Support NeoGAF

[hyduK]

Retro had a hand in Metroid because Miyamoto gave it to them because they were drowning under 5 different projects that were going nowhere quickly.

I fail to see the relevance of the reason that they were given it. Fact remains, they WERE given it, and you basically just said that the first had the least supervision...it was also the best. In fact, I'll go as far to say that Metroid Prime is the best title out of the big 3 (Mario, Zelda, Metroid) since Ocarina of Time. It was also the only one that came out and felt ahead of its time.

Corruption and Other M both had a lot more influence from Nintendo than Prime did. Both were exponentially worse.

Retro is an 'internal' studio, they are not 'outside' Nintendo. What do you mean by 'stuck in the past'?

I think you know what I mean. Nintendo has still yet to accept some things about where gaming has gone. Stuff like 'gamers don't want online', etc. Most of their braintrust has refused to come into the HD generation. If they REALLY want to modernize Zelda, then it's all or nothing...and there's no way we're getting 'all' directly from Nintendo.

Metroid was also a first-person shooter because their was an inability for Retro Studios to get the game working in third-person to the Japanese producers liking. The pinnacle of development talent is probably the Mario Galaxy team if you are proclaiming the series need a savior.

Okay. And that was for the better. Was Other M up to the third person standards of the Japanese? Because that was a horrible game. Again, Metroid Prime is the best game with a Nintendo label on it since Ocarina of Time. It also did far more for the Metroid series than Galaxy did for Mario.

As far as "modernizing" Zelda. That is up to the GM and producers to come to an agreement. It is a matter of budget and authorizing these things. What do you think a Retro Studios Zelda game on the Wii would have had over Skyward Swords?'

I don't know what it would have had. I don't work for Retro. My point is that if they want to modernize it then they need to get some fresh minds on it, and actually give them some freedom (which is apparently what happened with Metroid Prime, whether or not it was because Nintendo couldn't find time to do it themselves). Otherwise they'll continually be stuck in a world where half the game is trying to be something new, and the other half is trying to be Ocarina of Time.

 

[StreetsAhead]

I fail to see the relevance of the reason that they were given it. Fact remains, they WERE given it, and you basically just said that the first had the least supervision...it was also the best. In fact, I'll go as far to say that Metroid Prime is the best title out of the big 3 (Mario, Zelda, Metroid) since Ocarina of Time. It was also the only one that came out and felt ahead of its time.

I said nor implied nothing of the sort and did not mean to if I did.
They had ample supervision from EAD/Japanese staff in developing the game and Miyamoto made them change from 3rd to 1st person gameplay. Your opinion of it being the best title since OoT or 'ahead of its time' is fine, if debatable, but I don't care to get into that argument.

Corruption and Other M both had a lot more influence from Nintendo than Prime did. Both were exponentially worse.

Again, I won't debate your opinion but I find it telling you have a disconnect between 'Nintendo' and 'Retro'. 'Retro' is as much a part of Nintendo as any other first party studio. Nor can I find any evidence claims that EAD/the Japanese studios had significantly more influence over the other two Prime games than they did over the first two, but admittedly, I am not looking very hard.

I think you know what I mean.

No, I don't and even if I thought I did, I wouldn't want to assume what you meant either. Please share.

Nintendo has still yet to accept some things about where gaming has gone. Stuff like 'gamers don't want online', etc. Most of their braintrust has refused to come into the HD generation. If they REALLY want to modernize Zelda, then it's all or nothing...and there's no way we're getting 'all' directly from Nintendo.

Online is gradually being implemented. 3DS is a vast improvement over the DS (and the newest update improves features even more) and the Wii U is supposed to have an acceptable level of online functionality. In fact, Iwata has acknowledged that online is important and has spoken of working with outside partners on improving their ability to deliver in this area.

By 'refuse to come into the HD generation' do you mean 'intentionally release a weaker (than the competition) system with an innovative controller for massive sales/profits while other developers struggle with ballooning development budgets' then I agree.

Again, what do you mean by modernise? What about 'all-or-nothing'? I know what I think of - improved gameplay, less hand holding, better use of motion plus/good use of the Wii U controller, more stream-lined exposition, but what do you mean? I don't see why EAD cannot do that themselves. They, after all, were responsible for Mario 64 and Zelda: Ocarina of Time which helped define 3D gaming at the time. That it's Aomura who is saying these things - he wants to evolve the series and so on - shows that they are at least considering what can be improved within the series.

 

[maeda]

I fail to see the relevance of the reason that they were given it. Fact remains, they WERE given it, and you basically just said that the first had the least supervision...it was also the best. In fact, I'll go as far to say that Metroid Prime is the best title out of the big 3 (Mario, Zelda, Metroid) since Ocarina of Time. It was also the only one that came out and felt ahead of its time.

Corruption and Other M both had a lot more influence from Nintendo than Prime did. Both were exponentially worse.

