Modern Gamers Unimpressed by Miyamoto

[Cheesepower5]

theres a big difference here.
look at the last 4 call of duty games, then look at the last 4 zelda games. notice anything?
tell me which one is a rehash.

One of these series relies on innovation and an iterative raising of stakes and expectations between each instalment. The other series relies on motion control gimmicks, flip-flopping art direction and handheld ports of more-successful games from the late 90s to maintain a thin facade of relevance.

Can you guess which is which?

Okay, I'll let "innovation" slide, because it's highly debatable how much content or how drastic said content is in ANY new game, so it's pretty natural for any sequel to feel like a rehash(the same reason I'm not even going to bring Mario into the argument.) But constantly raising expectations? If I had a penny for every time I heard "CoD4 for was way better than MW2!" "MW2 is sooo much better than BlOps!" "MW3 Sucks! Black Ops is where it's at!" and variations there upon, I'd be a millionaire. And my country's government has basically all but made pennies worthless. If anything, it seems like CoD runs on a series of constantly lowering expectations, then hoping for the best in the next one causing it to sell millions on opening day.

EDIT: Hah hah, whoops. Quoted the wrong dude. Herp derp. Fixed.

 

[GeneralFungi]

Worst argument I've ever read, honestly.
You're claiming that those sprite graphics are some form of improvement over the original, really? They're still godamn sprites.

So you are saying this that by virtue of being made up of sprites, that it is impossible to innovate from that? And that by virtue of being sprites, that they cannot evolve beyond what they already are? I'm sorry, but people who judge graphics simply because they are not rendered, high polygon count 3D models piss me off.

You know Rayman Origins, a game highly acclaimed to be one of the best looking games released last year? Technically speaking, everything in that game is made up from sprites.

Different game mechanics, from what that video shows these hardly seem to be a big selling point.

So you are saying gameplay mechanics in a game are not a big selling point? Then what is a big selling point? They are new gameplay mechanics and they're there, what else is important? This comes off as a dismissive way to ignore someone's point.

Great story, ahahah. It's mario.

Innovative gameplay? Ahaha, it's COD.

Wow, I really sounded like an asshole right? Because of how I judge CoD games by the series reputation rather then the individual game in question? Yeah, don't you hate those guys?

Also MW3 used the exact same engine as MW2, they look identical. Anyone claiming one looks worse is an idiot.

Does the game share the same locations, weapon models, Ui, character models etc as MW2? I could subjectively prefer the assets of the very first game. That, and the graphics do age over time and would not look as good by today's standards as it did when it was first released.

 

[Cheesepower5]

theres a big difference here.
look at the last 4 call of duty games, then look at the last 4 zelda games. notice anything?
tell me which one is a rehash.

One of these series relies on innovation and an iterative raising of stakes and expectations between each instalment. The other series relies on motion control gimmicks, flip-flopping art direction and handheld ports of more-successful games from the late 90s to maintain a thin facade of relevance.

Can you guess which is which?

Okay, I'll let "innovation" slide, because it's highly debatable how much content or how drastic said content is in ANY new game, so it's pretty natural for any sequel to feel like a rehash(the same reason I'm not even going to bring Mario into the argument.) But constantly raising expectations? If I had a penny for every time I heard "CoD4 for was way better than MW2!" "MW2 is sooo much better than BlOps!" "MW3 Sucks! Black Ops is where it's at!" and variations there upon, I'd be a millionaire. And my country's government has basically all but made pennies worthless. If anything, it seems like CoD runs on a series of constantly lowering expectations, then hoping for the best in the next one causing it to sell millions on opening day.

EDIT: Hah hah, whoops. Quoted the wrong dude. Herp derp. Fixed.

It's raising expectations, because after nuking a player character in MW, killing civilians in MW2, and dropping a building on a little girl in MW3, the expectations for the moment of shock in these games is building higher and higher. Along with the expectations for the number of player characters who fail the mission if they get killed during it, but upon success, get killed anyway because the plot demands it. And maybe some expectations on how much the single-player campaign will be cut down and neglected in favor of the multi-player.

