Topic: The Double Edged Nintendo Fallacy

[Bueno Excelente]

I see your point Flash, I really do. Things is, aiming for a different audience was an enormous gamble. I seem to recall them being in a pretty tight spot before the Wii. Also, I have to point out that some of the "innovations" you speak of aren't really as big as you make them out to be. Let's take LttP and OoT for example... aside from the fact that it's in a different dimension, what's so different about them really? Sure, OoT's in 3D, but what else? It's not like a game being in 3D was a big thing by that point in time. So what's the innovation?

Now the GC games... yes, those games were all quite good. Thing is, most of them weren't made by Nintendo, nor did most of them stay exclusive to the GC. Since you have issues finding other games on the Wii that attract your attention in the same manner, I would have to say that the third-party devs are to blame here as well. Not that the GC really had much more to choose from compared to the other consoles, either.

You claim to not be a Nintendo fanboy, but... are you sure about that? Nostalgia is one heck of a thing. I'm talking from a purely objective point of view here.

(Claiming that between LTTP and OOT there were no differences besides graphics) Wut. Is this clever trolling, or is your mind actually feeding you this bullcrap? What's the friggin' innovation? If they kept Link looking like a damn CUBE with a dildo sticking out of it everytime he attacked, there would be no innovation, no. Look at 3D Dot Game Heroes. That's what happens when you put a Zelda game on 3D. Are you even grasping the concept of what OOT was? It was a friggin' epic. Characters and a plot that mattered? Some of the best damn graphics in the console? Actual conflict and realistic-looking swordplay? It's pretty much like taking River City Ransom and turning it into Shenmue. Did you see the first concepts for OOT? What it was supposed to be, and what it eventually became? Are you seriously suggesting something like "Between Super Mario World and Super Mario 64 there was no evolution aside from 3D"? Do you really want to go there? Because the magnitude of what you said is BAFFLING ME. You're comparing a wheelbarrow to a Ferrari, just because they both have wheels.

Of course they weren't made by Nintendo, that's the damn point. Do we get those kind of experiences by third parties on a Nintendo console anymore? No. That's what I'm saying. And Nintendo seems to be fine with it. Letting third-parties rot while they are the only ones who turn a pretty profit on their own console. Microsoft and Sony value third-parties enough to BUY stuff like exclusive DLC for their own console for piles of cash. Nintendo just seems to be frolicking while the other companies keep leaving the Wii and saying that developing games for it is bad business.

And... argh, I'd honestly consider myself a Nintendo fanboy if I was one. But I'm not. My first actually bought Nintendo console was the Gamecube, purely because I heard that Sega was going to start developing for it instead. And during the 128-bit times, although I've had alot of good experiences on the Gamecube, the same holds for the other two systems. I could tell romanticized stories of what a thrill Halo represented when played for the first time, about how Panzer Dragoon Orta made me cry, about how Stranger's Wrath was so damn beautiful, about how KOTOR became my favorite RPG of all time... and heck, I spent 60% of the 128-bit age with the PS2 alone, because most great games just ended up coming out for it. In the later years, you either had a PC, or a PS2, because not much came out for the others. From Jak, Zone of the Enders, Onimusha 3, Devil May Cry, MGS3... ALL of the consoles have provided me with thrilling experiences which only they can provide. But when talking about the Wii, I can only name ONE incredible experience that stemmed from it. Maybe two. What happened? It's the first console I own that has only provided me with one single incredibly thrilling and awesome experience, and doesn't seem to have alot more in store for me.

Here's the thing with me though.  I do agree with you, but when it comes to me, I don't remember these great experiences coming out every other month, or even every 3-4 months.  I'm probably not as hardcore a gamer as most are in here, but I honestly don't remember games that I truly truly loved coming out that fast, or in a row, somewhat. 

I'm not saying this is true of all gamers, but one thing I've noticed in my years since the internet came about is that gamers in general are just getting more and more impatient.  Back in my day, we had to wait for Nintendo Power or some other magazine to come out once a month before finding out the latest game info.  Now though, information is instant and so fluid that game companies can't even keep any real secrets anymore.  Through a licensing copyright, the rumor train, hype, and possibly downfall can immediately start up.  With Nintendo right now, they have 3 games coming out that I know about that I definitely want more than any other.  With Microsoft, they have Halo Reach (which has JEEP ACTION), and with Sony, they have ModNation Racers, which if it's what I really, REALLY, REALLY, [tornado fang]ing REALLY hope it is, could be my game of the year.

