45 replies to this topic

[Raien]

They are "killing" classic 2D gameplay because it's been obsolete for over ten - no, fifteen - years. At least in major console titles. And it's not coming back.

Well, we know that 2D Mario gameplay isn't obsolete because it not only sold far better than 3D Mario but it also reversed the Wii hardware decline, a feat only matched by its other arcade-style titles like Wii Sports Resort and Mario Kart Wii. And as for Zelda and Metroid, quite frankly you are in no position to call them obsolete so long as Nintendo refuses to test the market by releasing such games.

All the arcade games you love will be found in the virtual marketplaces. And there are some great ones - some ever better than most SNES titles. Arcade gaming is not dead. It's getting a nice little renaissance, even. But you're looking for the 2D experience in all the wrong places if you expect to see it in any major modern title. Play Bastion.

There are some modern 2D games that look enjoyable enough but they ultimately lack a big part of what made the original games so exciting. In the 80s and 90s, arcade adventure games didn't wear 2D graphics or game design as a "retro style". They were purely functional and the end result is that those games did a better job of immersing players in the fantasy worlds. Even cartoonish games were very immersive by virtue of the direction that developers took with the game design. Developers who now make 2D games as "retro style" games do themselves a disservice because their games look fake. I mean, could you imagine if a game like Skyrim or Uncharted 3 was given early Playstation graphics and game design in order to be "retro"? You wouldn't like that development. You'd hate the games' fake style because that's not why you buy adventure games, let alone the earlier games in the series.

And the same point goes for 2D games being artsy like Kirby's Epic Yarn (and Bastion). Strange art designs don't look inviting, they just look fake. Just like they look fake in 3D games. Compare trailers from the intentionally "artistic" Skyward Sword design and the more functional Xenoblade Chronicles and you'll get the same picture.

NSMBWii, DKCR and Kirby's Return to Dream Land are the closest any big developer has come to replicating the classics because they were designed as if 2D gaming wasn't a retro pastiche or a student's college project. And even then I think games can do better than those three examples. None of them gave us new world themes, after all.

Also, classic Metroidvania gameplay WAS repetitive. So even if Other M sucked, that isn't a false statement. Also not a false statement that Zelda is repetitive. It's been "wander from dungeon to dungeon" for a good many years now. The only thing that changed was the methods of wandering. That's what turned me away from the series more than anything else. It got tedious.

Aonuma didn't say that Zelda's structure was repetitive, he said the combat was repetitive. Likewise, Sakamoto was referring to the gameplay itself, not the overall design, as repetitive. Why is this a problem? Because this repetition is fun for players. The actions performed in the classic Nintendo games tap into human nature. And human nature never changes. The games never get boring no matter how many times you play and replay the games. One thousand years from today, people will still be playing games like Super Mario Bros. just like people today still play card and board games devised over a thousand years ago.

By setting out to destroy the gameplay, Nintendo is setting out to destroy the franchises themselves. If the trend is still continuing in ten years time, 3D Mario, Zelda and Metroid will be unrecognisable from even the latest games in their respective series. Mario 3D Land is supposed to be set in the Mushroom Kingdom but does it look like the Mushroom Kingdom? At all? All I see is a void of random blocks and retro references. Even when NSMBWii repeated old world themes, at least it had world themes.

Nintendo's problem is the gimmicks - either based on motion control technology (Prime 3 remains the only game I thought it felt natural in) or on yet another legendary item thing. They don't give Zelda any proper facelifts. They just do superficial changes to mildly distract you from the fact that it's still "dungeon to dungeon grabbing mundane objects in order to defeat the bad guy just like you did in all the other games." Zelda arguably suffers from this more than any other big Nintendo franchise. Despite your disdain for them, I like the 3D Mario games. Metroid also got a much needed, beneficial update with the Prime games. Though whether they retain that in future games is anyone's guess after Other M.

Zelda.... is kinda just the same thing, even with all the art changes and different abilities.

I personally think Link on an Odyssey-type quest would be fun. Desperately trying to get back to Hyrule after questing in a far-off land, facing perils along the way. Never staying in the same spot. Always traveling, exploring, an acquiring new items along the way until you finally get home. Hunted by some elusive foe.

I can at least agree with all of this.

Edited by Raien, 03 November 2011 - 05:06 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

I agree that things need to change but why can't they change for the better?

Who says they haven't? I think they have; the newer Marios and Zeldas are more fun than the originals, in my opinion. Metroid Prime is pretty much agreed by everyone to be a worthy addition to the Metroid series, too.

