Topic: The Double Edged Nintendo Fallacy

[Mirby]

Everyone has their own opinions on everything, and none of them are automatically right, yours included, Flash. My brother likes games, but he didn't like OoT at all. He prefers A Link to the Past far more. Which, might I add, did have characters with personality, did give Link a destiny he had to fulfill, did all that. And it was 2D, and not OoT. Let's look at it this way, shall we? A comparison of LttP and OoT.

3 Dungeons in the first half, 7 in the second, big bad final dungeon, final boss, and then TRUE FINAL BOSS. Applies to both games.
Hookshot to pull you across ledges, arrows to shoot eyes that will open doors, etc. Applies to both games.
Save Zelda from Ganon. Well, that one applies to almost all Zelda games, but still.
Jumping off of ledges into pits. Applies to LttP and all games after.

The core gameplay remains the same between the two; the only difference is that OoT added the Z axis and myriad other things (not the Ocarina or the trading sequence; those originated in Link's Awakening) such as Epona and... well, that's about it. The only reason it may seem better is because it was OMG POLYGONAL MODELS!

Sorry if the discussion had moved past this...

[Fxeni]

Everyone has their own opinions on everything, and none of them are automatically right, yours included, Flash. My brother likes games, but he didn't like OoT at all. He prefers A Link to the Past far more. Which, might I add, did have characters with personality, did give Link a destiny he had to fulfill, did all that. And it was 2D, and not OoT. Let's look at it this way, shall we? A comparison of LttP and OoT.

3 Dungeons in the first half, 7 in the second, big bad final dungeon, final boss, and then TRUE FINAL BOSS. Applies to both games.
Hookshot to pull you across ledges, arrows to shoot eyes that will open doors, etc. Applies to both games.
Save Zelda from Ganon. Well, that one applies to almost all Zelda games, but still.
Jumping off of ledges into pits. Applies to LttP and all games after.

The core gameplay remains the same between the two; the only difference is that OoT added the Z axis and myriad other things (not the Ocarina or the trading sequence; those originated in Link's Awakening) such as Epona and... well, that's about it. The only reason it may seem better is because it was OMG POLYGONAL MODELS!

Sorry if the discussion had moved past this...

Sort of... that's pretty much what I was saying, along with the fact that the items didn't really change much between the two. Probably best not to go back there, though.

[Mirby]

Yeah. Just saying though. Examples like that generally help.

Also, the ocarina was technically introduced in LttP and worked for teleportation like half the songs in OoT, except it was called the Flute. Still a friggin' ocarina though.

[Tickle Buffalo]

So do you guys think that Metroid Prime has the same gameplay as Super Metroid? Serious question.

[Fxeni]

So do you guys think that Metroid Prime has the same gameplay as Super Metroid? Serious question.

Notice earlier I said similar, not same. Very different here. Of course it's not going to be exactly the same, but the base idea behind the mechanics can be. Again, in the context of innovation, which was the issue before, it's similar. Once more, Metroid Prime did what it did very well, but it's not necessarily innovative.

But again, that's from my point of view. Repeating once more, I don't think I ever said they were the same. If I did, that was a mistake on my part. Same =/= similar.

Not to mention, lots of people exclaimed at the time (reviewers included) that "it's like they took apart Super Metroid, and remade it in 3D!". Their words, not mine.

[Bueno Excelente]

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?

I was talking about the environment in 3D games, if you didn't notice.

Everyone has their own opinions on everything, and none of them are automatically right, yours included, Flash. My brother likes games, but he didn't like OoT at all. He prefers A Link to the Past far more. Which, might I add, did have characters with personality, did give Link a destiny he had to fulfill, did all that. And it was 2D, and not OoT. Let's look at it this way, shall we? A comparison of LttP and OoT.

3 Dungeons in the first half, 7 in the second, big bad final dungeon, final boss, and then TRUE FINAL BOSS. Applies to both games.
Hookshot to pull you across ledges, arrows to shoot eyes that will open doors, etc. Applies to both games.
Save Zelda from Ganon. Well, that one applies to almost all Zelda games, but still.
Jumping off of ledges into pits. Applies to LttP and all games after.

The core gameplay remains the same between the two; the only difference is that OoT added the Z axis and myriad other things (not the Ocarina or the trading sequence; those originated in Link's Awakening) such as Epona and... well, that's about it. The only reason it may seem better is because it was OMG POLYGONAL MODELS!

Sorry if the discussion had moved past this...

HAVE I NOT TALKED ABOUT THIS YET?

GAMEPLAY. STRUCTURE.

GAMEPLAY DOES NOT EQUAL STRUCTURE. STRUCTURE DOES NOT EQUAL GAMEPLAY.

