Post by: Ninja X on June 15, 2003, 04:22:14 PM
The Wind Waker
The Four Swords
Tetra's Trackers
The Wind Waker 2 (tentative title)
Ocarina Of Time: Master Quest (technical one)
I do not mind Master Quest, The Wind Waker, or the sequel to the Wind Waker, but The Four Swords and Tetra's Trackers. But The Four Swords and Tetra's Trackers? C'mon...I know both of them were meant to help with GBA connectivity, but they sound like milkers. One is somewhat of a party title, and the other is a definite party title.
Before the GCN, all Zeldas (except for the horse manure that were the Philips versions and The Four Swords GBA) were massive adventures that sucked players into worlds that were unique only to Zelda. The Four Swords was an exception, but it did also contain the port of LTTP. And it is not on the main console.
However, the Four Swords GCN and Tetra's Trackers are. The Four Swords, from what I hear, is a fun title, but it is not a massive spectacle we all come to expect from the main console Zeldas. Even so, this would not be enough evidence of Zelda getting milked if Tetra's Trackers did not come into play at the same time. That is just a blatent party game so far.
I do not want to see the series many esteem for being the best get milked. Metroid is not getting this treatment, so why is Zelda? They are Nintendo's two best series quality-wise (Mario has too many titles. As many quality titles he has, he has lots of crap titles as well, sadly) by the fans and critics alike, so they should not be marred with any side titles. If they want to have gaidens of the series, that is all right, but no side titles like "Zelda Party."
Post by: Termin8Anakin on June 15, 2003, 05:00:01 PM
It's not being milked. Milked means massive toys and merchandising and such. This is only two games we're talking about here, so it's hardly milking.
And who's to say the two games will be crap? I'll bet they're both gonna be excellent, albeit different.
Post by: nitsu niflheim on June 15, 2003, 05:05:27 PM
Post by: Slashman SG on June 15, 2003, 06:11:11 PM
Post by: AgentSeven on June 15, 2003, 06:13:27 PM
Anyway, in the era of sony, sequels sell, especially to uninformed, "casual gamers." I'm not a big fan of this philosophy, I actually feel that too many sequels will eventually destroy the game industry. Sony and other companies don't seem to concerned by this idea, but frankly it worries me, deeply. I can already see the launch line-up for ps3, "Socom 12, Crash Bandicoot 78, MGS 14, etc.."
It seems that these new Zelda "games" are just Nintendo's reaction to a growing trend. At least 99.99% of the Zelda games are EXCELLENT in quality. Especially WW and OoT, two of the finest games ever made.
Still if it bothers you so much, don't play them. I was a huge MG/MGS fan until MGS2, after that, I was done with that series(among others). Poor sequels can really take the fun out of things.
Post by: Termin8Anakin on June 15, 2003, 06:16:32 PM
"Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha!
*stops for air*
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Best post evah!
I was thinking the exact same thing when i clicked!
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Post by: Grey Ninja on June 15, 2003, 06:26:46 PM
Post by: Termin8Anakin on June 15, 2003, 06:31:15 PM
Blame it on Ninja X!
I thought it was a link to a pic! Hahaha!
Post by: AgentSeven on June 15, 2003, 06:32:05 PM
Post by: Termin8Anakin on June 15, 2003, 06:34:39 PM
Post by: PIAC on June 15, 2003, 06:45:25 PM
Post by: Termin8Anakin on June 15, 2003, 06:47:45 PM
Guy: "Got milk?"
Zelda: "Sure do!"
*squirt!*
Post by: Grey Ninja on June 15, 2003, 06:48:13 PM
Post by: PIAC on June 15, 2003, 06:49:27 PM
Post by: Mario on June 15, 2003, 06:56:53 PM
Anyway, back on topic. Whats wrong with more Zelda games? The Legend of Zelda is the greatest series of all time, whats wrong with more of them? The more the better!
Post by: Grey Ninja on June 15, 2003, 07:00:33 PM
No guts, no glory.
Post by: Termin8Anakin on June 15, 2003, 07:04:32 PM
but I'm not gonna post it as a link to the forums.
i'll send to to ur email.
Post by: Grey Ninja on June 15, 2003, 07:34:29 PM
Post by: Michael8983 on June 16, 2003, 06:08:01 AM
I'm pretty sure Nintendo would consider Four Swords a GCN/GBA game and a lot of people believe Tetra's Trackers won't be released as a stand-alone game, and instead will be a part of Four Swords or as part of a collection of connectivity games.
Master Quest obviously doesn't count.
So I don't think Zelda is being milked. Mario either. He may be in a lot of games but they're all very different and the vast majority of them are great. Look at Mario Kart. Any other developer would release a new addition of the game every two years if not sooner but Nintendo has made it a point to only release one per console. It was SIX years between the two 3D platform Mario titles. The Mario Party series is different but I'd consider it to be the only case where Mario is being milked. That series isn't even made by Nintendo anyway and, since the games are so simplistic in design, I don't think it's that big a deal anyway.