Fuck Other M though.

But the point is, you say the changes are bad, but you have nothing but your own opinion to support that. You can't actually demonstrate it. It's not like Nintendo's business is hurting or that the new games are being boycotted.

I personally think Link on an Odyssey-type quest would be fun. Desperately trying to get back to Hyrule after questing in a far-off land, facing perils along the way. Never staying in the same spot. Always traveling, exploring, an acquiring new items along the way until you finally get home. Hunted by some elusive foe.

SHUT THE FUCK UP AND TAKE MY MONEY.

[Raien]

But the point is, you say the changes are bad, but you have nothing but your own opinion to support that. You can't actually demonstrate it. It's not like Nintendo's business is hurting or that the new games are being boycotted.

In Mario's case, it's seriously hurting Nintendo's business. Nintendo could rely on 2D Mario to heavily sell their consoles at launch and fend off the competition. The point when Nintendo lost console dominance was when it decided to replace 2D Mario with 3D Mario. The DS was an equally interesting case. Nintendo launched the system with a 3D Mario port and it barely fought off the PSP. A year later, Nintendo released an original 2D Mario game and shot to stardom. Before the 3DS was launched, Nintendo seemed to have finally learned their lesson, promising to release both 2D and 3D Mario games and giving equal respect to both of them. But almost one year after the launch and the 3DS is now only getting a 3D Mario game with no 2D Mario in sight. Now be amazed as Mario 3D Land does nothing to get the 3DS out of the slump that its in!

[MikePetersSucks]

In Mario's case, it's seriously hurting Nintendo's business.

Citation needed.

The point when Nintendo lost console dominance was when it decided to replace 2D Mario with 3D Mario.

Funny, Mario 64 was treated as one of the greatest Mario games, if not one of the greatest games of all time period. You know what probably played a bigger role? Nintendo's consoles don't have as much power as the competition. To the point that every Nintendo console as of late has been treated as being "Last-Gen" by Sony and Microsoft gamers.

Now be amazed as Mario 3D Land does nothing to get the 3DS out of the slump that its in!

The lack of 2D Mario is seriously the LEAST of the 3DS's problems, let's be honest.

[Raien]

Funny, Mario 64 was treated as one of the greatest Mario games, if not one of the greatest games of all time period.

So what? Okami got rave reviews and was called one of the best games of a generation. That didn't change the fact that barely anyone wanted to play Okami and the studio had to close down following its release. Just because some people are paid to provide opinions doesn't mean they accurately represent popular opinion. The stark decline in both N64 hardware and Mario 64 software sales compared to previous generations tells us that a lot of people who thought 2D Mario was worth spending hundreds of dollars to play did not think the same of 3D Mario.

You know what probably played a bigger role? Nintendo's consoles don't have as much power as the competition. To the point that every Nintendo console as of late has been treated as being "Last-Gen" by Sony and Microsoft gamers.

The lower power of the Wii certainly made it cheaper than the competition but even then it still cost hundreds of dollars. Most people can't afford to spend that kind of money on a whim; they see gaming consoles as an investment and that means looking out for games that look legitimately fun to play. In other words, "lower price" is most certainly not the driving force behind the Wii phenomenon.

But that's all beside the point because we're talking about 2D Mario. To put my argument as simply as possible, we know that 2D Mario has direct selling power because both DS and Wii hardware sales jumped immediately following the release of the NSMB games. DS sales were declining until NSMB was released. Wii sales were declining until NSMBWii was released. But when Galaxy 1 and 2 were released, Wii hardware sales didn't shoot up. They just kept on declining. Likewise, the DS had to face competition from the PSP because Mario 64 didn't have enough selling power to dominate (just like the N64 against the Playstation).

Edited by Raien, 04 November 2011 - 03:03 PM.

[Selena]

And as for Zelda and Metroid, quite frankly you are in no position to call them obsolete so long as Nintendo refuses to test the market by releasing such games.

I have no less position than you do.

That said, yes, they have tested the market. And the market responded happily. The Prime games are styled as a proper 3D shooters with a lot of creative elements in addition to typical shooter features. They are very much beloved because of it. Zelda made use of 3D gameplay elements since Ocarina of Time. Combat was revolutionized - becoming faster, more responsive, and (in a good way) more complex. You didn't just press A to generically launch an arrow out of what appears to be Link's stomach. You went into first person mode and actually aimed at your target.