But E3 is coming up soon so we shall see.  Zelda Wii should most likely be shown, and who knows what else.  Perhaps the Kid Icarus game I want-icus.  Here's hoping anyway.

In the old days, games took longer to make. To develop. As time went on, and games became more popular, they started coming out every week, with both retail and downloadable releases, and pretty much every week, there's something good to pick up. Something that's worth buying new. I know the Gamecube ended up spacing out their games waaaaay too much towards the end. But it provided us with new experiences at least. All the Wii seems to be doing, is constantly rehashing the old stuff. Giving fans what they expect, instead of giving them something unexpected and beautiful. Unless that Kid Icarus game provides us with a fascinating experience the likes of which we've never seen before, Nintendo can stick it up their collective bums. Seriously, if it's a 2D/3D remake of the original, with the exact same things, I'm done with this crap.

[Fxeni]

Unless that Kid Icarus game provides us with a fascinating experience the likes of which we've never seen before, Nintendo can stick it up their collective bums. Seriously, if it's a 2D/3D remake of the original, with the exact same things, I'm done with this crap.

... Yet you say OoT isn't the same as LttP? Gameplay-wise, they're quite similar. Hell, The plot of OoT is expanded from the stuff in LttP. Yes, the presentation is far improved, but the base gameplay isn't as different as it may seem. Yes, the swordplay is more fancy, but... what else? The targeting system, that was admittedly an innovation. Otherwise, the items act largely the same as their earlier counterparts. The base layout of the game is about the same. The overworld actually managed to regress into a large empty field with nothing to do. Said overworld connects to dungeons that the player must venture forth into. So on and so forth... do I really have to spell it out? Then you say you're sick of that and then elaborate that you don't want a 2D/3D game with the same elements, right after praising OoT? Seriously? Stay consistent, please.

You bring up the shift into 3D again... but really, by that point basically everything on the console was in 3D. Yeah, OoT had set the bar higher for sure, but it sure wasn't as impactful as SM64 was.

Of course they weren't made by Nintendo, that's the damn point. Do we get those kind of experiences by third parties on a Nintendo console anymore? No. That's what I'm saying. And Nintendo seems to be fine with it. Letting third-parties rot while they are the only ones who turn a pretty profit on their own console. Microsoft and Sony value third-parties enough to BUY stuff like exclusive DLC for their own console for piles of cash. Nintendo just seems to be frolicking while the other companies keep leaving the Wii and saying that developing games for it is bad business.

Again, it was like this since the N64. Third-Party support for Nintendo consoles in general was rather low for both the N64 and GC, so I really fail to see how suddenly this is new. There are good third party games on the Wii, you just won't bother with them.

[Tickle Buffalo]

Yet you say OoT isn't the same as LttP? Gameplay-wise, they're quite similar.

:/

[Bueno Excelente]

... Yet you say OoT isn't the same as LttP? Gameplay-wise, they're quite similar. Hell, The plot of OoT is expanded from the stuff in LttP. Yes, the presentation is far improved, but the base gameplay isn't as different as it may seem. Yes, the swordplay is more fancy, but... what else? The targeting system, that was admittedly an innovation. Otherwise, the items act largely the same as their earlier counterparts. The base layout of the game is about the same. The overworld actually managed to regress into a large empty field with nothing to do. Said overworld connects to dungeons that the player must venture forth into. So on and so forth... do I really have to spell it out? Then you say you're sick of that and then elaborate that you don't want a 2D/3D game with the same elements, right after praising OoT? Seriously? Stay consistent, please.

You bring up the shift into 3D again... but really, by that point basically everything on the console was in 3D. Yeah, OoT had set the bar higher for sure, but it sure wasn't as impactful as SM64 was.
Again, it was like this since the N64. Third-Party support for Nintendo consoles in general was rather low for both the N64 and GC, so I really fail to see how suddenly this is new. There are good third party games on the Wii, you just won't bother with them.

GAMEPLAY-wise? Have you even played the game? I'm not even talking about the targeting system and the swordplay, the WHOLE game is ridiculously so far from the core gameplay that if not for the structure, it could be a completely different game. GAMEPLAY is not STRUCTURE. The structure may still have the same items, the same "go into dungeons, grab keys, open doors, fight boss", but the gameplay? That is so incredibly far removed, I am beginning to feel that you've got your head stuck up a multiverse of asses. And YES, it was as impactful as Mario 64, because it turned a game about tiny chibi characters seen from afat poking each other until they died, into something out of Lord of the Rings.
And tell me a SINGLE third-party game for the Wii that provided such an incredible experience and was showered with as much acclaim as Goldeneye. Perfect Dark. Resi 4. Eternal Darkness. There are decent third-party games for the Wii, and some of them are pretty darn good, like Sin & Punishment 2. But most simply provide either more of the same, or like Red Steel 2, try to innovate but turn out to be a boredom repetitive festival of the same over-and-over battles.