Post by: Hostile Creation on June 16, 2003, 06:38:53 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on June 16, 2003, 07:27:21 AM
I think it would greatly improve Nintendo's image (and showcase them as the true originators that they are) if they cut back on franchise spinoffs and kept each character to their respective series (though I think Mario can continue with both his platformers and Mario Kart). Super Smash Bros would be an exception of course. Otherwise Zelda would remain as an adventure game, Pokemon as an RPG, Star Fox as a shooter, etc. Plus Nintendo doesn't look so kiddy if they don't have fifty billion Mario and Pokemon titles everywhere. They also would be able to free up their developers so that they can concentrate on making some new series for the older crowd. It would make WAY more sense to have a company like Camelot working on a Gamecube RPG than another Mario Tennis and Mario Golf game that doesn't need to be made in the first place.
Post by: Grey Ninja on June 16, 2003, 07:27:42 AM
Nevertheless, here's a version for everyone who was dissapointed with the subject matter in this thread. (removed)
Post by: nitsu niflheim on June 16, 2003, 07:34:54 AM
Post by: Hostile Creation on June 16, 2003, 08:58:48 AM
Post by: Ninja X on June 16, 2003, 10:16:59 AM
I come into the Gamecube Forums and when I see that my topic has already accumulated 23 posts, I expected a heated debate or something people are bitching about...
I was WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYY wrong.
Man...why didn't I think about the title in the first place?!
Ian Sane: I like your opinion on how Mario Sunshine did not sell due to too many Marios. I also agree. Hopefully, Zelda won't go taht way, but with Tetra's Trackers, it might.
Post by: Ninja X on June 16, 2003, 10:22:54 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Termin8Anakin
I'm still laughing!
Blame it on Ninja X!
I thought it was a link to a pic! Hahaha!
Yeah, blame it on the friendly ninja...
Well, gee, I'm not the one with the dirty mind...(ahem)
Post by: Ninja X on June 16, 2003, 10:39:35 AM
Post by: Skyman_Welks on June 16, 2003, 11:28:26 AM
If they make this game at least 50 hours long, and use a new overworld and everything, I think it will be worthy enough for the zelda series. I mean everyone liked LTTP, think of this as a new, improved, longer version that you can experience with your friends and everything.
Think of it as a full-fledged adventure, and not a simple mini game with 4 (or however many) dungeons that was in the the gameboy version.
Post by: Frodo Fett on June 16, 2003, 12:21:27 PM
:
Post by: CHEN on June 16, 2003, 01:10:42 PM
that was sick Grey Ninja, but it gave me a good laugh. Haha you sicko!
Post by: Michael8983 on June 16, 2003, 01:16:17 PM
I don't think it's fair to say that Mario Sunshine was any more of a "true" Mario game than Mario Party, Mario Kart, Mario Tennis, or any of the other games that featured Mario. At this point, I think Nintendo sees Mario as a cross-genre star. People may have assumed that the 3D platform genre replaced the 2D platform genre as his "main" genre when Mario 64 was released, but the fact that it took so long for the next sequel to be released suggests otherwise. It wasn't even developed as a launch title for the Gamecube and Miyamoto once said (I think this was in the "Dolphin" days) that he wasn't sure if he wanted to develope another 3D Platform Mario title for the new console at all. Recently, he's commented that he thought Mario Sunshine wasn't "new" enough and has said some things that have lead people to believe the upcoming Mario 128 won't be a 3D platform game.
Mario Sunshine didn't sell that well (by Mario standards) for a variety of reasons.
It had really tough competition including a few 3D platform games on the PS2 and other big-name Gamecube titles. Not only did it have competition when it was released, but also the entire year before. It didn't get anywhere near the kind of hype it should have gotten because Zelda and Metroid stole just about all of it.
It also didn't look anything like a Mario game and had the word "Sunshine" in it and the cleaning up element was stressed way too much (it was a minor part of the game) which prevented some insecure people from buying it and had less informed people unaware it was even intended to be a sequel to Mario 64. I can just about guarantee it would have sold a lot better if it were called Mario 64-2.
When Mario Kart Double Dash leaves Mario Sunshine in the dust later this year, it should be clear that Mario is not just a 3D platform game star who has some side-projects. He now transcend genres.
Post by: Termin8Anakin on June 16, 2003, 02:02:09 PM
Go grey ninja!
Go MS Paint!
and no one here is sick.
we are like-minded.
Post by: Ian Sane on June 16, 2003, 02:13:28 PM
Yeah but is that a good thing? In the longrun is it beneficial for Mario to be a genre-busting character? At least if Mario is known as primarily a platform character then people don't get sick of him and he doesn't get a reputation as a washed up character. Right now I'd say Mario is WAY too overexposed and as a result people just aren't as interested in him. I think people need a Mario break. I remember when Super Mario 64 came out Mario had been out of the spotlight for a while so there was more of a "Mario's back" attitude. At the time Nintendo had been focusing on the DKC series as the big title for the SNES and the last Mario platformer was Yoshi's Island which didn't even have an adult Mario in it. Of course there were other factors like the game being a launch for the much hyped N64 and being a completely different game than anything before it.
