Google+

We Recommend By ZergNet

55 comments

  • talleyXIV - January 23, 2014 8:47 p.m.

    Selling the Wii U without the gamepad is actually a really really good idea.
  • Vonter - January 23, 2014 9:04 p.m.

    Only until the next Zelda possibly uses it. I'll like more connectivity with the 3DS, at this point I think any Wii U owner most have one, so why not support it as controller since he gamepad wasn't a developed idea for the GBA-GC connectivity?
  • BladedFalcon - January 23, 2014 10:08 p.m.

    I can bet you, right now, that there's absolutely nothing of substance Nintendo could use the GamePad for in the new Zelda game, that couldn't work just as well in a normal controller. Just like Skyward sword didn't really do anything that would make the experience lesser if played with a normal control. (And no, having to swing the sword in a specific direction to hit certain enemies isn't that big of a deal, and even then, you can make that work with a controller fine, just look at Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance as proof.)
  • Vonter - January 24, 2014 6:29 a.m.

    That's why I said possibly, I really don't know if they'll continue using motion plus. Also in case of Revengeance they had to add slow-mo because of the type of controller. SS had a LOT of inconveniences with its control schemes but I don't think sword controls were one of them. (For me it was the swimming, bombs and the Lowftwing).
  • BladedFalcon - January 24, 2014 7:41 a.m.

    They didn't add slow-mo mo in Revengeance because of the controller, they added slow-mo because it's far more satisfying to slash an opponent to pieces and watch them fall at once than to do it in real time. And like db1331 pointed it out before me, Zelda games already worked fine with directional attacks way before skyward sword. So even if that aspect of it worked fine, it was unnecessary. And I actually think Nintendo WILL use the gamepad heavily for the next Zelda's gameplay. I just meant that anything they use it for will be gimmicky and not really necessary, and would work just fine with a normal controller. Which is y'know, what applies to 95% of motion,game-pad,3D and touch based games out there.
  • Vonter - January 24, 2014 3:30 p.m.

    It DID add it for precision cutting (and before you say it's pointless Zelda used it to make battles feel like a puzzle and was also limited by it's hardware, some of the games that have still used the wiimote in Wii U have been more precise). Zelda works fine with traditional controls but if hey could add sword fights like how it was with Demise, having to defend, attack and defend it could go deeper. Finally I'm really not sure how viable will it be but "Why not both?". If it truly can work with traditional controllers and it worked with motion why not having both options? DKC:TF, Pikmin 3 and probably Smash support Wiimote+Nunchuk. Also it might be like the DS games hehehe. Oh man that one really was unnecessary.
  • BladedFalcon - January 24, 2014 4:13 p.m.

    Unless you actually tried to play the exact same battles in SS with a normal controller, (And as far as I can tell, you can't.) you can't really ascertain that the wii controller made it more precise. Because from most accounts, using the Wii mote, EVEN with Motion plus has never been more precise than using a control or a mouse, close at best, but not more precise nor faster. From what I've witnessed, the only games that benefit from motion controls in a way control can't match is in dancing games. Due to the fact that yes, in there imitating the precise pattern of a movement in a short time is something you can't do as well in a controller. But again, that's only one, very specific example and gameplay style.
  • db1331 - January 24, 2014 7:08 a.m.

    Couldn't agree with you more. And Zelda has been doing directional attacks with a normal controller since Ocarina. Pressing attack would generate a horizontal slash, tilting up and attack would perform a forward thrust. SS would have been a fantastic game without Fi and the motion gimmickry.
  • shawksta - January 24, 2014 2:56 p.m.

    If i may butt in to conversation, Nintendo Land's Zelda Battle quest somehow enhanced Skyward Sword's controls.
  • shawksta - January 23, 2014 7:18 p.m.

    Also i was expecting a Nintendo predictions for the year article today, guess its not today.
  • Desann - January 23, 2014 7:03 p.m.