I won't touch your 2D Mario argument, because you've been trying to make that argument for like the last year or so and it's no more convincing than it was the first time around. There are a lot of factors at work behind console sales. And Mario 64 is to Okami as apples are to plutonium. That is not a logical comparison on any level.

Developers who now make 2D games as "retro style" games do themselves a disservice because their games look fake. I mean, could you imagine if a game like Skyrim or Uncharted 3 was given early Playstation graphics and game design in order to be "retro"? You wouldn't like that development. You'd hate the games' fake style because that's not why you buy adventure games, let alone the earlier games in the series.

1) Yes, I would buy Skyrim with PSX graphics if it were a downloadable title (thus being like $10-20 rather than $60.) And I would probably enjoy it.

2) You are essentially saying you won't play a game due to how it looks, rather than how good the game actually is. Credibility lost. Bastion's a magnificent piece of art and a great game. It is a shame that you bypass it on the grounds of it looking "retro." Especially when you tend to make the argument that "gameplay is the most important thing of all." A good game is a good game, no matter how it looks. Of course they're going to put a little retro spin on it. 2D gaming IS retro because it hasn't been a dominating force since the 90's.

Why is this a problem? Because this repetition is fun for players. The actions performed in the classic Nintendo games tap into human nature. And human nature never changes. The games never get boring no matter how many times you play and replay the games.

Speak for yourself, please. I do not find the repetition fun. At all. And if human nature never changes, then I wouldn't have stopped playing the games I no longer play. Yes, the games do get boring. Especially when it's basically the same thing every time. This is true for Zelda, Call of Duty, and any other series that basically just re-hashes the same concept with better graphics each time. I am apathetic to Mario and Zelda for that reason.

By setting out to destroy the gameplay, Nintendo is setting out to destroy the franchises themselves. If the trend is still continuing in ten years time, 3D Mario, Zelda and Metroid will be unrecognisable from even the latest games in their respective series.

Which is precisely what happened with something like Metal Gear, to the benefit of the entire franchise. Some series change with the times and properly embrace new technologies. There's a lot you can do with modern consoles - and it's not always overly complex stuff that only veteran gamers can master. I would say the only legit reason Zelda feels like it's lagging is because it's only making a half-assed attempt at changing.

In Mario's case, it's seriously hurting Nintendo's business.

Mario alone does not a console ruin.

Nintendo's business is hurting because they have no third party support, lack of variety in their game library, lack of a proper online community/marketplace, their reliance on selling all these accessories simply to play games, and milking classic franchises for all they're worth rather than coming up with creative new titles (which is what put them on the top originally).

If Mario alone is what's driving Nintendo down, then Nintendo has a lot more to worry about than whether they should embrace classic or modern gaming.

The lower power of the Wii certainly made it cheaper than the competition but even then it still cost hundreds of dollars. Most people can't afford to spend that kind of money on a whim; they see gaming consoles as an investment and that means looking out for games that look legitimately fun to play. In other words, "lower price" is most certainly not the driving force behind the Wii phenomenon.

Price had nothing to do with the argument; it was about power. And he's right. Because for however interesting motion controls were at first, Nintendo IS a generation behind when it comes to console power. Wii games would look just as at home on the PS2. And the Wii U isn't a leap forward so much as it's Nintendo catching up with existing graphic capabilities.... probably just a year or two before Microsoft and Sony move the bar forward again.

Graphics aren't something I necessarily care about - although having poor graphics is something of a setback when it comes to popular competition. But more console power means more options for what you can do in terms of gameplay, ambiance, and experience. You can have more "stuff" on screen. You can have more fluid movement. You can - if it's your desire - create something more lifelike. You have more to play with.

SHUT THE FUCK UP AND TAKE MY MONEY.

YES SIR THANK YOU SIR

[MikePetersSucks]

So what? Okami got rave reviews and was called one of the best games of a generation. That didn't change the fact that barely anyone wanted to play Okami and the studio had to close down following its release. Just because some people are paid to provide opinions doesn't mean they accurately represent popular opinion. The stark decline in both N64 hardware and Mario 64 software sales compared to previous generations tells us that a lot of people who thought 2D Mario was worth spending hundreds of dollars to play did not think the same of 3D Mario.

Are you seriously contesting that pretty much everyone and their mother played Mario 64? This is a game that's praised on message boards, in private discussions, is Walkthroughed and Let's Played all over youtube...

Mario 64 is one of the most loved video games ever made. It changed the entire industry and got people on-board with three-dimensional gameplay.

The more we have this discussion, the more I can see that your opinions and arguments are more and more out of touch with the reality of a situation.

