Topic: Miyamoto Confirms Revolution Control for Zelda

[Pale]

It's going to be a fishing game.

[RiskyChris]

Quote
Originally posted by: Pale
It's going to be a fishing game.

I actually kinda wish it was.  I was never able to aim at that god damn man's hat more than 2 or 3 times over the years...

The revolution should make that task trivial!

[croumeli]

Alright....If I belittled some people I truly apologize.  I read these PG forums consistently and I always read them to get a feel for how all the Nintendo fans react to the breaking news...I never really had a real urge to post though until I read some of the absurd and unjustifiable posts tonight that many people had about this topic....some will blame Nintendo with whatever they do, and I cannot believe how disgustingly childish it gets......

But all I see here.....even if you love or hate the news today....that Nintendo is the only company that has the guts to even try something different!!!....and for that I give them absolute credit, and my full respect.....EVEN IF THEY FAIL!

....I personally already know I will be utterly bored with the "gaming" experience that Playstation and Xbox will try to offer with this next generation.....

At least give Nintendo the chance they deserve....and don't doom them with ignorant and baseless whining.....be patient, watch, learn, try everything out....just shut up.....and play one of the greatest gaming series to ever grace videogaming with the confirmed added bonus of a new controller that has a very good chance to actually revolutionize "gaming" as we know it today....

[Bloodworth]

:-O  

That was actually a well constructed and convincing post.  Now you've given people something to think about other than "what did he just call me?"

[TheYoungerPlumber]

Wow, this thread hasn't imploded yet?  Maybe I *did* somehow fix that bug....

[UncleBob]

You know, I haven't seriously commented in this thread yet...

I plan on buying the new Zelda - and I plan on buying a Revolution... So, pretty much, this news doesn't bother me at all.

Am I sad the game is delayed further?  Well, yeah.  But really, I've been gaming for about 23+ years.  I've waited this long, I can wait another few months.

I somewhat miss the days where we had like, zero info on new games.  You remember those days, when you knew a game was coming out when you saw it on the shelf.  When you bought a game based on what the box said.  When there wasn't 12+ Magazines dedicated only to games and there was no Internet for "leaked" infomation to get out on...

Honestly, I'd *love* if more games just came out of nowhere (Like TetrisDS)... It makes it all the more fun.

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: Mario This move is just pure greed to try and force the loyal GC fans over to Rev, I thought Nintendo was all about the gamers?

Nintendo has said a number of times that they're in this business for the money and that making a profit takes top priority.

Also, it MIGHT be a fishing game...

Returning in Twilight Princess is the fishing mechanic from the popular Ocarina of Time mini-game, which was inspired by a fishing mini-game in Linkā€™s Awakening. Its exact place and purpose in the game has not yet been confirmed (i.e., a mini-game, sidequest, or part of the main adventure), however, it was revealed by Eiji Aonuma that unlike the fishing in Ocarina of Time, Link will be able to take his boat to different areas to fish. It has been hinted that one of its final uses may be to fish up a boss that Link must then defeat.

Source

From the same source:

Sources including Chinese gaming site Level Up have confirmed the gameā€™s length to be 100 hours. This is in excess of several other infamous game lengths, including the 2-disc, 80-hour RPGs Tales of Symphonia (GCN) and Star Ocean: Till the End of Time (PS2).

I think this is the Zelda that everyone and their goddamn mother will want, and I'd guess right now that it's a shoe-in for GOTY. Just a hunch...

It's being delayed this far to ensure that it will likely be one of the most incredible games anyone will ever see this generation and the next.

Cube owners will still be able to play it on the cube, and copies of TP are not sitting in a warehouse somewhere waiting to be sold when the Rev launches: THEY'RE STILL WORKING ON IT.

It will be an unbelievably excellent game whether you play it on the GC or the Rev. The delay only further ensures that this will be true.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Killzone ftw

[Kairon]

Is Nintendo still holding the quality of games as the highest goal?

Well, let's ignore the fact that they're a money-grubbing corporation for a second. It's starting to look like Nintendo is growing up corporately. In my opinion it was Miyamoto's willy nilly "everything-for-the-game" drive that drove the N64 to cartridges (he remarked that Mario 64 would be impossible on CD technology of the day), and thus cost Nintendo market leadership.