:/

My reaction exactly.

[Fxeni]

Have you even played the game?

Why yes I have, quite a bit. Enough to notice the similarities to LttP all over the place, I'd reckon.

Look, this is my issue. You're complaining that you don't want a game with the same mechanics anymore, that you want creative innovations. OoT's innovation was to play a game akin to LttP... in 3D! Look, if you had chosen something like Majora's Mask or Wind Waker, which actually tried to do things differently (and got lambasted for it on a large scale, I add) I would have no issue with you. But if you just stop and think about OoT for a moment, the core mechanics are largely unchanged. Sure, the presentation is changed to suit the shift in dimensions. They used the vertical nature of 3D to great effect. But the core mechanics and ideas... they didn't really change that much if you stop and think about it. They had to adapt it to 3D, which they did quite well. Thing is, again... 3D was the norm by then, so that shift was to be expected. The items behave much like you would expect them to... in 3D!

Look, I'm not try to call OoT a bad game, unlike what your reaction suggests. I'm just trying to point out that the games are more similar than you're willing to accept. I'm doing that because you're expecting Nintendo to try something new with their franchises. Fair enough... but bringing up OoT as an example of this just doesn't sit well with me. Shall I also bring up the fact that each time they've tried to deviate with some of their franchises, the fans didn't like it? The majority of the (Nintendo-made) games that managed to get away with trying to be different and actually survived to tell the tale unscathed was Mario. Zelda? "We want more OoT!" Star Fox? "We want more Star Fox 64!" See the pattern here yet? Not to say they're necessarily right (except for Star Fox... yeesh for some of those), but that's what people want. Guess what? They went back to the base formula for Twilight Princess, and... the fans complained it was too much like OoT.

...

[tornado fang], the fans don't know what they want.

You also bring up that Nintendo should do new IPs. Hey, I agree with you there. More stuff out of the blue like Pikmin from the GC era would be great. Then again, all that "out of the blue" stuff is heavily regulated to the Wii itself and all those "Wii ____" games/tech demos.

And this:

And YES, it was as impactful as Mario 64, because it turned a game about tiny chibi characters seen from afat poking each other until they died, into something out of Lord of the Rings.

Makes you sound like quite the graphics whore, sir. Probably not your intent, but saying it as such certainly conjures up that image. Just saying.

And tell me a SINGLE third-party game for the Wii that provided such an incredible experience and was showered with as much acclaim as Goldeneye. Perfect Dark. Resi 4. Eternal Darkness. There are decent third-party games for the Wii, and some of them are pretty darn good, like Sin & Punishment 2. But most simply provide either more of the same, or like Red Steel 2, try to innovate but turn out to be a boredom repetitive festival of the same over-and-over battles.

There was a list given to you earlier, and you just dismissed it offhand. Why should I bother? It's not like you're actually going to accept anything at this point, because it's quite apparent you just don't want to.

[Dexter Dexter]

Here's a good example of how much crap there is compared to quality on Nintendo handhelds (best example I can come up with): In the entirety of the Game Boy Advance's lifespan, approximately 2800 ROMs were ripped. Which for the uninitiated means that even though there are different languages and updates of the same games in that list, that's how many were released. In the 5 or so years the Nintendo DS has been out, upwards of 4900 ROMs have been ripped. Same principle, but it just goes to show that even innovative hardware can have a lot of crappy games on it. What's worse is that unlike the GBA which has reached the upper limit, the number of DS roms continues to rise. Yes, the hardware can provide a lot of innovative types of gameplay, but with that comes even more crappy games (for example, all the Imagine! games published by UbiSoft) than before, just because there's a touch screen.

THIS is the sad truth I have seen regarding the Wii and the DS. Too much "games" being cranked out by "developers" (those two words are in quotes because, well, can you call them "developers" and "games" after you've seen the utter barf-inducing quality (can't find a better word)?). The more I read the posts on this topic, the more I lose my trust in the big N. Come on, Ninty, have some ORIGINALITY for once, goddamnit.

[Mirby]

I hate it when people contradict their own arguments. I'm staying out of this battle between Fox and Flash; last time I got in an argument like this, I was banned from the forum for cussing out the moron I was arguing with.