To the point that you think 4chan is a credible source of information about Zelda, I might add. What more needs to be said?

[Chukchi Husky]

I don't know if this counts as anything, but one complaint I hear from people when they talk about Nintendo is something like "Why can't Nintendo come up with something new instead of making endless Mario and Zelda sequels?"

[MikePetersSucks]

Indeed, what made Nintendo famous were their creative original properties back in the NES era.

But that's a totally different bag, I think, from saying "Mario and Zelda just aren't the same anymore!"

[Raien]

I won't touch your 2D Mario argument, because you've been trying to make that argument for like the last year or so and it's no more convincing than it was the first time around. There are a lot of factors at work behind console sales. And Mario 64 is to Okami as apples are to plutonium. That is not a logical comparison on any level.

I agree with you that there are lots of factors that work behind console sales over the course of its lifespan. So let's focus on the immediate period surrounding the release of the NSMB games. Before their respective releases, DS/Wii hardware sales were declining. In the immediate period after the games got released, hardware sales shot upwards. Likewise, the software sales quickly and largely outsold most of Nintendo's other franchise titles, including 3D Mario. If you can think of any other big games that got released on DS/Wii in the exact same week as the NSMB games, you might be able to argue outside factors. If not, then we have absolute proof that the market reacted to the NSMB games.

And if you're still not convinced, Nintendo already are. They've openly admitted that Mario's market declined following the release of Mario 64. I'll expand on that point in my response to MPS...

2) You are essentially saying you won't play a game due to how it looks, rather than how good the game actually is. Credibility lost. Bastion's a magnificent piece of art and a great game. It is a shame that you bypass it on the grounds of it looking "retro." Especially when you tend to make the argument that "gameplay is the most important thing of all." A good game is a good game, no matter how it looks. Of course they're going to put a little retro spin on it. 2D gaming IS retro because it hasn't been a dominating force since the 90's.

FYI, I didn't mean to say Bastion was retro, it's just artsy. But anyway:

Gameplay (i.e. rules, mechanics) is "how" we play the game.
Content (i.e. worlds, characters) is "why" we play the game.

I've been stressing that good gameplay is vitally important but that doesn't mean good content isn't important. In fact, it's equally vital. When the whole point of an adventure game is to immerse players in a world or setting, trying to be retro or artsy undermines that effect completely. It's not just about fancy graphics. The game design in its entirety fails to engross as a result. I saw some early footage of Bastion with a glowing commentary and when it finished I didn't know what the quest was or why all the levels were popping up in this strange void (neither of these points have anything to do with graphics). The gameplay looked fun but the game gave me no reason WHY I should play it. Maybe if I didn't have more interesting games to play, I'd check it out, but it doesn't grab my attention because it doesn't provide exciting content.

Nintendo's business is hurting because they have no third party support, lack of variety in their game library, lack of a proper online community/marketplace, their reliance on selling all these accessories simply to play games, and milking classic franchises for all they're worth rather than coming up with creative new titles (which is what put them on the top originally).

I agree with your last point but the rest of that doesn't make any sense. The Wii didn't have great third party support or a proper online community/marketplace but it far outsold the consoles that did have those features (i.e. the HD twins). And since when did accessories hurt Nintendo's business? Almost all the system-selling Wii games were bundled with accessories. Mario Kart Wii was bundled with the Wii Wheel, Wii Sports Resort was bundled with MotionPlus, Wii Fit was bundled with the Balance Board.

If you want to provide reasons why Nintendo's business is hurting, try looking at what changed in Nintendo's philosophy from the DS/Wii to the 3DS/Wii U. I'll give you a hint: Iwata has openly admitted to abandoning the Blue Ocean Strategy.

Are you seriously contesting that pretty much everyone and their mother played Mario 64? This is a game that's praised on message boards, in private discussions, is Walkthroughed and Let's Played all over youtube...

And what does any of that have to do with BUSINESS? You know, the point that started this whole debate? Do reviews, message boards and walkthroughs put money in Nintendo's pockets? No, SALES put money in Nintendo's pockets. And when Super Mario 64 sells millions of copies less than its 2D predecessors (and the N64 sells less hardware to boot), it goes without saying that lots of 2D Mario players did not bring the game into their homes and play it. It doesn't matter how much attention Mario 64 had from the industry or the press, the reality is that less people wanted to play the game than 2D Mario.