Jesus Christ, it's like you people don't even read what I've written so many damn times. Yes, Metroid Prime has the same structure of Super Metroid, but it doesn't PLAY LIKE IT. It has 3D graphics, a first-person perspective, and lock-on. But you still have to explore and grab items and face bosses. Yes, Ocarina of Time had the same STRUCTURE as Link to the Past. However, it did not feature a top-down perspective from which you moved to sides and it featured a different way of aiming your long-range weapons, in a completely different way. GAMEPLAY. The elements of the game are arguably part of it, but it does NOT MEAN it has the same GAMEPLAY.

Read what I write before making the same argument all over again, and don't make an ass out of yourself.

So do you guys think that Metroid Prime has the same gameplay as Super Metroid? Serious question.

THANK YOU.

Let's look at two games with the same structure, but NOT the same gameplay.


On Contra, you shoot at dudes through crazy levels.


On Serious Sam, you shoot at dudes through crazy levels.

They have the same structure. Not the same gameplay.

[Tickle Buffalo]

Notice earlier I said similar, not same. Very different here. Of course it's not going to be exactly the same, but the base idea behind the mechanics can be. Again, in the context of innovation, which was the issue before, it's similar. Once more, Metroid Prime did what it did very well, but it's not necessarily innovative.

But making an FPS like Metroid Prime was innovative. What other games were there that were like Metroid Prime? That whole FPS wander around everywhere getting lost type of gameplay, what other games were like that?

You can name me some games that were like OoT that were released before it while you're at it, too.


(Also Talyn said the gameplay between Zelda games was the same and you agreed, so...)

[Fxeni]

I shouldn't have used the word "gameplay" earlier, admittedly. Hence why I used the word "mechanics" thereafter, if you care to notice. Mistake on my part there.

I was talking about the environment in 3D games, if you didn't notice.

Didn't quite seem like it, truthfully. It kind of seemed like you were saying that no game ever did it before. Perhaps not your intent, persay, but it certainly gave off that vibe. I mean, look at it:

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.

Doesn't really seem like you're talking about environment in 3D games to me.

Anyways, I think we've stayed on the whole OoT thing too long anyways. You find it was super innovative, I don't. It's our view of the word "innovation" here (or words that amount to the same thing) that's the issue here, clearly, so there's no point in continuing this segment of the debate. Again, Eye of the Beholder and such.

Posted on: May 14, 2010, 04:25:29 PM

But making an FPS like Metroid Prime was innovative. What other games were there that were like Metroid Prime? That whole FPS wander around everywhere getting lost type of gameplay, what other games were like that?

But it was expected of a Metroid game to be like that. It's all a matter of perspective.

[Tickle Buffalo]

So what you're saying is that you can't actually think of any games that were like it, then.

How about if it had a different title, would it be special then? And like no metroids/space pirates/samuses/whatevers. How about then?

[Mirby]

I think we've strayed off the original topic a bit... and some of our posts are either being misinterpreted or taken out of context.

I also think further posting in this topic by myself would be pointless. Thus, I remove myself from this discussion.

[Dexter Dexter]

I think we've strayed off the original topic a bit... and some of our posts are either being misinterpreted or taken out of context.

I also think further posting in this topic by myself would be pointless. Thus, I remove myself from this discussion.

Ditto. I don't think I even contributed to anything anyhow. Peace, dudes.

[Tickle Buffalo]

Making someone run away 'cause they realise their arguments are terrible still counts as winning the encounter, right?

I mean, I do get experience for this. Right?

[Fxeni]

So what you're saying is that you can't actually think of any games that were like it, then.

*sigh* There's games that were technically RPGs that controlled from a first person perspective, in which you could get lost. Mostly on the PC. Let's see... The Elder Scrolls series comes to mind. Not much in the way of platforming, but exploration was certainly key, and you played the game from the first person perspective. You attacked enemies with weapons and spells and the like. Not to say that Metroid Prime is exactly like that, but no games are exactly alike (for the most part, few exceptions in the past). Again, saying all this in the interest of the word "innovation", blah blah blah.

I think we've strayed off the original topic a bit... and some of our posts are either being misinterpreted or taken out of context.

Very much this. People's views on "innovation" clearly differ as well.

[Tickle Buffalo]

What, like Morrowind and so on? You seriously think they were like Metroid Prime?

[Bueno Excelente]

I shouldn't have used the word "gameplay" earlier, admittedly. Hence why I used the word "mechanics" thereafter, if you care to notice. Mistake on my part there.
Didn't quite seem like it, truthfully. It kind of seemed like you were saying that no game ever did it before. Perhaps not your intent, persay, but it certainly gave off that vibe. I mean, look at it:Doesn't really seem like you're talking about environment in 3D games to me.

Anyways, I think we've stayed on the whole OoT thing too long anyways. You find it was super innovative, I don't. It's our view of the word "innovation" here (or words that amount to the same thing) that's the issue here, clearly, so there's no point in continuing this segment of the debate. Again, Eye of the Beholder and such.