But I'm glad you agree with me there, Doppler. It is true that some "developers" only see the hardware as something that's surprisingly better at spewing [parasitic bomb] than someone with diarrhea, and it is tragic that it is so.

[Jericho]

THIS is the sad truth I have seen regarding the Wii and the DS. Too much "games" being cranked out by "developers" (those two words are in quotes because, well, can you call them "developers" and "games" after you've seen the utter barf-inducing quality (can't find a better word)?). The more I read the posts on this topic, the more I lose my trust in the big N. Come on, Ninty, have some ORIGINALITY for once, goddamnit.

This post confuses me, are you saying that Nintendo needs to crack down on these "developers and games"? If so then, they did do this and became notorious for closing off their platform out of fear of others diluting their name (in before "Official Seal of Quality"). This happened back during the NES era and gained Nintendo a bad rep with a bunch of developers for it. They eased up on it through the other gens then pretty much abolished it for the Wii in order to make a good playing ground for developers to take the plate and hit a home run, but no body came to play ball. (Which really [tornado fang]ing sucks considering how much opportunity was lost while companies hemorrhaged out the ass chasing the pretty and shiny and breaking their banks in the process.)

If you're saying this as a response to Nintendo in general, well then I don't know where you've been, but I'm seeing a ton of original stuff.

Final thought, people put way too much emphasis on this misguided belief that original = good. Good = good. End of story.

[Mirby]

Final thought, people put way too much emphasis on this misguided belief that original = good. Good = good. End of story.

^QFMFT!

[Bueno Excelente]

Why yes I have, quite a bit. Enough to notice the similarities to LttP all over the place, I'd reckon.

Look, this is my issue. You're complaining that you don't want a game with the same mechanics anymore, that you want creative innovations. OoT's innovation was to play a game akin to LttP... in 3D! Look, if you had chosen something like Majora's Mask or Wind Waker, which actually tried to do things differently (and got lambasted for it on a large scale, I add) I would have no issue with you. But if you just stop and think about OoT for a moment, the core mechanics are largely unchanged. Sure, the presentation is changed to suit the shift in dimensions. They used the vertical nature of 3D to great effect. But the core mechanics and ideas... they didn't really change that much if you stop and think about it. They had to adapt it to 3D, which they did quite well. Thing is, again... 3D was the norm by then, so that shift was to be expected. The items behave much like you would expect them to... in 3D!

Look, I'm not try to call OoT a bad game, unlike what your reaction suggests. I'm just trying to point out that the games are more similar than you're willing to accept. I'm doing that because you're expecting Nintendo to try something new with their franchises. Fair enough... but bringing up OoT as an example of this just doesn't sit well with me. Shall I also bring up the fact that each time they've tried to deviate with some of their franchises, the fans didn't like it? The majority of the (Nintendo-made) games that managed to get away with trying to be different and actually survived to tell the tale unscathed was Mario. Zelda? "We want more OoT!" Star Fox? "We want more Star Fox 64!" See the pattern here yet? Not to say they're necessarily right (except for Star Fox... yeesh for some of those), but that's what people want. Guess what? They went back to the base formula for Twilight Princess, and... the fans complained it was too much like OoT.

...

[tornado fang], the fans don't know what they want.

You also bring up that Nintendo should do new IPs. Hey, I agree with you there. More stuff out of the blue like Pikmin from the GC era would be great. Then again, all that "out of the blue" stuff is heavily regulated to the Wii itself and all those "Wii ____" games/tech demos.

And this:Makes you sound like quite the graphics whore, sir. Probably not your intent, but saying it as such certainly conjures up that image. Just saying.
There was a list given to you earlier, and you just dismissed it offhand. Why should I bother? It's not like you're actually going to accept anything at this point, because it's quite apparent you just don't want to.

