Wii Fit, and Brain Age have showed to be successful without mascots, and they're taking that direction with Wii Sports Resort and Wii Music.

 

 

 

Group A: Wii Sports, Nintendogs, Wii Fit, Brain Age, Wii Sports, Wii Music

 

 

 

Group B: Super Mario Bros., Legend of Zelda, Pokemon, Metroid Prime, Kirby, Star Fox

 

 

 

See the difference here? The games in group A don't need mascots because they're not targeting gamers. They are for people who don't really play games.

 

 

 

It's great that Nintendo makes a ton of cash making these games, and it's a joy for people who don't really play games. but for gamers, they're basically sold the games just because of the mascots. Not to mention Nintendo being comfortable with their current franchises means that they won't be interested in creating new IPs unlike what Sony / Microsoft is doing.

 

 

 

There's nothing wrong with rehashing the characters if you like seeing your favorite gaming company swim in money. But if you like playing games, there's a line to be drawn.

 

I like new ideas, like Pikmin. But how much can you ask from Nintendo? They're a hardware and software company. Most software companies, Sega for example, stick to one genre or set of characters. Sony and Microsoft don't have many unique new 1st party games. Our problem with Nintendo is that its 3rd party companies are making so much money with generic shovelware that we're not getting original games. It used to be 3rd party just couldn't compete with 1st party. Now, 3rd party companies have no incentive to make new types of games and characters because they're making so much money with the casual crowd.

[krisc6]

Sony stole the show amongst E3 judges, Fat princess, Flower and little big planet are all being praised openly which i found a little surprising since LBP's beeen praised at a lot of trade shows and for it to be shortlisted by many if not all the judges is surprising.

 

 

 

Oh btw 1up yours released a3 hour mega e3 wrap up with around 15 people, epic.