General Zelda Why Does Nintendo Waste Time on Gimmicks and Art Style?

[Cfrock]

What do you mean M+.

M+ in this context means Motion Plus.

 

[ihateghirahim]

Ok, I get it. Well, some of the ads I saw didn't even show the motion controls. It was a major point in the game's advertising because it was a major innovation. Gimmick are cheap and utterly lazy method used to lure in customers. M+ was a legitimate evolution in gameplay. Know the difference!

 

[DarkestLink]

Ok, I get it. Well, some of the ads I saw didn't even show the motion controls. It was a major point in the game's advertising because it was a major innovation. Gimmick are cheap and utterly lazy method used to lure in customers. M+ was a legitimate evolution in gameplay. Know the difference!

Alright...if you watch the Skyward Sword commercial alone, it's pretty obvious how they are marketing this...but just to make sure this sinks in and you hold no doubt, compare Wind Waker's commercial with Skyward Sword.

Wind Waker: The Wind Waker: Narrated Commercial - YouTube

Skyward Sword: [Commercial] The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword - Falling Swords TV Spot #1 - YouTube

Alright, Wind Waker focuses on the whole Legend of Zelda theme and some gameplay shots of Wind Waker. Now...Skyward Sword...the first 20 seconds are basically saying "You can be just like Link all because of M+!" take special note how the swords drop into houses and the player picks it up to symbolize the M+. In the next 10 seconds, gameplay takes a backseat in the background of the shots which primarily focus on the player and take close up shots of him holding his Wii remote and swinging it. How you didn't see it is beyond me.

Gimmick are cheap and utterly lazy method used to lure in customers.

Not true. Though they CAN be cheap and lazy.

Gimmick: A trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or business.

And that's what it was. M+, while innovative and fun, was a trick used to attract customers. Clearly as shown from their advertisement.

 

[Castle]

What bothers me with what I have seemed to notice about a couple of Zelda titles recently (the names of which i shall not mention, but i will say they have the words "sword" and "tracks" in their titles) is that they (with the major exception of SS) don't feel like Zelda titles. Sure, SS had everything a Zelda title needs but ST had none of the characteristics of a Zelda game.

It is almost as if somebody had an idea ("let's make a train sim!" and "let's do a M+ blowout!") and somebody else said, "But that'll never sell... so, slap the word "Zelda" in the title and make it Gold!" Nintendo has done this before, with StarFox Adventures, and it was met with much criticism. Rare actually started development on SA as its own unique title, but Nintendo stepped in and demanded they attach the StarFox brand to it.

Now, SS was treated as a proper Zelda title but I fear Nintendo's objective was to get people to pay attention to M+ by selling it as a Zelda title. These examples are a misuse of the Zelda series. If Nintendo starts using their flagship franchise as a name to sell then it just becomes a cash cow (aka "*****") for them to abuse.

 

[DarkestLink]

What bothers me with what I have seemed to notice about a couple of Zelda titles recently (the names of which i shall not mention, but i will say they have the words "sword" and "tracks" in their titles) is that they (with the major exception of SS) don't feel like Zelda titles. Sure, SS had everything a Zelda title needs but ST had none of the characteristics of a Zelda game.

It is almost as if somebody had an idea ("let's make a train sim!" and "let's do a M+ blowout!") and somebody else said, "But that'll never sell... so, slap the word "Zelda" in the title and make it Gold!" Nintendo has done this before, with StarFox Adventures, and it was met with much criticism. Rare actually started development on SA as its own unique title, but Nintendo stepped in and demanded they attach the StarFox brand to it.

Now, SS was treated as a proper Zelda title but I fear Nintendo's objective was to get people to pay attention to M+ by selling it as a Zelda title. These examples are a misuse of the Zelda series. If Nintendo starts using their flagship franchise as a name to sell then it just becomes a cash cow (aka "*****") for them to abuse.

Well...if PH felt like a Zelda, I don't see how ST didn't. I mean, really, the train is more easy to buy than the steam boat (which wasn't invented until later).

 

[Castle]

Well...if PH felt like a Zelda, I don't see how ST didn't. I mean, really, the train is more easy to buy than the steam boat (which wasn't invented until later).

Well, PH feels like a Zelda title to me only in so much as it feels like mini-Wind Waker. Say what you will about Waker, it was a genuine Zelda title despite its derivative nature, but Waker was based heavily off of its transportation gimmick (sailing) which was carried over into Hourglass. Any derivative nature Hourglass has it owes to Wind Waker.

But if you look at the pattern I see, the series really started diverging at Majora's Mask, and I'm not talking in terms of the mood and aesthetic (I think this is an evolution in the right direction), but in the way Termina was very walled up and a very particular progression through the game was forced on players. This wasn't a deviation but a de-evolution, however, but still a sign that the series was losing touch.

Then we get Wind Waker. Derivative art style, derivative game world, derivative means of traversing said game world. Wind Waker was the series first major departure. Suddenly Twilight Princess hearkens back to Ocarina (continuing with very linear progression however) and then again suddenly Skyward Sword is an even bigger departure than Wind Waker.

So the Zelda series has been very erratic. It has lost a bit of itself, and in their attempt to experiment with unnecessary innovation has picked up some aspects that don't really fit and that have so far only appealed to a niche audience. Trying to appeal to a niche audience with something that already appeals to a large and highly interested demographic is dangerous. You risk appealing to a very small few and alienating the vast majority of everyone else.

