Sgt.Pepper
Banned
There are very few NPCs that do that.
Nintendo is a publisher, and it has a many developers so that's one big hyperbole. There too many different games coming from Nintendo.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
New Miyamoto interview (Asturias) - on creations, Zelda by Retro, online, Miiverse...
- Thread starter CaVaYeRo
- Start date
There are very few NPCs that do that.
Nintendo is a publisher, and it has a many developers so that's one big hyperbole. There too many different games coming from Nintendo.
I think a far better reason than them being "afraid" of creating a great game (Which, by the way, sounds insane seeing as Retro and Nintendo have a great relationship and a good game regardless of developers would only benefit Nintendo) is that they see Zelda as a major franchise that is a key part of their company and its history. For this reason, they like having full control over its creation. Really, it does not sound like it has anything to do with Retro, but more with Nintendo wanting to keep it internal. The person asking the question simply framed it within the context of Retro, it could have been asked as "Why aren't any other developers working on Zelda?" and the same answer would have probably come from Miyamoto.
I hope that quells some of your concern towards Nintendo being afraid of Retro.
Dont bother
Cerebral Assassin
Member
Oh no, they want their game to be played by more than forumites, the shame, the horror!
NPC's in Zelda games are some of the most interesting in gaming, from Tingle to Malo, Malon to Talon, all the various other shop keepers, the Gorons, etc They are pretty memorable(& that's without mentioning the obvious ones like Sheik, or "Hey! Listen!") Considering some of those character are from a game I played almost 15 years ago I would consider them to have charm.
Your suggestion sounds like a smaller, mechanically sound Skyrim(which would be fun to play, but not suitable for a Zelda game imo), whereas I would prefer a Zelda game that followed the structure of a Portal or a SoT(which would be an actual change rather than pining for an update of the first game in the series which was surpassed back on the SNES.
Chet Rippo
Member
Capcom is in Japan. And Miyamoto has really nothing to do with Metroid.
decoyplatypus
Member
These are the hazards of designing a series that has as many working elements as Zelda. You'll notice that on Ami's description of what Zelda is "about," overworld exploration totally dropped out. I suspect there are people for whom puzzles are not important (since they weren't a major element in the first two games), and there seem to be plenty here who could do without significant NPC interaction. Yet there are large groups insisting each of these things is essential to a good Zelda. Nintendo cannot fully satisfy all Zelda fans at once. In fact, I'd argue that the reason the OoT formula has been so successful is that it does a good job of giving all these groups some of what they want in a Zelda. The trouble is that there have been seriously diminishing returns on the exploration element, both because Nintendo has actively cut back on non-linearity (see PH, ST, and SS, where regions of the world don't even exist until it is time for you to conquer them) and because players' familiarity with the structure leaves them with a pretty good idea of where everything is going to be. This second point is, I think, why everyone loves the Snow Manor stage in TP so much: the dungeon itself comes as something of a surprise, and the item is a surprise. So even if nothing else radical were to happen within the dungeon, even if the puzzles were really boring (they're not), there would at least be the slight gratification of not knowing what sort of puzzles or encounters to expect.
neoism
Member
yeah I agree to a point.. but nintendo with Zelda other then adding a couple of ""new"" items... it uses the same thing every time while not making it as fun and of course this is subjective. I want something 100% originally new for Zelda not the same shit every time. SS had waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to much filler... The last great Zelda game was Wind Waker...it to had archaic design but had real charm with its graphics, and the boat stuff did get old.. but whatever this is nintendo where talking about..lol
neoism
Member
lol I love Zelda.. I loved TP more the SS by alot..... but Okami was better.... waaay better....Oct 30..
lol I love Zelda.. I loved TP more the SS by alot..... but Okami was better.... waaay better....Oct 30..
full circle
*Sorry for the off-topic, but I have to ask: why is that people with Japanese/anime/manga avatars aren't taken seriously around here? Should I disable/change mine?*
Cerebral Assassin
Member
See this is the problem Nintendo has, In my eyes WW is the worst 3D Zelda game(except in terms of art-style) how would they ever keep both of us happy?