I agree with you that Super Mario Sunshine didn't sell as well due to many reasons. I think Mario's overexposure was one of them but numerous other factors, most of which had to do with the promotion of the game, hurt it. Basically Nintendo f*cked up everything imaginable with Super Mario Sunshine aside the game themselves. Had it been a launch title, didn't have "Sunshine" in the title and had a decent advertising campaign it likely would have sold better.
Post by: Infernal Monkey on June 16, 2003, 02:23:39 PM
Nice one Grey
Post by: Termin8Anakin on June 16, 2003, 02:23:45 PM
Post by: highenergyboy on June 16, 2003, 02:29:35 PM
Getting back on topic here, I think Nintendo is the last company that should be singled out for milking their franchises. There are far worse perpetrators out there, and Nintendo themselves rank pretty low on the list just like with violent videogames. I suppose the only reason they are becoming a little less conservative with their franchises (Zelda especially) are because of the sheer amount of sequels being put out by other developers. This could also be another example of Nintendo's changing strategy in the videogame industry, putting out more titles in less time. Isn't this what you people wanted in the first place? You bickered about delays, and game droughts in the last generation, and now that Nintendo is beginning to adapt their strategy to address these past grievences or try to remedy them your still not satisfied? Which is it people? I've seen people complaining in similar threads like this one, and that suggests to me they have no idea what they truly want to begin with.
Post by: Termin8Anakin on June 16, 2003, 02:39:08 PM
Post by: Michael8983 on June 16, 2003, 03:16:49 PM
I literally couldn't disagree more. I think the exact opposite is true.
People would get sick of Mario if he were confined to just one genre, especially the 3D platform genre which people seem to have really gotten sick of lately.
Someday Nintendo will create a virtual reality console and it will be able to bring the traditional Mario/Zelda formulas (platform jumping, puzzle solving, etc...) to a new level and the resulting games will take the world by storm and sell amazingly well the way Super Mario 64 did but, until then, they have to start breaking with the formulas or risk letting the characters fade away.
People aren't going to want to play traditional Mario/Zelda games over and over again for another generation. It's been breaking away from the traditional Mario gameplay for years and now it's starting to do the same with Zelda. Purists may not like it but it's necessary.
If Nintendo doesn't bring the characters into fresh territory, people will get sick of them.
The games may not sell as well as Mario 64 or the previous Mario games on the NES/SNES which will (and has) lead people to believe Mario is fading away but that's not a fair comparison.
It will be a long time before a Mario title as innovative as Mario 64 is possible (probably Virtual Mario World) and you can't compare anything in the NES/SNES days to today since things are a lot more competitive in the industry and Nintendo has a lot less of the market.
"I remember when Super Mario 64 came out Mario had been out of the spotlight for a while so there was more of a "Mario's back" attitude. At the time Nintendo had been focusing on the DKC series as the big title for the SNES and the last Mario platformer was Yoshi's Island which didn't even have an adult Mario in it. Of course there were other factors like the game being a launch for the much hyped N64 and being a completely different game than anything before it."
I really don't think Mario withdrawl had anything to do with Mario 64's success. I agree that Nintendo should be careful not to over-expose Mario but I don't think having him be cross-genre necessarily has to result in that. I definitly think it would be wise for Nintendo to tell Hudson to make fewer Mario Party titles at least. Like Mario Kart, just one per console would suffice. Also, unless Mario Tennis and Golf have any substantial upgrades, they may not have been needed (though I WILL buy them both). As much as I loved Mario Sunshine, I also kind of think Miyamoto should have gone with his initial instinct and created an entirely unlike-anything-he's-done before kind of Mario game instead. I think releasing one Mario game a year or maybe two if neither is a "big" title would be fine.
Any more than that and over-exposure becomes a risk. Nintendo just has to make sure people see Mario as a character who stars in great games of various genres and not just some special tool it uses to extract money from people's wallets on several occasions each year.
Post by: Hostile Creation on June 16, 2003, 03:32:32 PM
Post by: Termin8Anakin on June 16, 2003, 06:10:12 PM
Nintendo would never had made Mario Kart (and created the character based karting genre), they wouldn't have created the 'party game' genre, which heaps of people seem to be doing, or anything else, and we would be like:
"Mario is so big, why don't Nintendo make a game for Mario other than platformers?"
Post by: Ninja X on June 17, 2003, 04:24:55 PM
But Mario is cross-genre. He was ever since the SNES days.
However, Sunshine is the true sequel to Mario 64, especially when Nintendo said so themselves. Mario's true roots lie in platforming, but if he were to be in only platform games, we would see people complaining why doesn't Mario branch out into other genres.
Post by: Bloodworth on June 17, 2003, 05:41:52 PM
