Topic: Nintendo Clarifies E3 Plans: Treehouse Live All Day 1

[Ian Sane]

So there's pressure to deliver at E3 so Nintendo just isn't going to really bother to avoid the pressure?  It doesn't work like that.  As long as E3 still attracts enough attention there will be expectations to deliver at it.  Nintendo just not cooperating doesn't change that.  Nintendo will be judged against Sony and MS no matter what and right now they're going to come across as only having one game... which is unflattering enough as it is but also isn't even accurate.  Maybe Nintendo is trying to make it obvious that they're doing this on purpose so everyone will know they don't actually have only one game and thus it isn't as damaging as the small actual number?  "We COULD have dozens of games but we're focusing on just one at this event."  I think that assumes that people pay too much attention to the details.  I think it will just be "hey they only have one game LOL!" and the detail of Nintendo doing this on purpose will be lost.

[Wah]

Sun and moon people...

[nickmitch]

I wonder how crowded Nintendo's booth will even be?  Many Nintendo fans are skipping out, so it'd only be people who couldn't cancel and diehards.

[Oedo]

So there's pressure to deliver at E3 so Nintendo just isn't going to really bother to avoid the pressure?  It doesn't work like that.  As long as E3 still attracts enough attention there will be expectations to deliver at it.  Nintendo just not cooperating doesn't change that.  Nintendo will be judged against Sony and MS no matter what and right now they're going to come across as only having one game... which is unflattering enough as it is but also isn't even accurate.

There's pressure to deliver the kinds of announcements that Nintendo has already told us they're saving for a later date. If anyone is still expecting Nintendo to "deliver" at E3 after last week's announcements, they're going to be disappointed no matter what, especially if they're comparing Nintendo's presentation to Sony unabashedly hyping up big games that are several years out from release. I just really don't see what they stand to gain by doing what is essentially a Nintendo Direct right at E3 as opposed to doing it a couple weeks earlier or later when you're further removed from everyone's big announcements.

[Soren]

With all the focus they are putting on it, Zelda had better be amazing.

But even if it is amazing, it can't be the only thing you show. You're either spoiling a large part of the game or you're repeating the same content ad-nauseam. You can get the same kind of reaction with a well-made trailer and a strong 20-30 minute-ish demo.

[Evan_B]

That was a big part of it, true, but a lot of the criticism was centered around the fact that they had nothing big to show. No matter how on point they are with the presentation, they're still showing Tokyo Mirage Sessions, a Paper Mario game that a lot of people are already angry about, and possible second or third tier Wii U releases they haven't announced yet. Is that really exciting for most people? The biggest thing it does is reiterate the fact that they've effectively abandoned the platform. There are a lot of interesting 3DS games coming out this year so from that angle it makes a bit more sense, but even if they focused on those, the story would still be how there's barely anything for the Wii U.

You know what would make people not angry about Paper Mario? If they ACTUALLY MADE A FUCKING RPG like the fans wanted.

People want to see more Zelda. But, a whole damn day of it? I'd rather see some Tokyo Mirage Sessions just to cleanse the palette.

[Ian Sane]

So there's pressure to deliver at E3 so Nintendo just isn't going to really bother to avoid the pressure?  It doesn't work like that.  As long as E3 still attracts enough attention there will be expectations to deliver at it.  Nintendo just not cooperating doesn't change that.  Nintendo will be judged against Sony and MS no matter what and right now they're going to come across as only having one game... which is unflattering enough as it is but also isn't even accurate.

There's pressure to deliver the kinds of announcements that Nintendo has already told us they're saving for a later date. If anyone is still expecting Nintendo to "deliver" at E3 after last week's announcements, they're going to be disappointed no matter what, especially if they're comparing Nintendo's presentation to Sony unabashedly hyping up big games that are several years out from release. I just really don't see what they stand to gain by doing what is essentially a Nintendo Direct right at E3 as opposed to doing it a couple weeks earlier or later when you're further removed from everyone's big announcements.

Well anyone who paid attention to Nintendo's announcement that their E3 presence isn't going to be much won't expect big things at E3 but only Nintendo fans are really going to pay attention to that.  E3 attracts a more general gamer interest.  At least for me I just end up noticing announcements for consoles I don't even own because the gaming sites have headlines covering all platforms and certain things catch my eye.  For that gamer Nintendo will be largely absent.  They'll either not think of Nintendo at all or think "gee aside from Zelda I haven't seen anything for Nintendo".  But if Nintendo also shows Pokémon Sun/Moon and Paper Mario there's at least two more potential headlines and two more items that may catch someone's interest.

And while people are angry about Paper Mario I would think if Nintendo had the awareness to not show the game because of backlash they would also have the awareness to not make it like Sticker Star in the first place.  If Nintendo is scared to show a game then what commercial potential do they think that game is going to have?