    Sorry Hank, I think the reasons against Nintendo becoming a third-party developer are really lame. I wonder if you believe in them or if you just had to come up with something for the sake of the article. "Most traditional third parties had real trouble creating a sustainable business on PS3/360"? Are you suggesting that the whole business model of third-party companies is... unsustainable? You think they'd go out of business like THQ did as soon as they're without the Wii U weighing them down and limiting their sales potential, purely on account of them going third-party? Do you think their next Mario and Zelda are going to sell about as well as Darksiders and Saints Row 3? I'm not really into Nintendo's games much anymore, but I'm still absolutely sure they'd sell more than those games did. Man, I don't remember anyone worrying about Capcom going under once they started putting Devil May Cry on the Xbox, or saying that Square was doomed once they put Final Fantasy on things other than just the Playstation. Instead, I remember people saying that the time of the exclusive was over, because there's so much money in going multiplatform that it doesn't make sense to limit your game to one console unless you own that console and need to get people to invest in it and buy its third-party games. Now you're saying that it would be smarter for Nintendo to keep to its little, tiny slice of the market and not try to sell their games on other consoles, because that would somehow be riskier? That doesn't make any sense. "Then there's the fact that Nintendo would have to spend so much time and money to learn to develop for those systems, and that timeframe grows exponentially with next-gen creations." You make it sound so hard and so prohibitively expensive, but it's not. Everyone in the business of making games can do it; from the smallest of independent studios to the largest multinational powerhouses. If tiny game studios around the world can put out loads of indie games for the PS4, I think one of the biggest and richest game companies in the world could probably handle it without batting an eye. If it turned out to be a huge roadblock for Nintendo, it would be pitiful, sad, and hilarious. "Finally, after all the effort of getting Mario on the PS4, Nintendo now has to share whatever cash it makes with Sony." Yes, they'd end up making less money per unit sold on their games than they do now, but it sounds like you're forgetting that the whole point is to sell more copies. A lot more. The potential is far, far more than enough to make up for that percentage they'd have to pay to Sony or Microsoft. You can't just conveniently forget that and point to the fact that they'd get less per sale to 'prove' it wouldn't be smart of them to sell to more than 2 percent of the market or whatever the Wii U owns now instead of selling to a hundred percent of the market. It's a big difference. They'll earn lots more. Iwata even admitted it would be very profitable, but he just doesn't want to let go of the idea that Nintendo can be a platform holder, and make that slice from every third-party sale. It's true that that would make them the most money, but only if they could make a console that gamers wanted, which they're showing they can't really do. Gamers like their games, sure, but not their consoles, and they'll never make more money as a platform holder than by going third-party if they don't get third-parties on their platform. If they can't make that happen and get those third-party games to sell beyond a certain threshold, then it's all for nothing, and they owe it to their shareholders to go third-party themselves.
  • Vonter - January 23, 2014 7:57 p.m.

    So in short "annual games". In all seriousness going small would not benefit them. Third parties cater towards DLC, MT and adding online for the sake of bringing back some more cash (mainly talking about the most commercial ones). Japanese developers have gone down and most have turned to western practices, which I don't see an equivalent that is on par with Nintendo in regards to tone. Finally of course they'll sell but recycling the same argument Nintendo has lost some steam in some IPs so I don't know if it'll on record with the most successful ones. Finally and I assume the biggest reason Nintendo will unlikely go third party, they don't operate the same way as the higher HD third party developers, they tend to give as much development time as needed to make it work in a single machine. Of course this is all speculation but I think they might struggle going that route.
  • shawksta - January 23, 2014 6:55 p.m.