Also one mans filler is another mans new mechanic. I love the abuse that the note-collecting gets in SS though(even though the justification for it was terrible, it was a perfectly acceptable mechanic that wasn't overused in the slightest), they add a new mechanic & it's filler, they don't add anything new & it's formulaic.
Man, can you image what a clusterfuck a fan-developed Zelda would turn out to be? I'd pay hundreds to see it.
Good for you. It's still not Zelda, though.
my advice: a pony/homestuck avatar will garner you sympathy and respect around these parts
Says who?
Blood Diamonds
Banned
Oh God it would be the biggest piece of shit ever but the "Fans" would be satisfied.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Sometimes I think the problem Zelda and its fanbase suffers from, is an inflated sense of gravitas with what The Legend of Zelda even is.
I am not too young; I'm 38. I was already past the "early childhood christmas" phase when I played games like Zelda II, and A Link to the Past. Back in the day, I never had the sense that The Legend of Zelda was as big of a deal as people make it out to be. To be sure, Zelda is a storied series. Zelda has a lot of iconic elements that have become tropes and cultural references in gaming. That's the biggest contribution it's made.
But in its original context, Zelda was just "another good Nintendo game". It wasn't above or below Super Mario, Metroid, Mario Kart, or anything else. It was seen as a gold star example of how to make a solid adventure game, and nobody made them quite like Nintendo, so yes, Zelda was special. And despite all the cynicism aimed at Nintendo today, nobody still makes them like Nintendo. Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, Skyward Sword, and yes, the DS duology - set aside bitch fests over hating X element from a game, be objective about it, and nothing has quite the polish and attention to detail of an in-house Nintendo production. Even if it's not a title you, personally, love.
What I think did the real damage to Zelda was Ocarina of Time. That game is put on a pedestal as few video games ever have been. I believe one of the main reasons is shock value. It arrived at the time of the great transition to 3D games. It was the first large scope 3D action adventure game. Nobody had ever seen anything like it - it was like a Battle Arena Toshinden, if Battle Arena Toshinden had ha ha, been a good game after the shock and awe of a three dimensional world wore off. Add to that the "Nintendo childhood effect", where so many people have Nintendo games burned into their brain on christmas morning, creating a aura of chemically entrenched nostalgia that will never be recreated.
As a result, suddenly Zelda went from being just another quality game in Nintendo's portfolio with beloved bits of lore, to supposedly being a game the industry hinged on. I really do get the impression that a lot of people possess a virtually subconscious expectation that every Zelda game is supposed to be a gamechanger. Like a centerpiece release for the entire gaming landscape. And in truth, objectively, after only one game (OOT), it's been nothing but criticism and scorn that every subsequent Zelda game hasn't had the same impact as Ocarina of Time. Nintendo, meanwhile, has mainly focused on just making good Zelda games. The truth is they've succeeded. Regardless of how each game compares to another Zelda, the games are still on a high level of quality. It's one of those situations where I can't help but think if you removed the name from the cover and called it something else, people would generally applaud it as brilliant. Sometimes I think we seriously need a Folger's Taste Test in video gaming. Too much of people's reaction to a game always seem wrapped up in their expectations. And for die hard fans of a series, the hope that a new entry will be a religious experience.
Sgt.Pepper
Banned
Genuine question? Can't be.
Cerebral Assassin
Member
You think changing the control system to be motion controlled shows a lack of ambition? Or is it only ambitious if they give you what you want?
The funny thing is so many people on Gaf hate the thought of focus-testing games, but when Nintendo (try to at least, although I think SS was a step in the right direction)make the game they want to the bitching starts(although saying that did the bitching ever stop after TP was released?)
Haha I loved the bug little guy! He was funny as hell come onnn!!
It can be when you post your opinion as a fact.
The controls in SS were pretty damn ambitious as far as I'm concerned
Nothing wrong with that. Its a fantastic adventure game, just not a very good Zelda-like experience if you chose to look at it that way.