Killing off main characters was CoD's things first and foremost?

Because I can name like, a billion games that did it first. Well, okay, probably more like 4 or 5 right off the bat, but we have a word for huge exaggerations made in jest for a reason. And I'll admit, CoD 4's ending WAS a surprise. And you know, MW2`s beginning was a little shocking too. But it became so arbitrary LITERALLY right after, MW2 didn't even END before they made that shit cliche. And frankly, every multi-player FPS since Halo has had minimal changes (Pokemon is an apt comparison.) So, while the jump from Cod 1 to Cod 4 + might be fairly significant, everything since is pretty much an expansion pack. If New Vegas is, MW2 and Black Ops sure as hell are. And there've been SIX of these now, more than there have been generations of Pokemon or PREVIOUS CALL OF DUTIES.

 

[Spitfire]

I don't know enough about Miyamoto's body of work to judge whether he's a talentless hack or not, though I will say that a lot of the praise he receives indeed seems to have a lot to do with nostalgia. I've been a gamer for the better part of my life, and I've never crossed paths with any of his works, so whatever past glories he may have had, I haven't experienced them.

 

[Rad Party God]

Spoiler: So... how can I say this in a polite manner, without risking myself to get a warning or a ban?...

Do you seriously consider the god of gaming irrelevant for "modern gamers"?... then you must be new to gaming altogether.

I'd prefer a thousand rehashes of Zelda & Mario than a yearly generic shooter any time of the day.

 

[Joshimodo]

relies on innovation and an iterative raising of stakes and expectations between each instalment.

Innovation? "Raising of stakes"?

That's hilarious.

I am, as a old gamer (started with 7, now I'm about to hit 24), unimpressed by Miamotos works.

That's not an "old gamer". Old gamers are typically Odyssey/Spectrum/Atari veterans. Point still works, though.

Play Doom, then go play Black Ops 2 online, and compare the two experiences.

Play 2-player Super Mario, then go play 2-player Super Mario Galaxy, and compare the two experiences.

Now compare the two comparisons.

Ok.

DOOM was creative and fun to play. It was new, fresh, and interesting, and totally different from it's predecessor, Wolfenstein.

Black Ops is identical to it's past 3-4 predecessors. It has added nothing new, nor been polished in ANY way.


Super Mario was fun, is still fun, and along with the NES saved the gaming industry.

Super Mario Galaxy is polished, plays differently, and actually remains pretty creative considering it's technical limitations and so on. It's also polished.


Tell you what, go play CoD1, then go play CoD: Black Ops, MW3, Black Ops 2 or any of the other games in the series, especially those post-4.

Then go play Metroid, then Metroid Prime. Compare the two comparisons.

 

[Cheesepower5]

And frankly, every multi-player FPS since Halo has had minimal changes (Pokemon is an apt comparison.)

You can't really call the changes in Pokemon to be 'minimal'. Even putting aside things like every subsequent generation adding at least 100 new Pokemon and several new moves:

Red and Blue started it.
Gold and Silver added Held Items, Gender, Breeding, Shinies, Real-Time-Based Events, Day/Night cycles, and split the single Special stat into Special Attack and Special Defense.
Ruby and Sapphire added Natures, Abilities, Weather Effects, Contests, and completely revamped the IV/EV system from the prior generations. Emerald went even further with additional refinements to Breeding.
Diamond and Pearl added Global Trading, further refined Breeding, and introduced the Physical/Special split, where individual attacks could be Physical or Special, instead of that being determined solely by their Type.
Black and White added Seasons, gave even more refinement to Breeding, and turned TMs from one-time-use items into reusable items.

There are probably some more that I can't think of at the moment, but each Pokemon game has built on and drastically changed and improved the ones that came before. Can you say that about many other franchises?

Oh, don't get me wrong (although I'm pretty sure I got you wrong, didn't really notice that juicy sarcasm dripping off your post about CoD.) I like Pokemon, and I'm pretty aware of the changes in each generation.