Giving that argument is like saying Halo has the same gameplay as Contra because all you do is shoot people and jump high. Yes, Ocarina of Time has some elements from other Zelda games. Why? BECAUSE IT'S A [copulating] ZELDA GAME! We're not talking about Final Fantasy, in which the same rturn-based bullshit applies to every single one, dispite the improvements in hardware. We're talking about two completely different games in terms of gameplay, and JUST BECAUSE they've got the same structure, you argue that they're the same plus 3D. Heck, you've named a ton of gameplay elements which changed the whole thing alone. Ask anyone. Ocarina of Time was the most the series has changed. You're mistaking GAMEPLAY with ELEMENTS and STRUCTURE. It's like saying Sonic 3 and Sonic Adventure have the same gameplay because you run fast until the end of a level. Or that any game with the same level structure/elements, is something that DOESN'T CHANGE. That is ridiculously stupid. OOT is a completely different game because it got us to look at the Zelda world in a much bigger, and realistic scale. They gave Link proportions. They gave the world a realistic look, with nooks and crannies. They gave gameplay a rehaul. Auto-targeting instead of lining yourself up with enemies. More buttons for item useage, which was completely different here. The whole game worked on a completely different context, because many of the items required a third-person look to be used. The WHOLE gameplay was changed. Yes, Majora and Wind Waker changed more story and environment elements drastically. But unarguably, Ocarina of Time was the biggest revolution. Look at the damn game from a technical point of view instead of just in terms of story/elements. It's like you're arguing the gameplay from Metal Gear 1 to MGS4 remained unchanged.

I'm not just saying they should try new things with their own franchises. They certainly have, by the way. Mario Galaxy. Luigi's Mansion. Metroid Prime. All stellar games. If "fans" didn't like it, screw them. Everyone else did. And I'm mostly saying Nintendo should make new stuff. Like they did with Chibi-Robo, and Pikmin. They've certainly got the cash and resources. And don't tell me they can't just hire a new team if their core teams' hands are full. They can, and they SHOULD. Mario Galaxy 2 and Metroid: Other M were pleasant surprises from the last E3, but I wanna see something else. I wanna see substance, I wanna see something new.

And by the way, I AM a graphics whore. And by that, I mean I like pretty games. And both Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time are pretty games. I used that metaphor to compare the gameplay styles and looks of the previous games to the current ones. Don't be so damn quick to put labels on people. I've explained time and time again what my points are. And hell, you seem like you AGREE with me in the "Nintendo should put out some new [copulatin'] games for us" department. So what's the big deal?

This post confuses me, are you saying that Nintendo needs to crack down on these "developers and games"? If so then, they did do this and became notorious for closing off their platform out of fear of others diluting their name (in before "Official Seal of Quality"). This happened back during the NES era and gained Nintendo a bad rep with a bunch of developers for it. They eased up on it through the other gens then pretty much abolished it for the Wii in order to make a good playing ground for developers to take the plate and hit a home run, but no body came to play ball. (Which really [tornado fang]ing sucks considering how much opportunity was lost while companies hemorrhaged out the ass chasing the pretty and shiny and breaking their banks in the process.)

If you're saying this as a response to Nintendo in general, well then I don't know where you've been, but I'm seeing a ton of original stuff.

Final thought, people put way too much emphasis on this misguided belief that original = good. Good = good. End of story.

What Nintendo needs to do, is try and attract more quality developers into their console. Capcom doesn't belong to them, yet they made Resi 4 an exclusive. Rare didn't belong to them, yet they made the N64 into the wonder it was. With the current state of affairs, most quality developers are staying away from the Wii in terms of releasing big, quality games on it, because they all know that, no matter how profitable the console is, Nintendo's the only one who really prospers with that.

[Dexter Dexter]

This post confuses me, are you saying that Nintendo needs to crack down on these "developers and games"? If so then, they did do this and became notorious for closing off their platform out of fear of others diluting their name (in before "Official Seal of Quality"). This happened back during the NES era and gained Nintendo a bad rep with a bunch of developers for it. They eased up on it through the other gens then pretty much abolished it for the Wii in order to make a good playing ground for developers to take the plate and hit a home run, but no body came to play ball. (Which really [tornado fang]ing sucks considering how much opportunity was lost while companies hemorrhaged out the ass chasing the pretty and shiny and breaking their banks in the process.)

"Originality" aside, the point I'm trying to make here is that developers need to do a better job at making games, like actually working their asses off until they start sweating blood. Unless these kinds of developers are actually trying to find favor from the demographic that is little kids at the age of around, say, 7 or below.

[Fxeni]

And by the way, I AM a graphics whore. And by that, I mean I like pretty games. And both Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time are pretty games. I used that metaphor to compare the gameplay styles and looks of the previous games to the current ones. Don't be so damn quick to put labels on people. I've explained time and time again what my points are.

Sorry, just wanted to address this quickly. If you read up in the quote, I'm pretty sure I didn't label you as such, but was merely stating that that one comment made it seem so. Don't get your panties in such a knot. I'm not throwing any insults around here.