So basically you don't know anything about how MP came about and how Nintendo actually works with their internal teams. Miyamoto gave Retro Metroid because he was impressed by their engine. His ideas were the ones that made Prime what it is, a truly revolutionary Action/Adventure game and a true recreation of Super Metroid in 3D. And would you provide the links to Nintendo being more involved in MP3 than they were in MP1, cause I have the opposite impression. After Retro proved themselves with MP1 they were given more freedom. That is why both MP2 and MP3 have stepped quite far away from traditional Metroid formulas.
By the way Motion controls were the least of MP3's problems. The world structure, shitty voice acting and so on were the main offenders. You know, things that Nintendo head designers actually don't particularly pay attention to.

 

[Instro]

Well considering how much of a mess Retro was at the time, I would imagine that they had less creative input in Metroid Prime 1 compared to it's sequels.

 

[maeda]

Well considering how much of a mess Retro was at the time, I would imagine that they had less creative input in Metroid Prime 1 compared to it's sequels.

Exactly, especially considering that cornerstones like 1st person view and Visor system came directly from Nintendo.

 

[hyduK]

I said nor implied nothing of the sort and did not mean to if I did. I took that from the Nintendo being too swamped with other stuff part.

They had ample supervision from EAD/Japanese staff in developing the game and Miyamoto made them change from 3rd to 1st person gameplay. Your opinion of it being the best title since OoT or 'ahead of its time' is fine, if debatable, but I don't care to get into that argument.

My understanding is that the supervision was phone calls, emails, and the rare visit.

Again, I won't debate your opinion but I find it telling you have a disconnect between 'Nintendo' and 'Retro'. 'Retro' is as much a part of Nintendo as any other first party studio. Nor can I find any evidence claims that EAD/the Japanese studios had significantly more influence over the other two Prime games than they did over the first two, but admittedly, I am not looking very hard.

Personally I think it's a huge difference working on a game at Retro (stationed across the world from most of Nintendo's braintrust) and working at EAD where Miyamoto frequents and is more or less in charge of everyone there. I haven't even looked if they had more influence on the later titles, I just inferred that from how you had worded a previous point, but you evidently didn't mean it that way.

Online is gradually being implemented. 3DS is a vast improvement over the DS (and the newest update improves features even more) and the Wii U is supposed to have an acceptable level of online functionality. In fact, Iwata has acknowledged that online is important and has spoken of working with outside partners on improving their ability to deliver in this area.

By 'refuse to come into the HD generation' do you mean 'intentionally release a weaker (than the competition) system with an innovative controller for massive sales/profits while other developers struggle with ballooning development budgets' then I agree.

Again, what do you mean by modernise? What about 'all-or-nothing'? I know what I think of - improved gameplay, less hand holding, better use of motion plus/good use of the Wii U controller, more stream-lined exposition, but what do you mean? I don't see why EAD cannot do that themselves. They, after all, were responsible for Mario 64 and Zelda: Ocarina of Time which helped define 3D gaming at the time. That it's Aomura who is saying these things - he wants to evolve the series and so on - shows that they are at least considering what can be improved within the series.

Again, gradually. They're still playing catch-up with where Microsoft was 7-8 years ago. They clearly don't really want to be there, or they would have been already. Part of me doubts that Nintendo predicted the Wii's success, but I can't really argue with the results. It's slowed down a lot though, and once again they plan on being a generation behind.

By 'all-or-nothing' I mean exactly that. If you want to modernize Zelda you do the whole thing. ie. SS, they 'modernized' (we'll call it that, at the very least they thought they were modernizing it) the controls, and left the rest of the game in the past. Frankly, I don't think Nintendo has the heart to change it completely, which is understandable...but don't claim you will if you won't. So modernize the controls, graphics, story, level design, etc. Not just 2/4 of those, all 4.

 

[maeda]

My understanding is that the supervision was phone calls, emails, and the rare visit.

There were dozens of video conferences, just like there with DKCR.

 

[hyduK]

So basically you don't know anything about how MP came about and how Nintendo actually works with their internal teams. Miyamoto gave Retro Metroid because he was impressed by their engine. His ideas were the ones that made Prime what it is, a truly revolutionary Action/Adventure game and a true recreation of Super Metroid in 3D. And would you provide the links to Nintendo being more involved in MP3 than they were in MP1, cause I have the opposite impression. After Retro proved themselves with MP1 they were given more freedom. That is why both MP2 and MP3 have stepped quite far away from traditional Metroid formulas.
By the way Motion controls were the least of MP3's problems. The world structure, shitty voice acting and so on were the main offenders. You know, things that Nintendo head designers actually don't particularly pay attention to.

I stand corrected but hardly think that Miyamoto's idea alone is the reason for Metroid Primes success. Retro still had to perfect the controls, transitions to 3rd person for morph ball, puzzles, etc.