You don't believe me? Nintendo openly acknowledges the fact. Mario's audience shrunk when Mario went 3D. There was one interview where it was stated bluntly but I couldn't find that quote so I've pulled this Iwata Asks quote that says the same thing in a more round-about (and partly wrong) manner:

Iwata: In Jungle Beat, you were able to change the way it looked, but that didn’t eliminate the problem that remained. Super Mario 64, which Koizumi-san was a part of the development team, was a game that was praised highly. But at the same time, it created a group of players that felt 3D games were too difficult for them.

Before I go on, it's worth noting that Iwata and Nintendo insist that 2D Mario fans are "afraid" of 3D Mario and are apparently too stupid to understand how Mario moves on a 3D plain. This comes into play when you look at some of Nintendo's more baffling design decisions in the more recent 3D Mario games.

For you see, the Iwata Asks interviews further establish that the two Mario Galaxy games and Mario 3D Land were both designed to bring back the 2D fans:

http://iwataasks.nintendo.com/interviews/#/wii/super_mario_galaxy/0/0
http://iwataasks.nintendo.com/interviews/#/wii/supermariogalaxy2/0/0
http://iwataasks.nintendo.com/interviews/#/3ds/super-mario-3d-land/0/0

I'm not going to quote everything because there's too much and it will take too long. But I can summarise:

-Why was Mario Galaxy much more linear than Mario 64 and Sunshine? To win the fans of 2D Mario.
-Why did Mario Galaxy 2 replace the hub world with a map screen? To win the fans of 2D Mario.
-Why did Mario Galaxy 2 ship with an Instructional DVD in Japan and Europe? To win the fans of 2D Mario.
-Why did Mario 3D Land reinstate a timer and a flagpole instead of stars? To win the fans of 2D Mario.
-Why did Mario 3D Land makes lots of references to Mario 3? To win the fans of 2D Mario.

Nintendo even goes as far as to say that the Star Coins in Mario 3D Land exist to ween 2D Mario players off the flagpole and get them exploring for stars.

The fact that Nintendo is going to such lengths to bring the 2D Mario fans over to 3D Mario shows how important the strength of 2D Mario is to Nintendo. The fact that they've failed twice in this endeavour and are set to fail again shows just how fundamentally ignorant Nintendo are about what 2D Mario fans enjoy about those games.

Edited by Raien, 04 November 2011 - 07:40 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

And what does any of that have to do with BUSINESS? You know, the point that started this whole debate? Do reviews, message boards and walkthroughs put money in Nintendo's pockets? No, SALES put money in Nintendo's pockets. And when Super Mario 64 sells millions of copies less than its 2D predecessors (and the N64 sells less hardware to boot), it goes without saying that lots of 2D Mario players did not bring the game into their homes and play it. It doesn't matter how much attention Mario 64 had from the industry or the press, the reality is that less people wanted to play the game than 2D Mario.

Can you prove that Mario going 3D is what shrank it, when everyone seemed to love 3D Mario so much? Maybe the people who played 2D Mario GREW UP. Maybe Nintendo would've done even WORSE if it HADN'T gone 3D to appeal to a new generation.

The fact that Nintendo is going to such lengths to bring the 2D Mario fans over to 3D Mario shows how important the strength of 2D Mario is to Nintendo. The fact that they've failed twice in this endeavour and are set to fail again shows just how fundamentally ignorant Nintendo are about what 2D Mario fans enjoy about those games.

The fact that they've failed twice in this endeavor could also suggest that the problems with Mario run much deeper than "2D/3D."

[Raien]

Can you prove that Mario going 3D is what shrank it, when everyone seemed to love 3D Mario so much? Maybe the people who played 2D Mario GREW UP. Maybe Nintendo would've done even WORSE if it HADN'T gone 3D to appeal to a new generation.

Except that the NSMB games prove that 2D Mario still has value. Not only have they considerably outsold the recent 3D Mario games but they stay in the sales charts much longer than the 3D Mario games do.

The fact that they've failed twice in this endeavor could also suggest that the problems with Mario run much deeper than "2D/3D."

Oh, definitely. Part of the problem is that Nintendo changed the entire nature of the game when they went 3D. Two things stand out:

1) Changing the level objective from reaching a goal to exploring for stars. I once played a 2D star-finder Mario rom hack and it was nowhere near as fun as regular Mario gameplay. At least Nintendo understand this is a problem as they're reverting to the flagpole in Mario 3D Land (even though they're still trying to encourage star-finding gameplay through the Star Coins).