For the whole OoT thing... my problem with that whole argument (again) is the word innovative. They were doing what was the norm by that point. They did it well, but still the norm... what was expected. Innovative =/= what was expected. Again, bringing up MM and WW, they got creative with the items and their uses. They got creative with the landscapes that we would traverse, and the method to do so. OoT didn't really do so (aside from Epona, but she was woefully underused). I am looking at it from a technical standpoint... yes, they did a good job, but I wouldn't call it innovative (from my point of view). I'm just saying this because Nintendo being innovative (or lack thereof) seems to be a strong point with you.

I'm not just saying they should try new things with their own franchises. They certainly have, by the way. Mario Galaxy. Luigi's Mansion. Metroid Prime. All stellar games. If "fans" didn't like it, screw them. Everyone else did.

Oh, I'm aware they've tried new things with the franchises, but as I said, the majority of it wasn't well met beyond Mario. Even there, Luigi's Mansion wasn't all that well received (although I liked it for what it was). Metroid Prime was indeed an exception to this. While I agree that those "fans" shouldn't matter, they do to Nintendo... gotta please the masses to survive.

[Tickle Buffalo]

For the whole OoT thing... my problem with that whole argument (again) is the word innovative. They were doing what was the norm by that point. They did it well, but still the norm... what was expected.

What other games were there that were like OoT when it came out?

[Mirby]

I don't think he's saying OoT in particular; I think he's more referring to ADVENTURE GAME IN 3D had been the norm.

When did Ape Escape come out again?

[The Drunken Dishwasher]

There's also Tomb Raider, but I doubt that's a good example.

[Mirby]

True, but it was one of the first 3D adventure games...

[Bueno Excelente]

Sorry, just wanted to address this quickly. If you read up in the quote, I'm pretty sure I didn't label you as such, but was merely stating that that one comment made it seem so. Don't get your panties in such a knot. I'm not throwing any insults around here.

For the whole OoT thing... my problem with that whole argument (again) is the word innovative. They were doing what was the norm by that point. They did it well, but still the norm... what was expected. Innovative =/= what was expected. Again, bringing up MM and WW, they got creative with the items and their uses. They got creative with the landscapes that we would traverse, and the method to do so. OoT didn't really do so (aside from Epona, but she was woefully underused). I am looking at it from a technical standpoint... yes, they did a good job, but I wouldn't call it innovative (from my point of view). I'm just saying this because Nintendo being innovative (or lack thereof) seems to be a strong point with you.
Oh, I'm aware they've tried new things with the franchises, but as I said, the majority of it wasn't well met beyond Mario. Even there, Luigi's Mansion wasn't all that well received (although I liked it for what it was). Metroid Prime was indeed an exception to this. While I agree that those "fans" shouldn't matter, they do to Nintendo... gotta please the masses to survive.

I know plenty of people who refuse to play any games that aren't from the 32-bit age onwards. It's a matter of taste. I'm betting something like Yar's Revenge doesn't excite you in the least for example, but I've had some fun with it. Like I said, "graphics whore" is a stupid name to call anyone other than people who believe that gameplay doesn't matter in a game. Because graphics DO matter in a game. They represent half the experience. The "video" part of video games.

Like it's said on a comment below, tell me about any games that had the detail or kind of gameplay and content as OOT had. Nowadays, it doesn't seem like much. But back then? The game was ahead of its time. And it remained ahead of its time for a looooong way, pretty much until GTA III came barging by. MM and WW introduced stuff like a time limit and made a big boring sea for you to traverse, but OOT still remains the one that made the whole new concept of what a Zelda game meant. It doesn't matter in the slightest that the game continued to be about a light and dark world (again, differenciated by time instead of dimensions) and was still about going through dungeons. The simple matter of characters having personalities, mattering to you in an unseen way, giving you a certain destiny in what became of the world, and giving you an epic feeling NO GAME, I repeat NO GAME had ever been able to before, is what truly mattered. It managed to grant true personality to 3D models, making you care for your adventure, granting feelings of fright, or epic sensations, without having the player use his imagination. And it needed no crappy CG sequences to show "how you need to imagine the characters when they're not tiny, Popeye-armed midgets so you can enjoy this game better". It showed you human feeling, a dark story where people DIED and [parasitic bomb] HAPPENED. And you took it seriously because it was friggin' there, in front of you.