Maybe Iwata knows how to straddle the line between art and business better than Yamauchi. And maybe Miyamoto has grown sensible to market considerations as well instead of being purely focused on his games. The Zelda forward-compatible with Revolution appears to be a mature and intelligent compromise between the business considerations Nintendo must pursue and Miyamoto's artistic drive and their promise to have a GC Zelda.

Mantidor, you wonder what happened to Nintendo always putting games first. It looks like you're right, they're not doing that anymore. It appears that Nintendo has learned how to balance their creative pride with their ambition to retake a strong market presence.

Releasing TP on the GC but allowing it to be played on the Rev is the best compromise that let's Nintendo pursue all its goals. The GC gets a Zelda swan song. The Rev gets a major opening act to get its potential audience interested. And most importantly in eyes like yours, the quality of the game is not diminished. In fact, TP may even be ENHANCED (just think of that 100+ hours of playtime claim) due to the longer dev time, which is a DEFINITE blessing compared to WW's rushed completion.

Yes, you're saying goodbye to the company that sacrificed market leadership in order to create the cartridge-based Mario 64 masterpiece. But Nintendo fans everywhere may finally be able to see a company humbled by its selfish, artistic hubris and that may finally start to balance the need for integrity inc reating great games and the drive to dominate the industry and marketplace once again.

Using that perspective, perhaps the utter confusion and sense of loss this announcement engenders is put into perspective?

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[ruby_onix]

Quote
Sources including Chinese gaming site Level Up have confirmed the gameā€™s length to be 100 hours. This is in excess of several other infamous game lengths, including the 2-disc, 80-hour RPGs Tales of Symphonia (GCN) and Star Ocean: Till the End of Time (PS2).

Here's something that PGC's Desmond Gaban said about the GBA port of Link to the Past. It beats anything I could come up with.

Quote
The game is a fairly tight package. Unlike its sequels, which are built in a way that the experience lasts 30-40 hours, Zelda: Link to the Past is constructed in a manner that is almost pure game. The Wind Waker and Ocarina of Time are long games because of story cut-scenes, mini-games, town exploration, side quests, and other miscellaneous items. While these elements make those games closer to ā€œAction/RPGsā€ than Action/Adventure, Link to the Past contains none of them, and instead it focuses on only delivering solid dungeons and exploration. Thus, the game can be beaten in a single sitting of only a few hours.

And a good chunk of that 30-40 hours in Wind Waker is something that most people seem to think was a detrement to the game (mainly the ocean travel, and the fetch quest that made you hate the ocean).  

[Bloodworth]

Funny... LTTP actually had plenty of "cut-scenes, mini-games, town exploration, and side quests".  I don't know how much time I spent in that digging game to find a piece of heart.  Fetch quests didn't start in earnest until Link's Awakening.  I will agree on the point about travel.  The 3D games have a lot more empty space.  In 2D there was always something in each square of the map.  

[ruby_onix]

I think LTTP had all those things, but in smaller doses (which were big for their day). And the first playtimes of LTTP when the game was brand new on the SNES were probably more than a couple hours. But I think the gist of it is true. I think LTTP was a bigger game than Wind Waker, while at the same time being shorter.

If Twilight Princess were to merely fix the "insufficent" level of "pure game" presented by WW, pushing it back up to LTTP and OoT standards, and double the "padding" in the game (which would still probably be less than the beautifully deep padding found in Majora's Mask), then I think it could meet that "100 hour" mark without doing anything unusually remarkable. Which is why I just don't trust the "100 hour" claim. If Twilight Princess is like three Wind Wakers combined, well, I'd still love it (but I'm biased). But if Twilight Princess is like thirty Link to the Pasts, all rolled into one? Well, realistically that'd never happen. But it's why I was hoping Nintendo was spending this entire year-long delay pouring quality into those hundred hours (whatever form they end up taking).