Posted on: May 14, 2010, 04:25:29 PMBut it was expected of a Metroid game to be like that. It's all a matter of perspective.

I was talking about the feel of the game, the look and environment. No other game had made it before. I don't care what people say about LttP, as good as a game it was, this:


Doesn't feel the same as this:


What a 3D Zelda might actually look like, is this:


Which, according to a few concept screens revealed, was actually what the game was originally planned to be. But they wanted to give it reality. They wanted to give the game sky, they wanted to give it time, roofs, actual swordfights, aiming and wielding a bow and arrow, height... all of this makes a game feel COMPLETELY different. Heck, the game had EXPRESSIONS. What kind of a game had you seen where individual NPCs had EXPRESSIONS before? Faces that blinked, towns you actually explored, buildings you actually went INSIDE of. Alot of stuff we needed to use our imagination in LttP for was revealed to us here in massive detail, changing the feel of the game completely. This is what I meant. Not as in "you felt differently while playing it", but as in "THE GAME FELT DIFFERENT". And it did. No bullshit, it felt completely different from LttP. Strip it of its name, hero design, dungeon structure and gadgets, and you'd have a game NOBODY would classify as "A Zelda".

I think we've strayed off the original topic a bit... and some of our posts are either being misinterpreted or taken out of context.

I also think further posting in this topic by myself would be pointless. Thus, I remove myself from this discussion.

How many times have you said that again?

*sigh* There's games that were technically RPGs that controlled from a first person perspective, in which you could get lost. Mostly on the PC. Let's see... The Elder Scrolls series comes to mind. Not much in the way of platforming, but exploration was certainly key, and you played the game from the first person perspective. You attacked enemies with weapons and spells and the like. Not to say that Metroid Prime is exactly like that, but no games are exactly alike (for the most part, few exceptions in the past). Again, saying all this in the interest of the word "innovation", blah blah blah.
Very much this. People's views on "innovation" clearly differ as well.

The Elder Scrolls games were NOTHING like Metroid Prime. There was exploration and underground dungeons, but comparing them to Metroid is like comparing Zelda to GTA just because you run around a free-roaming location. Which by the way, the Metroid series doesn't have, while Elder Scrolls has complete and total unlabyrinthic free-roaming, except for the dungeons. You're trying to patch up arguments with useless far-away removed games from not even the same genre.

[Tickle Buffalo]

Man, you sure do focus on trivial [parasitic bomb] in your video games.

[Fxeni]

What, like Morrowind and so on? You seriously think they were like Metroid Prime?

In the context of exploration being one of the more important aspects from a first-person perspective... somewhat. They were more RPGs, as I said, but you wanted an example of a game that you wander around and get lost in first person, so there you go. Metroid Prime was certainly more polished in the combat department and didn't have stats and such, but combat isn't the main focus in either of them. This is just off the top of my head, mind you, so there's probably a better choice than this. Point is, there's been ideas floating around for a long long time. Just because they used them well doesn't make it innovative.

besides,

I think we've strayed off the original topic a bit... and some of our posts are either being misinterpreted or taken out of context.

whole lot of this.

[Flame]

"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.

THANK YOU. SO much. I think youve described a sentiment I tend to have. I like pretty games. Eye candy is delicious candy, and food for the imagination. I like going "Wooow..." at the graphics in a game, but that doesnt mean I DONT care about everything else.

[Bueno Excelente]

In the context of exploration being one of the more important aspects from a first-person perspective... somewhat. They were more RPGs, as I said, but you wanted an example of a game that you wander around and get lost in first person, so there you go. Metroid Prime was certainly more polished in the combat department and didn't have stats and such, but combat isn't the main focus in either of them. This is just off the top of my head, mind you, so there's probably a better choice than this. Point is, there's been ideas floating around for a long long time. Just because they used them well doesn't make it innovative.

besides,whole lot of this.

You could have easily given the example of something like the Shin Megami Tensei series. The first games forced you to go around dungeons in first-person, and you got lost in them. The Elder Scrolls series is ludicrously different from every single point of view to even be considered something like that. Seems like you're doing that "whole lot of taking things out of context" with this. Point being, there is NO other game like Metroid Prime, at least not yet. The game is completely original, and yes, while it may have transplanted the mechanics of Metroid into the third dimension, the gameplay and feel of the game is completely different. So please, stop nitpicking and just go with the "gameplay is completely different and being able to pass the mechanics of a series to the third dimension while making the new aspects of the gameplay completely likeable is indeed an innovation" thing.

[Flame]

If I may- Prime 1 also "feels" different than 2 and 3.