If Nintendo wants to experiment with innovation, GO DO IT ELSEWHERE!! For cripes sakes, start a new franchise!! Instead of mangling StarFox, Zelda, and other beloved long standing franchises, start a new one! If you look at Nintendo's three flagship franchises - Zelda, Mario, Metroid - which have been around since the company's genesis as a provider of video game entertainment, all three brought their own unique nature to video games. Mario was a linear action fest, Zelda a wide open adventure, and Metroid was a fantastic blend of the two playstyles and perspectives of its cousins. Each series has its own fans because they like what they're given and know what to expect.

But now Mario has become more like Zelda, StarFox had become a straight up Zelda clone, and Zelda and Metroid have become more like heaven knows what... fans are confused and irritated. After StarFox's misadventure into Hyrule... I mean Dinosaur Planet, Nintendo knew to go back to the rails shooter gameplay fans of the series know and love.

I for one would welcome a new Nintendo franchise. It's sure been long in the making. A new franchise can do new things but leave the ones we know alone.

 

[JuicieJ]

What bothers me with what I have seemed to notice about a couple of Zelda titles recently (the names of which i shall not mention, but i will say they have the words "sword" and "tracks" in their titles) is that they (with the major exception of SS) don't feel like Zelda titles. Sure, SS had everything a Zelda title needs but ST had none of the characteristics of a Zelda game.

It is almost as if somebody had an idea ("let's make a train sim!" and "let's do a M+ blowout!") and somebody else said, "But that'll never sell... so, slap the word "Zelda" in the title and make it Gold!" Nintendo has done this before, with StarFox Adventures, and it was met with much criticism. Rare actually started development on SA as its own unique title, but Nintendo stepped in and demanded they attach the StarFox brand to it.

Now, SS was treated as a proper Zelda title but I fear Nintendo's objective was to get people to pay attention to M+ by selling it as a Zelda title. These examples are a misuse of the Zelda series. If Nintendo starts using their flagship franchise as a name to sell then it just becomes a cash cow (aka "*****") for them to abuse.

How did ST not feel like a Zelda game?

 

[Ronin]

How did ST not feel like a Zelda game?

I hear that it might have something to do with gimmicky choo-choos.

 

[Castle]

OMG TRAINZ IN SELDA, THAT'S NOT RITE.

We agree then.

Zelda and train sims do not mix. Using a half-baked train sim as the basis for a Zelda game couldn't possibly get more contrary to the nature of a Zelda game.

Tell me, if Spirit Tracks didn't have Link, and didn't have Zelda in it (which are just about the only common features in spirit tracks i can think of that are unique to the rest of the series) would you feel as though you were playing a Zelda game?

 

[JuicieJ]

Zelda and train sims do not mix. Using a half-baked train sim as the basis for a Zelda game couldn't possibly get more contrary to the nature of a Zelda game.

It's certainly not traditional, but there's not really any way you can argue that trains and Zelda don't mix. I could just as easily argue that boats and Zelda don't mix. It's just a fallacy.

Tell me, if Spirit Tracks didn't have Link, and didn't have Zelda in it (which are just about the only common features in spirit tracks i can think of that are unique to the rest of the series) would you feel as though you were playing a Zelda game?

I would feel as if I were playing a Zelda-inspired game, so, in a sense, yes.

SS is the only game I'd call unforgivingly gimicky as it demands you have WM+

How does that make it any more gimmicky? The Wii MotionPlus was used to allow more freedom in the controls department. Its technology is much more advanced than the standard Wii Remote's. I'm sorry to say, but it really seems like you're only saying this due to an intense bias towards Skyward Sword, and that just doesn't work in any kind of discussion.

 

[Castle]

It's certainly not traditional, but there's not really any way you can argue that trains and Zelda don't mix. I could just as easily argue that boats and Zelda don't mix. It's just a fallacy.

True. But let's look at the nature of boats versus the nature of trains.

Boats can sail on the wide open ocean. Oceans are big places. For the longest time nobody knew what was out in em. There was a whole century devoted to figuring that out. People dreamt of vast treasure troves, disease curing fonts, even wild monsters out in the great unknown. Sounds a lot like the nature of a Zelda game, right? It's fitting, isn't it?

Now, trains can only travel on linear tracks. Trains move in two directions: forward and back. In fact, trains can only go where the tracks are, so that means that somebody has to lay the tracks before the train is even on them. Trains only lead to known places where goods are shipped and people come and go from.

I would feel as if I were playing a Zelda-inspired game, so, in a sense, yes.

I get the same feeling when I play Arkham City... or Fallout 3... or Xenoblade... but the thing is, those are not Zelda games. And in all the above examples, truer to the nature of Zelda because they don't feature any tacky derivative add-ons.

This is why I feel that if Nintendo wants to experiment with derivative aspects, start something new. A new series or franchise. Heck, it doesn't even have to be a series, just a new game. Don't mess with the stuff we've already got, or they risk messing it up.

Take Eternal Darkness, for instance. If Nintendo had put Zelda characters in Eternal Darknes and set it in say, Ganon's Castle, would it have felt or played at all like a Zelda title?