But it hasn't really made an effort to be a completely new game outside of the spin-offs, which I think is what the haters want. And I wouldn't expect CoD to either, which is why I made the comparison. Though come to think of it, what happened to the spin-offs? Back on N64 we had Snap and the decent Stadium games, then there were Colosseum and XD, which were okay, and now all we have are the shitty ones like Trozei and PokePark. Pick up the slack, Gamefreak!

 

[Snotnarok]

I'm stumped people are comparing CoD to Zelda? Here's a thought, compare other Zelda inspired games with Zeldas. Granted CoD has made some advancements but, 15 dollar map packs don't help the game any.

Okami vs Zelda: till TP came out I think Okami stomped it. Totally different character, a neat setting, amazing style. The game just has a lot going for it.

Darksiders vs Zelda: I liked it a lot, different artstyle, different setting. It was similar to Zelda/Metroid/Devil May Cry/ God of War sure but it was different enough to be interesting and pulled off it's own style very well that just made you keep going.

The games took an idea and tried something new with it, not the same characters, the same land the same bloody story and they made the games unique given their insperation and that's really neat. While Zelda has just been doing the same thing over and over since the NES minus the jump to 3D. And I've played them so don't give me "it's the experience" if you wanted that, play the last one and save yourself 50 bucks, or just play Twilight Princess because it's by far the best one.

I'm still stumped why people say Ocarina of Time is the best considering they give you no reason to help the world, everyone there are idiots minus maybe the cowgirl and the green haired girl. The adventure which was fine, and it controlled well (for the N64 controller of course) but I never felt compelled to do anything because everyone in Hyrule were morons. I just felt NO reason to move on and help out.

Twilight Princess (to me) is better in every, single, way. More moving characters, bigger crazier dungeons and what not, and you felt accomplishment when doing something.

 

[Cheesepower5]

And frankly, every multi-player FPS since Halo has had minimal changes (Pokemon is an apt comparison.)

You can't really call the changes in Pokemon to be 'minimal'. Even putting aside things like every subsequent generation adding at least 100 new Pokemon and several new moves:

Red and Blue started it.
Gold and Silver added Held Items, Gender, Breeding, Shinies, Real-Time-Based Events, Day/Night cycles, and split the single Special stat into Special Attack and Special Defense.
Ruby and Sapphire added Natures, Abilities, Weather Effects, Contests, and completely revamped the IV/EV system from the prior generations. Emerald went even further with additional refinements to Breeding.
Diamond and Pearl added Global Trading, further refined Breeding, and introduced the Physical/Special split, where individual attacks could be Physical or Special, instead of that being determined solely by their Type.
Black and White added Seasons, gave even more refinement to Breeding, and turned TMs from one-time-use items into reusable items.

There are probably some more that I can't think of at the moment, but each Pokemon game has built on and drastically changed and improved the ones that came before. Can you say that about many other franchises?

Oh, don't get me wrong (although I'm pretty sure I got you wrong, didn't really notice that juicy sarcasm dripping off your post about CoD.) I like Pokemon, and I'm pretty aware of the changes in each generation.

But it hasn't really made an effort to be a completely new game outside of the sequels, which I think is what the haters want. And I wouldn't expect CoD to either, which is why I made the comparison. Though come to think of it, what happened to the spin-offs? Back on N64 we had Snap and the decent Stadium games, then there were Colosseum and XD, which were okay, and now all we have are the shitty ones like Trozei and PokePark. Pick up the slack, Gamefreak!

Don't forget the excellent Pokemon Ranger games for the DS. There's also Pokemon Conquest (a.k.a. Pokemon x Nobunaga's Ambition) which is due out fairly soon for the DS, and it's a Pokemon SRPG set in what is basically feudal Japan.

Yeah, Ranger was okay. Way better plot and characterisation than most 'Mons games, but the battles (captures?) were a bit repetitive. And I've never actually seen much about PC, but I am fond of strategy games. Might check it out, but it's probably gonna be totally dwarfed on my radar by Fire Emblem: Awakening.

 

[Agayek]

I'm staying out of this debate, but I felt I must point something out.

Skyward Sword made me love Miyamoto again

See this? This is why we can't have nice things.