    You couldve dont a little better on the reasons it wouldnt work, otherwise yeah pretty much in the situation. Im baffled by just how easy it is people are to backpeddle to these "Solutions" that i find to be more of personal wants than to actually help the company. We all know Nintendo needs to do SOMETHING in their departments, and its great that they are admitting and willing to do so but to push these theories are bogus. The whole mobile issue in general is annoying because Nintendo said they are trying to follow a business model for it, but it only insues the press and people to automatically think it means Nintendo games are going mobile. Heck, you guys even said it yourself on an article talking about "If you think Nintendo should go mobile, your a moron" or something to that extent, but in the end you did point out that Nintendo should do SOMETHING for the scene to help boost their advertisements, which is exactly what they want to do but as usual the consensus likes to exaggerate on what simple statements mean. Then again we are in a generation where everybody was easily too quick destroying Super Mario 3D World's first weeks with articles of how Knack is outselling it and Lightning Returns in japan yet fail to mention how in a months past 3D World trumped both of them and hit 1million. Also, i find it amusing these between these days of Doom and Gloom, sites have been posting previews of Tropical Freeze absolutely loving it and reminding everyone that we have an amazing game coming next month. Im guessing you guys either didnt attend the event or are still writing said article.
  • shawksta - January 23, 2014 6:58 p.m.

    *You could've DONE *find it amusing THAT between these days
  • CrashmanX - January 23, 2014 6:06 p.m.

    All this stuff about "Nintendo is going down" or "Nintendo needs saved!" and I think people have yet to realize that Nintendo can bleed money for a while and they're fine. They've got more money in the console and software game than Sony or MS. For Sony and MS the gaming side of their company is an extra thing they do on top of what they already do (Sony makes lots of tech, MS makes Windows and such), Nintendo however is a purely gaming company. They don't have a secondary product. Gaming IS their product. The point is this, even if the Wii U isn't doing so hot, Nintendo isn't in a hard place. They're fine and they will be for a long time.
  • Vonter - January 23, 2014 6:26 p.m.

    Yeah, most well informed people know that. But that's not a good call. We want it to get better, to be for the lack of a better word more aggressive in what they are offering. Doing it for both the fans, the hardcore and even the casual, but be it constantly offering something. We know they can deliver good games but does it really need to go back to the GC and N64 days of drought? (I don't care what you think the Wii wasn't that bad). They are making more building and employing more people, it'll be nice to see pushing it more this year.
  • Jackonomics2.0 - January 23, 2014 5:21 p.m.

    M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G You ever heard of that Nintendo? Fix that. Also I found an interesting article this week saying how Nintendo isn't the problem, but this society of gamers are.. Its full of massive ignorance, but it does have some sort of truth into it. http://www.nowgamer.com/features/2246174/nintendo_isnt_the_problem_you_are.html
  • BladedFalcon - January 23, 2014 6:03 p.m.

    ...That's an incredibly stupid article though. It also points out some of the idiocy and attitude many gamers have, but that doesn't make it redeemable either.
  • Vonter - January 23, 2014 6:13 p.m.

    That article fails and succeeds because it generalizes. Of course there is a majority that play annual games and has made IOS games successful. But that just a single part of the audience, another part has made ambitious games like Braid, Minecraft reaching mass appeal. An another part still keeps Nintendo games reaching top charts. What I mainly agree even if it's bias is how that audience has become more vocal, mainly stating the quality of a game on presentation alone or if it's popular. I'll admit Nintendo as of now is nothing to brag about in comparison with the other two. However like they say "Nobody plays a Nintendo and states that it's boring" (lackluster, rehash and some other things depends who you ask but their games are still well polished).
  • BladedFalcon - January 23, 2014 5:03 p.m.