I fear that if Nintendo is too absent in videogame news for too long then they won't be able to generate NX hype because people will have written them off and moved on.  Nintendo ideally wants the small Wii U userbase to also buy the NX but this Christmas that userbase will have to either go with nothing or potentially buy another console to get their gaming fix and it won't be a Nintendo console because there isn't one.  I feel like Nintendo is disappearing for 10 months or so and that could really hurt them.  Not that they can just fill the space with games that don't exist but it's just unfortunate and may be a problem.

[Evan_B]

They aren't getting a buy from me, that's for sure.

[Stogi]

The irony is delicious. After showing merely a couple minutes of footage for the last two years, much to everyone's chagrin, they decide to dedicate an entire convention around it.

And people still bitch.

[broodwars]

The irony is delicious. After showing merely a couple minutes of footage for the last two years, much to everyone's chagrin, they decide to dedicate an entire convention around it.

And people still bitch.

There's a middle ground between "showing nothing" and "only showing 1 thing" when it comes to conventions like this. Every hardware manufacturer seems to understand this but Nintendo. But then again, every hardware manufacturer other than Nintendo has more than 1 game to show.

I'll be curious to see how much pity coverage sites give Nintendo at E3 this year, given how just about every other publisher has a more diverse & more interesting lineup of games to show off. Plus, the games press are obsessed with VR.

[Triforce Hermit]

Pokemon is a given. There will have coverage on it to some extent. Maybe Pokemon Gold, Silver, and Crystal on VC as well.

Zelda they are going to really need to sell me on. Because between the rumors, how it is being handled, and how Skyward Sword was, I'm not sold. At all. Not even as a die hard Zelda fan.

And something to try and justify the New 3DS.

[Soren]

I'll be curious to see how much pity coverage sites give Nintendo at E3 this year, given how just about every other publisher has a more diverse & more interesting lineup of games to show off. Plus, the games press are obsessed with VR.

Huh? It's an in-depth look at the new Zelda game. I'm sure plenty of sites will be giving more than just "pity coverage" to what will probably be one of the most talked about games at E3.

[Luigi Dude]

Huh? It's an in-depth look at the new Zelda game. I'm sure plenty of sites will be giving more than just "pity coverage" to what will probably be one of the most talked about games at E3.

Yeah, especially since Nintendo is confident enough to show hours worth of gameplay for this game, which should mean they succeeded in making an open world Zelda that's filled with meaningful content.  The number one worry most had was that the world was going to be barren so if the game was going to suffer from this problem Nintendo probably wouldn't want people spending hours watching it..  The fact they're going to allow people to play this game for so many hours in what's still an unfinished game must mean they're pretty damn proud in how the game is shaping up.

Plus if the rumors are true and the game does allow players to choose genders and it has full voicework as well, it'll be months before Zelda discussions finally die down.  Just in time for when Nintendo is finally ready to reveal the NX.

[Ian Sane]

The irony is delicious. After showing merely a couple minutes of footage for the last two years, much to everyone's chagrin, they decide to dedicate an entire convention around it.

And people still bitch.

Nintendo is like that cursed monkey's paw where they'll grant you your wish but in some fucked up way you don't want.

You want Zelda?!  HAVE ZELDA AND NOTHING ELSE!!! HA HA HA HA!

[supermario2k]

Put me into the camp who doesn't even care what goes on at E3 anymore. I am sure I will hear about it eventually but I stopped watching videos and reading live coverage stuff years ago. If other major companies are starting to skip out on E3 then maybe it is time to start moving away from it.

[Stogi]

The irony is delicious. After showing merely a couple minutes of footage for the last two years, much to everyone's chagrin, they decide to dedicate an entire convention around it.

And people still bitch.

Nintendo is like that cursed monkey's paw where they'll grant you your wish but in some fucked up way you don't want.

You want Zelda?!  HAVE ZELDA AND NOTHING ELSE!!! HA HA HA HA!

[Wah]

supermario 2k's tag hahahahahahahahaha

[ThePerm]

Or they're showing off the huge mmo mode. What happens when you cross four swords, hyrule warriors, splatoon, and your typical mmo rpg?

I've never been a fan of mmo, but with open world talk and them somehow filling several hours it makes you wonder.

[Evan_B]

That would be terrible.

[Ian Sane]

I see Zelda as largely a single player series.  Yeah there have been some multiplayer spin-offs like Four Swords but for the most part Zelda is a solitary experience.  So to me if Nintendo turned this Zelda into an MMO they might as well tell me "the new Zelda's cancelled".  It wouldn't be the Zelda experience I want anymore.  I don't have any issue with such a title as a spin-off but this upcoming Zelda has been promoted a main series Zelda game so I think it is fair for my expectations to be that it's a single player game offering a similar sense of adventure that the other "proper" Zelda games had.  Revealing a different genre after years of hype would be a cruel move.