I'll disagree on MP3, I think the controls are by far the worst part. But the game as a whole was still ridiculously underwhelming. Personally, I think the pressure from Nintendo to add the Wiimote controls in was cause for the drop in quality in other areas, but I doubt we'll ever know.

For the record though, I never meant they should give it to Retro, I simply used them as an example. Any qualified team would be fine by me, but the current team doesn't seem to want to make too many changes, probably because the series is so close to a lot of them.

 

[maeda]

I stand corrected but hardly think that Miyamoto's idea alone is the reason for Metroid Primes success. Retro still had to perfect the controls, transitions to 3rd person for morph ball, puzzles, etc.

I'll disagree on MP3, I think the controls are by far the worst part. But the game as a whole was still ridiculously underwhelming. Personally, I think the pressure from Nintendo to add the Wiimote controls in was cause for the drop in quality in other areas, but I doubt we'll ever know.

For the record though, I never meant they should give it to Retro, I simply used them as an example. Any qualified team would be fine by me, but the current team doesn't seem to want to make too many changes, probably because the series is so close to a lot of them.

I don't know, it took some time but I fell in love with SS and easily consider it one of the best in series, if not the best. One thing I am sure of is that it has some of the best levels series has ever seen. Everything else is,in my opinion, secondary.

 

[StreetsAhead]

Personally I think it's a huge difference working on a game at Retro (stationed across the world from most of Nintendo's braintrust) and working at EAD where Miyamoto frequents and is more or less in charge of everyone there.

Just like it's different working in the Tokyo EAD groups to the Kyoto ones, or Monolith Soft.

They clearly don't really want to be there, or they would have been already.

I think they *didn't* want to be there, because it was unproven, but now there is no choice.

once again they plan on being a generation behind.

In terms of online? Not as far as we know, because we know practically nothing. Just because it's not Nintendo Live ($69.99 per year) doesn't mean it's 'behind'.

By 'all-or-nothing' I mean exactly that. If you want to modernize Zelda you do the whole thing. ie. SS, they 'modernized' (we'll call it that, at the very least they thought they were modernizing it) the controls, and left the rest of the game in the past. Frankly, I don't think Nintendo has the heart to change it completely, which is understandable...but don't claim you will if you won't. So modernize the controls, graphics, story, level design, etc. Not just 2/4 of those, all 4.

Passive aggressive swipe at motion controls for the win! Maybe they should have 'modernized' it by using the same control schemes that have been industry standard for ever (buttons, pads and sticks).

I just don't know what you're expecting? He's talking about ideas/trying to evolve the series for a game he probably just started work on and it feels like you've already decided they're going to fail. If you're basing it on SS, well, only so much graphical and level design improvements can be 'modernized' when using hardware that's so relatively archaic. Story, controls and level design were all different to varying degrees in SS anyway, whether or not you consider them 'modernized' or not.

 

[Orayn]

I just don't know what you're expecting? He's talking about ideas/trying to evolve the series for a game he probably just started work on and it feels like you've already decided they're going to fail. If you're basing it on SS, well, only so much graphical and level design improvements can be 'modernized' when using hardware that's so relatively archaic. Story, controls and level design were all different to varying degrees in SS anyway, whether or not you consider them 'modernized' or not.

They should modernize Zelda by making it exactly like something else that we already have, like Uncharted, Assassin's Creed, or God of War. Homogeneity is where it's at!

 

[StreetsAhead]

They should modernize Zelda by making it exactly like something else that we already have, like Uncharted, Assassin's Creed, or God of War. Homogeneity is where it's at!

Hey, I'd be up for a bit of bald-marine space elf.

 

[Orayn]

Hey, I'd be up for a bit of bald-marine space elf.

Make it so, Shiggy.

 

[StreetsAhead]

http://www.zeldainformer.com/2011/1...and-wii-u-zelda-with-nintendo-power.html#more

Finally, now that development of Skyward Sword is complete, have you had a chance to give any more thought to what The Legend of Zelda might be like on Wii U?

As I mentioned earlier, Skyward Sword was a title where we took aim at all the conventions of the Zelda series. While that may have been difficult, I think that confronting those challenges results in something that has a great deal of value. When it comes to Wii U, we'll obviously want to add new elements that take advantage of the capabilities of the platform. But I think using that as a lens through which we once again challenge the conventions of Zelda is more important than just making another Zelda game. With that in mind, please expect big things from the Zelda series to come!

 

[Instro]

By 'all-or-nothing' I mean exactly that. If you want to modernize Zelda you do the whole thing. ie. SS, they 'modernized' (we'll call it that, at the very least they thought they were modernizing it) the controls, and left the rest of the game in the past. Frankly, I don't think Nintendo has the heart to change it completely, which is understandable...but don't claim you will if you won't. So modernize the controls, graphics, story, level design, etc. Not just 2/4 of those, all 4.

What needs to be changed in the level design? Zelda's level/dungeon design is as good as it gets, unless you're talking about something else?