[EasyCure]

couldnt agree with you more.
nintendo seems to be maturing as a Business but luckily, and thankfully for us, the fans, they want to also keep that integrity of creating nothing short of a masterpeice with each game - flagship characters or not. I don't think nintendo is trying to Force you to buy a revolution to play zelda TP. I dont think they Need to force you. It's almost positive that everyone who posted something in this thread will no doubt buy the game, because in the end all that matters is we get a brand new zelda adventure. whether you play it on the revolution or gamecube, with the GC controll or the reVmote, it doesnt matter..you know you still wanna play this game. and remember, even if you don't have a GC and buy revolution just for TP because you were one of those people who ignorantly didnt try WW because it wasnt wat you expected, you can still play it using the GC controllers; thats what those ports on the side are for. Miyamoto didnt say that you could only play it on the Rev using the new remote.
i know some will argue that its not fair to add the fwd functionality because its a slap in the face to loyal GC owners, but i for one don't see it that way. i know there will be the argument of "well their making it so that if you Dont buy a revolution, you cant get the full experience from the game" and frankly, thats bull-plop.
we dont know yet how the reVmote will be implemented int he game, though even if you could opt to play the game from start to finish with it, that doesnt take away that feeling you get when you figure out that puzzle you've  been scratching your head at for hours. Or the smile on your face when you find the Big chest containing a Bow or Arror and you hear that oh so familiar music. no matter which system you play it on or which way you choose to play it, its still a zelda game. nintendo promises this to be the biggest zelda game to date. they heard your crys of WW being to short and their fixing that for YOU THE FANS. are they out to get your money? sure. their not putting a gun to your head and saying you have to buy a revolution for zelda. they're getting your money either way 'cause you ARE going to buy zelda.
i consider myself a 'loyal gc' owner and i dont feel offended or cheated or anything. dissaointed yes, but im not going to cry over a delay to fine tune a game and add new features. i think that any real loyal GC owner will buy a revolution regardless, just because its something fresh and new. im totally behind nintendos cry for innovation and if this new hardware fails....i guess i wont be playing any new video games again. atleast not on a home console, i still have plenty of DS/GBA/GBC games to check out. still ahvea l those old favorites from NES-GC too. i embrace a change in the industry because i dont want to be one of the million who play games like GTA3 and its many clones, or boring mindless shooters.
if zelda means the last GREAT peice of nintendo software on a home console, so be it. it'll be a plast to play no matter what and revmote only adds replay value in my book

[Ian Sane]

"Mantidor, you wonder what happened to Nintendo always putting games first. It looks like you're right, they're not doing that anymore. It appears that Nintendo has learned how to balance their creative pride with their ambition to retake a strong market presence."

That sounds about right.  How ironic that for years I have wanted Nintendo to try harder to increase their marketshare yet now that they sort of are I don't like it.  But then I didn't just want them to try, I wanted them to do it right.  Nintendo's whole strength is that they make each game the best it can be.  That's why they have a fanbase in the first place.  I think with Nintendo rushing games and releasing cookie cutter Mario spinoff junk they're losing what makes them Nintendo in the first place.  And without that they're nothing.  They're clueless at marketing and are too inflexible to compete with average titles.  Nintendo can only compete with balls out 110% "make every game count" quality.  That's the one thing they've got right and that shouldn't be the thing to change.  The clueless marketing and stubborn inflexibility is what needs to go.

Regarding A Link to the Past that game can only be beaten in a few hours if you blast through it and know exactly what to do.  When you don't know what to do ahead of time the game takes time.  The only difference is back then you did almost everything in games yourself.  Games today have too much downtime.  Developers are lazy so they use elaborate cutscenes any chance they get which pads a game.  A Link to the Past comes from the days where you blew your flute and the duck immediately grabs you instead of some 30 second cutscene occuring.

[Strell]

...It's Zelda, people.  You'd buy it if Nintendo demanded every store employee kick you in the balls at the time of purchase.

And if you think you can get around that by purchasing it on the intertron, oh boy are you wrong.  Nintendo will hunt you DOWN.  The Revolution is really an anti-US superpower device, designed to brainwash children and castrate all suitable males.  JAPAN SHALL RISE AGAIN!  ZEIG HAI!  ZEIG HAI!

Seriously, you know who loses?  Anyone who doesn't buy Zelda.  You know who loses even more?  Those not buyng it for stupid pride/vendetta reasons.

I mean, gosh people.  Gosh.  You made me say gosh.  I hope you are happy.