Blood Diamonds
Banned
But it's literally not Zelda. It doesn't have the name Zelda, or characters from Zelda, or story from Zelda. It's just very similar and also very fun. How can Okami be Zelda when it can't be Zelda?
Zelda
Holy shit. It can't be a better Zelda by virtue of not fucking being Zelda. You wanna call it a superior Zelda clone? Fine, go ahead. But shit, let's not pretend there's not a massive nuance between both statements.
There's some kind of virtual gas leak in this thread or something...
What the fuck?
On topic, they should give Retro a chance to do a spinoff Zelda like MM, of course they should have creative freedom with Nintys supervision.
I would pay anything to see a behind-the-scenes documentary of that. Oh, the carnage
People like having prejudices about other people because of their hobbies. Some people judge gamers as violent manchildren, some gamers judge people that like anime as pedophiles and so on. At least we are above furries in the pecking order. I'd keep it, it's handy for keeping prejudiced people away
The box
Blood Diamonds
Banned
brochiller
Member
What are you referring to?
Sgt.Pepper
Banned
If you are talking about DKC, it was an average game with amazing soundtrack.
Out of Working Order
Member
I was very happy with the way Skyward Sword shook the Zelda formula up - it felt different to previous Zelda's, and did a lot of creative things with the new control method. Settings were also creative and memorable.
It did have its own irksome problems, however. If these had been fixed it would've ranked as my favourite in the series. But yes, I am happy for Zelda development to stay in Japan.
It did have its own irksome problems, however. If these had been fixed it would've ranked as my favourite in the series. But yes, I am happy for Zelda development to stay in Japan.
Cerebral Assassin
Member
I like how you can't even bring yourself to name the game you are referring to? If it is DKC, then you are sadly mistaken, even at the time it was seen as "merely" a competent platformer, DK64 wasn't even Rares best 3d platformer, & DKCR while being the best of the games mentioned is nowhere near the classic platformers he has made.
radio_apeshot
Member
Sorry just woke up and haven't read the whole thread.. But I can translate if it has not been done... Disregard if beaten.
Twilight Princess
but not by much (technically also qualifies as current-gen, I believe)
Spieler Eins
Member
He wasn't afraid to suggest Retro to make the latest Donkey Kong game, so whats up with this?
Blood Diamonds
Banned
Yes, this is also why Miyamoto was seen sneaking into the new Retro Studios building, later that night, plans for Retro's new game were reported missing, files deleted, storyboards burned, and people kidnapped.
He's afraid.
This post is awesome and spot on and I don't understand why everyone is ignoring it
it's a well articulated point, but I think the point would diverge in that I genuinely don't think the DS duo or Skyward Sword hold up well. There are so many issues in Skyward Sword that not even a first year amateur developer would fall into that I can't just say 'look at it objectively and you'll see no one polishes blah blah like an in-house Nintendo product.' Same for the DS products.
But I really do believe that the Zelda game DOES have pride of place among the best franchises ever. And that is without Ocarina of Time too. It is LINK'S AWAKENING, not Ocarina of Time, that is the greatest in the franchise; I'd also take Majora's Mask, Minish Cap, Twilight Princess, Wind Waker, etc and a few others over it too.
I agree totally with his assertion that Ocarina of Time was put on a pedestal, but there is also sound reason for this. It implemented so many standard-setting gameplay features and transitioned the experience into 3D so effectively that, like Mario 64 before it, it changed people's perspectives of what is possible. While I would certainly agree that, like Mario 64, it's actually overall quality is relatively lower now compared to the industry standard today, I can't say it's somehow unwarranted that it received the place it has.
Chet Rippo
Member
A perpetuated myth. He did not hate DKC.
Well said.
Nor did he hate it when Retro revamped Metroid, another classic Nintendo series. In fact, HE SUGGESTED IT.
He did, however, hate Amusement Vison's take on F-Zero, though I'm not sure why, since it rocked.
I thought Miyamoto was disappointed with the portable F-zero games' sales and not much else? Or something to that effect. And yeha Miyamoto had some input with Prime, wasn't he the one who told them to go first person to begin with?