And I say "screw fans" in the manner of "screw fanboys who want the same thing over and over without any sort of evolution or innovation to its purpose". Nintendo is delivering to the masses now, and letting fans suck on their fingers exactly BECAUSE fans didn't receive innovative ideas quite well. Luigi's Mansion remains one of the best spinoffs of a franchise Nintendo's ever made, it OOZES quality out of every single pore, its only sin is of being short. Tons of fans hated Prime because it wasn't Metroidvania. Screw them. I'd love it if Nintendo came out with a new Halo-like license that pleased masses all over and caused hundreds of jocks to shout obscenities and racist remarks online. Because it would push them forward. I like it that Nintendo's prospering with a new audience, I truly do. But they kinda seem like they've lost their way. Aside from Mario Galaxy, they seem to be one of those bands that just looks back on the past and releases a few "Best Of" albums to please fans. I want some new stuff. The new Zelda was good, but it missed something that most Zelda games had. The "OH SHIIIIIIIIT" feeling that most Zelda games have.

Koholint is just a dream and everyone's happy lives will now cease to exist? OH SHIIIIIIIIT
I just lost 7 years of my life, the world seems to be infested with zombies and my old friends need to die and have their souls aligned with destiny to give me the power to go on? OH SHIIIIIIT
The world is going to end over and over, I'm stuck on a timeloop of people's lives who I constantly have to fix and there is AN EVIL FACE EVERYTIME I LOOK UP OH SHIIIIIIIIIT
Hyrule has been frozen and doomed and everyone down there, including races I knew, died, except for mountaintop people? And I HAVE TO END THE WORLD BELOW? OH SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIT (seriously [tornado fang] you red king)

Aside from having the very best final Ganondorf/Ganon fight in all Zelda games, it didn't provide you with a sense of urgency and dispair as events from previous games had. There was no NIGHTMARE FUEL. I need some of that. I want people to die unnecessarily, I want mindfreaking stories, I want to save people so they can die repeatedly in my events and I want to learn suddenly that it was all my fault. THAT is what Zelda is about.

[Solar]

Aside from having the very best final Ganondorf/Ganon fight in all Zelda games, it didn't provide you with a sense of urgency and dispair as events from previous games had. There was no NIGHTMARE FUEL. I need some of that. I want people to die unnecessarily, I want mindfreaking stories, I want to save people so they can die repeatedly in my events and I want to learn suddenly that it was all my fault. THAT is what Zelda is about.

I thought it was about Link going on an epic adventure to save *insert name of kingdom or realm here* from *insert villain here that most of the time ends up being or hijacked by Ganon anyways*, the rest is just extra.

[Bueno Excelente]

I thought it was about Link going on an epic adventure to save *insert name of kingdom or realm here* from *insert villain here that most of the time ends up being or hijacked by Ganon anyways*, the rest is just extra.

If you want it to be a throwaway title that doesn't have a single moment that makes you go "Holy [parasitic bomb], has this just happened?" and makes you think it's an awesome game, you're pretty much just playing some other old game like so many nowadays. Feeling is what differentiates good games from fantastic ones.

Some more insight on how much dough Ninty's making:
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3179172
Take some attention that 2009 was a BAD YEAR for them. And still, this is how much they made. Taking into attention the salaries of a company that has few employees around the world, I'd be spending some of that on projects PURELY ON PRINCIPLE.

[Protoman Blues]

If you want it to be a throwaway title that doesn't have a single moment that makes you go "Holy [parasitic bomb], has this just happened?" and makes you think it's an awesome game, you're pretty much just playing some other old game like so many nowadays. Feeling is what differentiates good games from fantastic ones.

There in lies the problem though.  Feeling is limited to each individual purpose, and not everyone is going to feel the same about a game.  Whereas I thought that OoT was great, my friend played it once and really never touched it again cause he got bored with it.  Whereas Mario Galaxy might seem innovative to some, others might see it as another Mario 64, just with waggle spinning & gravity.  For myself personally, my example would be Puzzle Quest.  People raved about the game, and when I played it I 100% hated it.  The same thing goes for any form of entertainment, really.

[Bueno Excelente]

There in lies the problem though.  Feeling is limited to each individual purpose, and not everyone is going to feel the same about a game.  Whereas I thought that OoT was great, my friend played it once and really never touched it again cause he got bored with it.  Whereas Mario Galaxy might seem innovative to some, others might see it as another Mario 64, just with waggle spinning & gravity.  For myself personally, my example would be Puzzle Quest.  People raved about the game, and when I played it I 100% hated it.  The same thing goes for any form of entertainment, really.