2) Adding "puzzles" to the game design. This is the bigger problem and Nintendo are showing no signs of giving up on this. The best example of this failing in 2D was a point in NSMB DS where you had to step on a switch three times to make a cork pop out of a pipe. This kind of activity is banal compared to the traditional game design but 3D Mario is full of things like this.

But more important is the nature of 3D Mario itself. What ultimately makes 2D Mario work is that its gameplay originated in arcades, notably with Donkey Kong and Mario Bros. 3D Mario gameplay does not come from arcades and is not itself arcade-like. It's hard to articulate why arcade-style gameplay is so effective but it is a fundamental part of 2D Mario nonetheless.

If Nintendo want to make more 3D Mario games, that's fair enough for them. But what the market is rejecting is Nintendo's attempts to replace 2D Mario with 3D Mario. Nintendo should be releasing a 2D Mario game for every 3D Mario game they make.

Edited by Raien, 05 November 2011 - 05:02 AM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Except that the NSMB games prove that 2D Mario still has value. Not only have they considerably outsold the recent 3D Mario games but they stay in the sales charts much longer than the 3D Mario games do.

It was also the first four-player Mario game that wasn't a 'party', 'kart', or 'sports' game. It was the first time you could take a whole group of people to fight Bowser and save Peach. There's way more things that made NSMB such a hit besides the 2D factor.

1) Changing the level objective from reaching a goal to exploring for stars. I once played a 2D star-finder Mario rom hack and it was nowhere near as fun as regular Mario gameplay. At least Nintendo understand this is a problem as they're reverting to the flagpole in Mario 3D Land (even though they're still trying to encourage star-finding gameplay through the Star Coins).

I'm seriously not sure what the difference is. Either way, the star represents the 'end' of that level. And I, personally, have enjoyed the star missions that required doing something unusual after I've already cleared the stage normally.

But more important is the nature of 3D Mario itself. What ultimately makes 2D Mario work is that its gameplay originated in arcades, notably with Donkey Kong and Mario Bros. 3D Mario gameplay does not come from arcades and is not itself arcade-like. It's hard to articulate why arcade-style gameplay is so effective but it is a fundamental part of 2D Mario nonetheless.

And there's an entire gameplay of gamers who have no interest in arcade-style play whatsoever. The market isn't dominated purely by nostalgic, older fans, so it's going to take more than that to explain this supposed downfall of Mario.

You know, more than anything, Mario's slip since the N64 happened when the "Nintendo" system wasn't effectively synonymous with a console. The Playstation was becoming popular and now people could play one OR the other and still have a wide selection of games. Some people grew up and felt Nintendo was too kiddy for them.

And, of course, it's impossible to evaluate any of this, because there's so many factors at work here that it's impossible to tell how much one specific factor, like the 2D/3D shift, has effected the future of the series.

If Nintendo want to make more 3D Mario games, that's fair enough for them. But what the market is rejecting is Nintendo's attempts to replace 2D Mario with 3D Mario. Nintendo should be releasing a 2D Mario game for every 3D Mario game they make.

I'll agree with this because honestly the more options you give gamers the happier they'll be.

[Selena]

Okay. Okay, recognizing the trap we've fallen into - Raien's "this thread is now about Mario" tactic. This thread is not about Mario in any incarnation. I'm tired of always talking about Mario in every thread. This thread is about Zelda. The two games are not even in the same genre. Even if 2D is Mario's theoretical lifeblood - despite 2D not making a resurgence in mainstream gaming despite the 'obvious' financial success it would bring - it does not necessarily apply to Zelda.


Zelda's problems do not revolve around "classic" or "modern" gaming elements. They revolve around gimmicks and the fact that every major game is still just a matter of "go to temples and collect seemingly worthless treasure in order to defeat the mysterious boss [who is probably Ganon]."

[Raien]

This is going to sound abrupt but something just came up in my personal life and I'm not really in a position to carry on this debate any longer. And judging from that last post, I'm not sure it needs continuing anyway. "Getting rid of gimmicks" and "Taking Link to new lands" are common grounds we can all agree on.

Have fun with Skyward Sword (if you're getting it) and I'll see you guys around.

[Toan]

This is going to sound abrupt but something just came up in my personal life and I'm not really in a position to carry on this debate any longer. And judging from that last post, I'm not sure it needs continuing anyway. "Getting rid of gimmicks" and "Taking Link to new lands" are common grounds we can all agree on.

Have fun with Skyward Sword (if you're getting it) and I'll see you guys around.

Just making a public note that this always appears to happen quite conveniently whenever you're called out on the above.