[Fxeni]

They brought the mechanics into the third dimension in a creative way, yes. I just don't find that qualifies as innovation, considering the elements were lying around for a long time. From my point of view from the way I see the word "innovation" to be, that is (emphasis added because this has been routinely ignored thusfar in favour of more confrontational approaches). Also, I did say there's probably a better example, didn't I? To be honest, this whole thing is nitpicking. I find the thing about Nintendo not being innovative to be nitpicking. More new IPs directed toward the more (ugh) "hardcore" demographic would be nice, but in the meantime the way they're handling most of their main franchises as is works fine for me.

If I may- Prime 1 also "feels" different than 2 and 3.

It does, actually. Prime 2&3 leaned more towards the shooter elements than the first one did, especially Corruption. It's my favourite of the three by far.

[Flame]

I find it funny, that Corruption, even though it had multiple worlds and areas and all that jazz, it felt EXTREMELY linear. NO amount of planet hopping can change that.
then 2 also suffered from Dual castle syndrome... Which made it feel like they were trying to "cheat" in making a large expansive map by just sticking another aether in there.

[Bueno Excelente]

They brought the mechanics into the third dimension in a creative way, yes. I just don't find that qualifies as innovation, considering the elements were lying around for a long time. From my point of view from the way I see the word "innovation" to be, that is (emphasis added because this has been routinely ignored thusfar in favour of more confrontational approaches). Also, I did say there's probably a better example, didn't I? To be honest, this whole thing is nitpicking. I find the thing about Nintendo not being innovative to be nitpicking. More new IPs directed toward the more (ugh) "hardcore" demographic would be nice, but in the meantime the way they're handling most of their main franchises as is works fine for me.
It does, actually. Prime 2&3 leaned more towards the shooter elements than the first one did, especially Corruption. It's my favourite of the three by far.

The elements have been lying around for a long time? We can say that about ANY CREATION. The elements are always "lying around", and in Metroid, the way the game was created, it brought new elements never used in a game before, and it ended up with a game unlike any game before. THAT is innovation. I don't care if the elements loosely connect to other games in some way, it EVOLVED past its boundaries, and that means innovation.

Oh, of course. Nintendo releasing their same franchises over and over is nitpicking. Even though I proved time and time again in this thread that Nintendo DO have the means to risk more, that they SHOULD appeal to some of the middle demographics, meaning aside from hardcore fans who just want the same thing and casual gamers who just play some games for fun, that they should invest in more AAA experiences, and overall, that they're simply being ungrateful towards alot of the audience. We get a console supposedly to play games with new gameplay experiences, and we either get minigame collections, or games that are made to be played with a standard, regular controller in the first place. I bought a 20 Euro peripheral that was said to change the way Wii games would be played, and aside from its launch title, I got one mediocre game to play it with. This isn't normal for a console. And it shouldn't be normal for the most successful console in the world.

[Fxeni]

I don't see why you're surprised by lack of peripheral support, it's always been like that. It's lame, yes, but it's nothing new. I agree they should be used more, though.

it brought new elements never used in a game before

There's my issue with it, they were used before. In a different manner, but they are there. I still think they're creative uses of these elements, and it plays wonderfully.

that they're simply being ungrateful towards alot of the audience.

This is a viewpoint I never understood. They've released games of both the (god I hate these labels) "casual" and "hardcore" variety. This is ungrateful... how? Is it their fault that other companies don't make more "hardcore" games? No, it isn't. Some do try, but they're usually ignored or tossed aside as not good. They do exist, though.

[Bueno Excelente]

I don't see why you're surprised by lack of peripheral support, it's always been like that. It's lame, yes, but it's nothing new. I agree they should be used more, though.

Because Nintendo pretty much said this would completely change the way the Wii would be used. I don't see anything, and it's been a year.

There's my issue with it, they were used before. In a different manner, but they are there. I still think they're creative uses of these elements, and it plays wonderfully.

First person has TECHNICALLY been used in 8-bit games, with static labyrinthic adventure games. Did it make Wolfenstein 3D or Doom any less amazing when it came out? No. Just because some caveman was amusing himself rolling around a spheric-like rock, it doesn't mean the wheel was any less of an impressive invention.

This is a viewpoint I never understood. They've released games of both the (god I hate these labels) "casual" and "hardcore" variety. This is ungrateful... how? Is it their fault that other companies don't make more "hardcore" games? No, it isn't. Some do try, but they're usually ignored or tossed aside as not good. They do exist, though.

If you don't like the labels, don't use them. Why whine about them if you're going to use them anyway? And they haven't released much that isn't a rehash of something. Yes, it's their own damn fault to make the Wii appear like a console in which only Nintendo can make any money on, like I said in at least ten replies before. I'm not gonna repeat myself, and if you try to show me that damn list with Castlevania Judgement on it trying to make it look like a "Good games on Wii list", you'll lose even more credibility.