    ...Er. I get the flaws of many of these proposals, but the reasons Mr. Gilbert uses for why they wouldn't work sound equally, if not more stupid and narrow minded. -". And remaking classic games for new devices doesn’t mean they’ll be as good as you remember. Just take a look at the recent Final Fantasy VI re-release for mobile, which was panned for defiling everything that made the original so special." ...Fucking seriously? The re-release for FFVI on mobile sucks balls not because the original game wasn't as good as people remembered, it sucks because Square DIDN'T release an identical version of the game with just reworked touch controls, and instead butchered the game by changing the models and making them look cheaper and lamer. Truly good ames are great no matter how old they are. If Nintendo released good ports of the NES and SNES Super Mario games, as long as they were faithful to the originals, people would still enjoy them to this day. "But the Iwata era saw numerous risky moves, like focusing on motion controls when competitors were impressing the public with shinier graphics." Iwata became the president of Nintendo in May of 2002, The Wii was conceived in 2001 according to Miyamoto himself, which means Iwata didn't came out with the risk that was the Wii. At most, he can be credited for sticking to it's vision and creating good marketing for it, but you CAN'T credit him for the conception of either the Wii or the DS, as both consoles were being worked on by the time he arrived. Thus, you can't credit him for making those "risky moves" Secondly... How exactly has Iwata been a risk taker, specially if we talk about Nintendo's software? Aside from Wii sports and Wii fit, (both which are succesful BECAUSE of the Wii's gimmick, not really because their own merits.) Nintendo has not created any big, risky IP's in all the time Iwata has been in charge. All it's mayor first party releases have been nothing but iterations of already existing franchises. Effective or not, there is nothing RISKY about that tactic at all. "Then again, would it even be worth it? Sony talked up Vita-exclusive versions of Assassin’s Creed and Call of Duty in 2012, both of which were met with middling reviews as the handheld saw poor sales that holiday season. " ...Again, seriously? You're using as example two games which sold poorly not because they were exclusive third-party games, but because both were poorly done and obviously mishandled by their respective publishers. Specially the Call of Duty game, as Activision handed it to a developer who had already shown they were not very good at making games. Instead of that, why not point at RE: revelations for the Nintendo's own 3DS? Which sold pretty great and contributed to the 3DS crawling out of that initial slump it had. Or to Dead Rising for the 360, which was one of the first notable exclusives for the 360 even before Gears of War had come out, and also sold fantastically. Once again, your entire argument is based on a fallacy, and a very poor example. Overall, I agree that many of the theories proposed here are flawed at best, and many wouldn't outright work. But you can't really point and laugh at their absurdity, when you're making just es equally absurd, and ignorant statements.
  • Vonter - January 23, 2014 5:25 p.m.

    Also seeing how long it taking them to port old games to their own platforms it would be likely we'll have all Nintendo classics by 2017 if they started doing that this year. Even Sega hasn't ported that many titles to IOS and Capcom only ported Megaman X. I don't think they'll overcome their third party stigma any time soon. They didn't with Yamauchi and they haven't with Iwata, it'll take more than a change of president to change that and it'll not be in a whim. Also like you said yeah RE was so good it was ported to consoles and Dead Rising took the early advantages devs saw on the new hardware with being able to put a lot of enemies at the same time. But the Wii also had unique 3rd parties than even if they were niche they didn't appeal to the Wii audience (both casuals and hardcore). Red Steel 2 was an effort to implement motion plus, Zack & Wiki was not marketed well and Capcom didn't make it noticeable, I only knew about it because journalists sing praises about it, Fragile, Xenoblade and Pandora's Tower, Nintendo is to blame for not bringing them sooner as those were quality titles. Finally as a Wii U user, it baffles me a little that the gamepad is put to better use with few third parties that tried to support the console. It more or less makes me believe that was made more for them than the console itself. So yeah, it can be argued Nintendo floats because it still delivers quality games. But it can't put two and two on what the bigger third party developers use to make their AAA games.
  • MrKart - January 23, 2014 4:51 p.m.

    Great article,, great dissection. Marketing, marketing, marketing. Change the name of the console. Honestly, it's not without precedent to do so during a product's lifespan; the only adopters so far are the hardcore anyway who will be astute enough not to get the "newly named" system, but you HAVE to call it something different. Wii 2, Revolution, ANYTHING else that makes it clear that this is a NEW system, not an add-on. Then, market it like nobody's business. Remember the "Wii would like to play?" commercials that were all over the place? Where have been things like that for the Wii U?

Showing 21-40 of 55 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

OR…

Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.