With MMOs, I don't like how the Final Fantasy MMOs take up slots on the numbering of the main FF series.  In what universe would you assume that someone that loves the single player gameplay of the main FF series would want to play a game that requires playing with others to get their FF fix?  I suppose very extroverted people wouldn't see the difference but a single player game by it's very nature might very well attract introverts or at the very least offer something for people to play during "me time".  Reading alone and playing sports with friends are both fun activities but you wouldn't really want to outright replace one with the other.  I think the mentality of something like World or Warcraft is a better approach.  The naming convention suggests a spin-off of Warcraft, not a replacement for the main series (supposedly Blizzard is working on a new RTS Warcraft).

Nintendo can make a Zelda MMO but they should announce it well ahead of time as a Zelda MMO and not paint it as a "proper" Zelda game for years ahead of time.  Not that I assume they're doing that.  They're taking a hundred years because they're kind of befuddled by this "HD gaming" thing and they obviously delayed the damn game for the NX launch.

[Stogi]

MMO is RPG. I've never seen an adventure game become an MMO. Zelda has some RPG elements with better shields and what not, but the majority of the items have a singular purpose...to explore. So an MMO doesn't fit the genre.

But I wouldn't put it past Nintendo considering Pokemon fans have been clamoring for it for years and they still haven't gotten around to it.

[ThePerm]

MMO just mean massively multiplayer(multiuser) online. I have seen mmo shooting games that weren't necessarily rpgs. Zelda could work as an online game. I would prefer it to be a big turf war game though, not a damn wait around for the monster to appear for 4 hours so it can drop an unusual rare item type game.

If I were to do it: Has anyone played Assassins Creed black flag? Well if anyone remembers the fortress raids, they were pretty cool. You basically in single player found this fortress, boarded from your ship, you and your pirate buddies invaded and took out all the captains. Eventually you could take on the boss of the fortress and once defeated you assumed ownership.

At that point you had control of it. There was some ability to add taverns and such, but it could have been a cooler
more expanded thing. It would be pretty cool if each fortress had an accompanying city to control. The fortress would be one part manual person defense, one part automated tower defense.

Now imagine a world where you can make a faction of 64 players broken up into teams of 4-8. Imagine if the world had like 15(not 16) big fortresses. The goal of the game would be to take control of the majority of the fortresses in the world. There may be several worlds in which you could travel between.

I'd imagine keeping character upgrading on the simple side could be done. Once you die you lose all your items and money, unless you store it somewhere. There would be armor, but your armor and swords would wear out after a while. I'd imagine I'd want to only put a few levels of armor or swords in the game.

The field would be filled with enemies, there would be dungeons for earning certain items just like in single player. Maybe dungeons reset every few hours or something? If someone has the key you need..you have to kill them to get it. Or possibly buy the key for a hefty price in the market as a loophole. Going through the dungeon could be Indiana Jones like because you're not the only one seeking a prize. There could be coin dungeons too. Or the endless hole type dungeons as well.

[Evan_B]

...

That sounds like a great game that isn't Zelda.

[TOPHATANT123]

That sounds a little too radical, but they did say in the very first announcement video that their mission is to change two things about Zelda.

1. Complete Dungeons in a certain order
2. Play by yourself

For multiplayer I can see messages in bottles coming back from Wind Waker HD and a set of randomly generated dungeon that you can play in Co-op. The dungeon could design its self around the number of players and if you really wanted you could play it solo. Then perhaps the incentive for playing together is that you get increased materials.

[Ian Sane]

I totally do not want to have to play Zelda multiplayer to get the proper play out of it.  To me that's as idiotic as making SSB single player.  I play games like Zelda during times when I have some time to myself to relax.  So if Nintendo is saying "you don't play by yourself" they might as way tell "I'm taking Zelda away from you".  And Nintendo wanting us to play with others is kind of idiotic then they hate things like voice chat which are necessary for online multiplayer games.

I just tend to play videogames during alone time.  When I socialize with others I usually want to go out and do something with my friends, not sit at home and play videogames with strangers online.  I understand that that's not a typical attitude since online games are very popular.  But I would say there is merit in the co-existence of online games and single player games.  But I find that it feels like single player games are being phased out, which makes no sense because it's a different experience with it's own distinct appeal.

Videogames as a concept should be constantly expanding as new ideas are introduced but it doesn't seem to do that.  Genres fall out of favour, we saw 2D games banished to handhelds for the longest time.  I look at something like Four Swords and think Zelda has expanded and Nintendo can now make both single player and multiplayer Zelda games.  But, no, for some reason multiplayer Zelda must REPLACE single player Zelda?  Why?