How else would anyone propose Nintendo handle this issue, hmm?  Release a GC-only version, then follow up with an LE version with Rev functionality?  Would that have made you happier?  No, because you'd complain WELL CRAPS WHAT IFS I GETS A REV, HUH?  THEN I NEED THE LE.  There'd be rants of double dipping and other nonsense.  At this point they can't make people happy enough.  What happened to the golden days of the N64 Nintendo fanbase, where we expected delays, and subsequently let them happen with a casual, lassiez-faire like attitude of "Well, when it's done, it's done, simple."

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Nintendo can never win.  Ever.  

EA games can make Madden 2001 and release it twice a year with palette changes for the next 10 years, Nintendo can't release what will (most likely) be the greatest game ever without pissing people off.

Seriously, don't buy it.  You're only hurting yourself, more for me, etc etc.

Also, Bloodworth.  What the hell.  I did WAY less than whoever was flaming up there and you threatened a ban on me!  You are losing your edge!  

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Mantidor, you wonder what happened to Nintendo always putting games first. It looks like you're right, they're not doing that anymore. It appears that Nintendo has learned how to balance their creative pride with their ambition to retake a strong market presence."

That sounds about right.  How ironic that for years I have wanted Nintendo to try harder to increase their marketshare yet now that they sort of are I don't like it.  But then I didn't just want them to try, I wanted them to do it right.  Nintendo's whole strength is that they make each game the best it can be.  That's why they have a fanbase in the first place.  I think with Nintendo rushing games and releasing cookie cutter Mario spinoff junk they're losing what makes them Nintendo in the first place.  And without that they're nothing.  They're clueless at marketing and are too inflexible to compete with average titles.  Nintendo can only compete with balls out 110% "make every game count" quality.  That's the one thing they've got right and that shouldn't be the thing to change.  The clueless marketing and stubborn inflexibility is what needs to go.

It's fair that you don't feel that the current strategy is right. No one will really know until we can look back at the Rev with hind-sight, so we're all making our best guesses.

However, I'd like to propose that the N64 WAS Nintendo's balls-out 110% "make every game count" strategy. That really was a golden era of Nintendo-centric gaming when every Nintendo release was stupendous, from Mario 64 to Mario Kart 64 to Star Fox 64 to OoT... even Mario Party was a phenomenom! But I'd think it should be a cautionary tale that this era of "balls-out" make-every-game-count is when Nintendo lost market leadership. The reason why they stuck with carts and lost third party support was because Miyamoto wanted Mario 64 to be the best game it could be, and to him CDs would've destroyed that.

I believe that as much as Nintendo's clueless marketting and Yamauchi's stubborn inflexibility need to go for Nintendo to become a more well-rounded business and market presence, so does their naive, fantastic and hubristic notion that "if they build it, they will come."

Personally, I would've been fine if Nintendo kept dedicating themselves 110% to the game at the detriment of everything else and remained a 3rd place entity, albeit profitable, forever. But I'm fine with this Nintendo too because, as Nintendo fan, I trust that even as Nintendo learns to balance business alongside their creative drive Miyamoto and Iwata will still hold at heart their experiences as Game Developers and the spirit of innovation and quality that is Nintendo. In fact, business and creativity may make strange bedfellows in that the stereotypically antagonistic factors have combined to give us the revolution controller: a blue-ocean business strategy, an innovative gameplay-centric innovation, and pure Miyamoto-bred Nintendo essence.

Quote
Regarding A Link to the Past that game can only be beaten in a few hours if you blast through it and know exactly what to do.  When you don't know what to do ahead of time the game takes time.  The only difference is back then you did almost everything in games yourself.  Games today have too much downtime.  Developers are lazy so they use elaborate cutscenes any chance they get which pads a game.  A Link to the Past comes from the days where you blew your flute and the duck immediately grabs you instead of some 30 second cutscene occuring.

*ahem*.... Hallelujah.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[Bloodworth]

Quote
Also, Bloodworth. What the hell. I did WAY less than whoever was flaming up there and you threatened a ban on me! You are losing your edge!

I just about banned him without warning, but I gave it a second thought, and it turns out he can make decent posts after all.  That doesn't mean I won't be watching him though. :-|

[Ian Sane]

"Personally, I would've been fine if Nintendo kept dedicating themselves 110% to the game at the detriment of everything else and remained a 3rd place entity, albeit profitable, forever."