Yeah, but there are some things which can pretty much touch anyone. Have someone who likes games play OOT in its original context back when the game came out, and I guarantee they'd be touched. Endings like the Majora's Mask and Link's Awakening ones also provided quite a thrill that made you think for awhile. Kinda like the magnetic corridor from MGS4, or the twist scene in Bioshock. They are scenes which "get" the biggest part of the audience. As long as you can nail those people in their feelings, you got yourself a winner.

[Protoman Blues]

Yeah, but there are some things which can pretty much touch anyone. Have someone who likes games play OOT in its original context back when the game came out, and I guarantee they'd be touched. Endings like the Majora's Mask and Link's Awakening ones also provided quite a thrill that made you think for awhile. Kinda like the magnetic corridor from MGS4, or the twist scene in Bioshock. They are scenes which "get" the biggest part of the audience. As long as you can nail those people in their feelings, you got yourself a winner.

Again, my friend really wasn't that fond of OoT.  He's a Zelda fan, probably more so of LttP and The Adventures of Link, I believe, but OoT never did it for him.  Now the Silent Hill series is his favorite.  You are right that certain scenes can indeed invoke people's feelings.  My point is simply that different people have different feelings.  You can't please everyone.

[Solar]

Yeah, but there are some things which can pretty much touch anyone. Have someone who likes games play OOT in its original context back when the game came out, and I guarantee they'd be touched. Endings like the Majora's Mask and Link's Awakening ones also provided quite a thrill that made you think for awhile. Kinda like the magnetic corridor from MGS4, or the twist scene in Bioshock. They are scenes which "get" the biggest part of the audience. As long as you can nail those people in their feelings, you got yourself a winner.

Yeah, those extra things make good games even greater, however they're exactly that, extra. You don't need any of that to have a good or even great game (ex: Tetris). Also, touched by what in OoT?

[Bueno Excelente]

Again, my friend really wasn't that fond of OoT.  He's a Zelda fan, probably more so of LttP and The Adventures of Link, I believe, but OoT never did it for him.  Now the Silent Hill series is his favorite.  You are right that certain scenes can indeed invoke people's feelings.  My point is simply that different people have different feelings.  You can't please everyone.

I know you can't please everyone. But it's unarguable that certain sequences in games have a big effect on most gamers. I don't know one single person that went through the Andrew Ryan reveal in Bioshock and left without at least recognizing the scene as a fantastic twist. Better to please most, than to not please at all. And some Zelda games have this kind of effect.

Yeah, those extra things make good games even greater, however they're exactly that, extra. You don't need any of that to have a good or even great game (ex: Tetris). Also, touched by what in OoT?

You still don't understand. Different games of different genres have different things. Of COURSE I don't expect a game that isn't driven by story to make me feel touched in the slightest. But games that ARE driven by story are supposed to make you feel like that story's good. Attention, I said GAMES DRIVEN BY STORY. Don't go and give me an example such as that you haven't felt touched when you played Duke Nukem or some crap. Zelda, although not a masterpiece of narrative, has certain plot points which make a player feel good, or bad, depending on the situation. Saving Epona from a paradisiac ranch turned into an usurped hellhole, finding out your friends are now dead sages because of your quest, going outside after seven years and seeing a city with no clear survivors overrun with zombies... I'd say there's a CRAPLOAD of moments you can find quite touching. And yes, you DO need moments like this to make good story-driven games. Zelda isn't a story-driven game, but it helps the pace quite alot, because it makes you interested in the world and the people around them, instead of making them be single-dimensional characters without a thought in their heads. Final Fantasy XIII and Heavy Rain tried to be good story-driven games. They failed, because there is too much crap tied to their narratives. Zelda has a plot as an important piece of it, although it's simply one piece of a greater puzzle. But all the sum of its parts is what makes it a truly great game. It's not padding, or as you say, an "extra". It's something important.

[Fxeni]

The simple matter of characters having personalities, mattering to you in an unseen way, giving you a certain destiny in what became of the world, and giving you an epic feeling NO GAME, I repeat NO GAME had ever been able to before, is what truly mattered.

Well, you see... I managed to have that feeling before. From which game, I couldn't tell you, but I can guarantee you that I had that feeling far before. Not necessarily from a 3D game, either. Therein lies the problem here, I do believe. For you it was something that was never done before, and for me... well, it was something that was done well. I wasn't as impressed at the time as you were, obviously, and therein lies the problem here. Also, it hasn't held up as well as time went on. I can't go back and play it over and over again, unlike many other games where I have no issues doing so. I'm not talking about newer games only either, I mean stuff from way back as well.

Beauty in the the Eye of the Beholder, yes?