I enjoyed ED on GC, but it sold, what, 500-600K worldwide? How would allocating an HD budget to a sequel make any sense for Nintendo?
It's been so long since the first game that another instalment would effectively be a franchise relaunch. I'm sure it would be 'Eternal Darkness: Scary Subtitle', not 'Eternal Darkness 2', and it would have a storyline that's comprehensible to newcomers.
Perhaps Nintendo see it as a franchise with potential and are interested in taking another shot at it. It has a world and concepts that are unique in today's gaming landscape. Being tied to a cult-classic would help the new game attract hype and coverage from the gaming press that a new IP wouldn't see. Nintendo would be hoping that this winds up selling it to many who never touched the original.
No they don't. People age. They actually change as they get older. Games don't age. Your expectations change and your memories betray you.
Being reasonable with expectations means anyone can enjoy older games for what they are instead of dismissing them for what they aren't. But a lot of gamers aren't that mature.
Agreed.
I really don't like that freaking Upad. Stealing focus away from the best control scheme consoles have introduced yet in the Wiimote to fall back on an archaic design.
I look at the Wii and think why didn't Bioware port the PC version of KotOR and alter the mouse only controls and UI suiting it for the Wii? Why did it's strongest gaming addition (IR sensor) continually get sidestepped for its weakest(motion)?
Is it just because of the hardware? Because it wasn't designed to be PC like? Or is it a case of Nintendo leading and devs following into an abyss of shallow titles and missed opportunities?
It seems crazy, and might well be, but I look at the Upad and think "Why?" Asymmetric gameplay? What if it's more entertaining for someone using a Wiimote? That odd one out has to play the less enjoyable form of the game.
Honestly the entire controller concept just seems to me like "Well... what other idea do we have?" And that doesn't inspire much confidence.
Though honestly given developer attitudes about new control schemes it may help. I'd just rather they be dragged kicking and screaming into the future than the industry become stagnant on a singular path.
I hear you. The underuse of the pointer was criminal. It was nice to play Pikmin and Anno on the thing, but there should have been a ton of strategy games for the system. We got Telltale ports and Zack & Wiki, but it was criminal that Nintendo didn't make a point and click adventure game for Wii. It could have been huge.
And of course, the IR sensor should have been
the future of first-person games on consoles. It leaves twin-stick control under a thick layer of dust. But we got Metroid Prime 3, Red Steel, Goldeneye, CoD downports and uh, The Conduit, and it looks like the system could fade away forever. I don't see Sony pushing it on PS4 now that motion controllers are no longer a craze.
It's just very sad. So much missed potential.
I can't help but feel the same way about Nintendo going with the tablet concept. Back when everyone was going nuts speculating about what the mysterious Revolution controller feature could possibly be, one of the most common guesses was 'touchscreen'. It's the obvious, which does lead me to believe that the 'what other ideas do we have?' scenario may be very close to the truth. Rather than being the cornerstone of a bold vision for gaming Nintendo want to run with, it seems like it was put into the controller simply to satisfy the expectation that they must include some kind of 'revolutionary' gimmick in all their forthcoming consoles. That's not to say that it doesn't have some great qualities, but it seems more like they decided to run with the most workable idea that they had (and struggle to think up compelling game designs for it), not like it's something truly visionary and
necessary, like the Wii mote was.
Perhaps Nintendo feel it makes sense to introduce a controller like this now because of the influence of competition coming from Apple, but they will always come up short if consumers are going to directly compare their products. Should Nintendo really be trying to position themselves closer to an industry so thoroughly dominated by a behemoth like Apple? I think differentiation is key, and that's what I'm hoping to see from them at E3.