I guess you have to question if they would be in 3rd place if they stuck to the 110% way of making games.  There were three contenders during that time period and Nintendo ended up second.  Now they're in third after losing out to an inexperienced newcomber.  They still have that attitude that they can release games in a vacuum and people will eat it up just because it exists, only now their games aren't quite as good and they rely on their old franchises more.  The real problem that hurt the N64 was their marketing and stubborn jerk method of doing things and those issues haven't been addressed.  If Nintendo is going to cut back on their games it would make more sense to do this at the same time as improving those other issues.  The same exact plan only with lower quality games isn't exactly a good strategy.

Plus I've never been completely convinced that cartridges were used just because of Super Mario 64 but more due to Nintendo penny-pinching.  They wanted complete control over their medium so that they could make money supplying the cartridges on top of high licencing fees.  Maybe it was a combination of issues but I'm sure that played a big part.  Afterall their attempt to "address" the problem was the DD, which again used a medium they were in complete control of.  If Nintendo initially thought having two different mediums was a good idea they could have from the getgo made a system that used both cartridges and CDs but they didn't.  Now that idea might not actually be cost feasible but still.  Plus Nintendo also canned the initial Sony/Nintendo SNES CD attachment because Sony would get a cut of the profits.  They also didn't use a standardized format on the Cube.  They've been notorious for not wanting to share for a long time so the theory isn't so unlikely.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

"I think with Nintendo rushing games and releasing cookie cutter Mario spinoff junk they're losing what makes them Nintendo in the first place"

Big difference these days is Nintendo has been putting a significant amount of work into their handheld game development, unlike the N64 days.  (then there's the issue of two "next-generations" coming in prematurely, DS and Rev, causing them to shift gears too)  Of course the resources will spread thin.

You just conveniently don't care about the handheld sector and focus on what the console sector is lacking.

[trip1eX]

They may be the 3rd place console here in the US, but they are still one of the biggest videogaming publishers in the world. I think only EA is bigger.

[Ian Sane]

"You just conveniently don't care about the handheld sector and focus on what the console sector is lacking."

They're different markets so I don't take into account Nintendo's handhelds when talking about their consoles.  I don't consider "they're concentrating on their handhelds" a decent excuse for any shortcomings on the console front.  Each system should be able to stand alone without the assumed requirement from Nintendo that Cube owners own a GBA or DS and vice versa.

[Hostile Creation]

I'm going to agree with Ian on that point, definitely.
I think Nintendo should expand somewhat.   Consume some more good developers, so they have a more consistent console output.

[GoldenPhoenix]

The only problem I see with implementing Rev. features, is that GC owners may have to wait a couple more months to get their hand on the game. Chances are the game will be fully functional, with the Rev features being something that could not be otherwise done on GC.

Both parties win in this situation(except for a delay), GC owners will get a great Zelda game that is well worth the money, and Rev owners will get to play the same great game with some features (whether they are good or not remains to be seen) that couldn't be accomplished on GC. I don't see any downside to this, unless Nintendo intentionally has unlockables that could be easily done on GC or they are lazy with the GC controls. The only thing you are getting ripped off of, is a couple month delay (I really doubt this 1 year delay was just for Rev functionality).

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Quote
Originally posted by: Hostile Creation
I'm going to agree with Ian on that point, definitely.
I think Nintendo should expand somewhat.   Consume some more good developers, so they have a more consistent console output.

Yes, they should expand, and there's the problem:  was it easier for Nintendo, as a company, to simply increase their development resources on BOTH fronts, drop one front to focus on the ailing front, or shift their focus to the front where they were wildly successful at?

Should the hand putting food in their mouth drop what its doing to help out the 2nd hand that doesn't have the strength to lift the knife to cut the turkey (a fairly small turkey)?  Or let the food hand continue its way while the knife hand takes a break and tries again when it has the energy to do so?

We already know the results:  DS is a success, GameCube is already on life-support even in a short generation, and Rev has a brighter future than the GameCube initially displayed.  The market did force Nintendo to expand, it just took a generation to do it.

[jasonditz]

Check out the balance sheets though: Nintendo's got lots of money sitting in the bank, they should be using it to add some more first party development studios.

If we have to count on first party titles for the vast majority of our worthwhile console games, we'd better make sure we've got enough of them to cover it. We should never have multimonth gaps between legitimate releases.