Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
Because The Adventure of Link qualifies as their "Games 2.0".
That's about as weak a comeback as I've seen on here in a while.
Link does qualify as Games 2.0, sure. But it didn't work. Except that LttP also qualifies as Games 2.0. Why? It adds, expands and improves. Yes it uses the same basic idea but it adds a ton. It adds story, it adds structure. It adds a whole new level with two worlds. You have more items and can manipulate the world different. It's the same basic premise but feels TOTALLY different than Zelda 1. Same with SMB to SMB3 and SMW. All the Advance Wars sequels do is add a few new units, COs and a couple modes with the occasional tweak. If they were for the PC they'd be expansion packs not sequels.
You have a game that requires selection. Using a pointer is infinitely more useful than using a d-pad/analogue stick. Anyone trying to browse the internet with the PS3 and the Wii knows this. But in order to really make it work you need to slightly change the graphics and, the key, change the UI. With a new, slicker interface Advance Wars would've been twice as intuitive on the DS. Same with Fire Emblem. But for some reason these "series" Nintendo sequels almost never seem to go there. It's like they take the old code and modify it instead of sitting down and saying "We have this concept, we have this world, we have this basic gameplay. How do we make it better?" and starting fresh.
I love Nintendo and I love their emphasis on innovation. But for some reason they purposely ignore it out of laziness in the easiest and most obvious places. I'm sure FE Wii will be very good. I'm also sure it would be a lot better if they're dared themselves to try something fresh.