Skyward Sword was a potentially excellent game, with a good amount (for a Zelda title) of new ideas, that was utterly ruined by a godawful and gimicky control scheme. Anyone that actually liked the game is provably wrong.

Nintendo needs to realize that motion controls are pointless gimmicks that do nothing but distract the player from enjoying the game. Once they do that, they may actually make decent games again.

 

[Cheesepower5]

I'm stumped people are comparing CoD to Zelda? Here's a thought, compare other Zelda inspired games with Zeldas. Granted CoD has made some advancements but, 15 dollar map packs don't help the game any.

Okami vs Zelda: till TP came out I think Okami stomped it. Totally different character, a neat setting, amazing style. The game just has a lot going for it.

Darksiders vs Zelda: I liked it a lot, different artstyle, different setting. It was similar to Zelda/Metroid/Devil May Cry/ God of War sure but it was different enough to be interesting and pulled off it's own style very well that just made you keep going.

The games took an idea and tried something new with it, not the same characters, the same land the same bloody story and they made the games unique given their insperation and that's really neat. While Zelda has just been doing the same thing over and over since the NES minus the jump to 3D. And I've played them so don't give me "it's the experience" if you wanted that, play the last one and save yourself 50 bucks, or just play Twilight Princess because it's by far the best one.

I'm still stumped why people say Ocarina of Time is the best considering they give you no reason to help the world, everyone there are idiots minus maybe the cowgirl and the green haired girl. The adventure which was fine, and it controlled well (for the N64 controller of course) but I never felt compelled to do anything because everyone in Hyrule were morons. I just felt NO reason to move on and help out.

Twilight Princess (to me) is better in every, single, way. More moving characters, bigger crazier dungeons and what not, and you felt accomplishment when doing something.

But that's WHY each Zelda game is different, how could they not if different people will have a different idea about which is superior. Going on a limb from your fondness for Okami, perhaps it was the cohesive setting and atmosphere that attracted you to Twilight Princess? I myself preferred the off-beat unsettling style of Majora's Mask, and each game in the franchise has something going for it like that. It's not just style either, Majora's Mask featured a 3 day cycle that had different events occurring at set or player-defined intervals and really nailed the open-ended and linear plot styles in ONE game. Compare that to other series, like, and I'm starting to get tired of bringing these up, Pokemon and CoD. They have a more static feel and setting but update the mechanics and fine-tune them until half the fanbase thinks it's ruined forever and the other half will keep buying them until the heat death of the universe.

Heh heh. Captcha: save yourself

 

[Vigormortis]

theres a big difference here.
look at the last 4 call of duty games, then look at the last 4 zelda games. notice anything?
tell me which one is a rehash.

One of these series relies on innovation and an iterative raising of stakes and expectations between each instalment. The other series relies on motion control gimmicks, flip-flopping art direction and handheld ports of more-successful games from the late 90s to maintain a thin facade of relevance.

Can you guess which is which?

Call of Duty > relying on innovation and raised stakes.


If Call of Duty had an allergy to something, that something would be innovation.

And raised stakes? That sounds like a cliched advert tag-line.

I'm not saying I don't agree with you on the Zelda franchise being whored around far too much, but at least Nintendo tries something different with each new game. Activision's idea of trying something new with Call of Duty is adding in either a new over-powered or useless weapon or copy/pasting a game-mode from another game. (Gungame anyone? I mean, Christ, they didn't even change the name!)

 

[Malrock]

The last time this talentless hack made anything that was in any way new or original was in the early 2000s.

You think Miyamoto is a "talentless hack"?

Ignoring the obvious bias in your post, Miyamoto helped shape the industry and created (what were in their own time) masterpieces of gaming. Irrespective of whether or not you like what he is doing currently, in no universe (to quote Sheldon Cooper lol) can that be considered talentless.

 

[Silver Patriot]

I got a simple question. What is the most number of franchises a developer is know for? Shigeru Miyamoto is known for 7. Mario, Donkey Kong, The Legend of Zelda, Star Fox, F-Zero, Pikmin, and the Wii series. That is seven different, successful franchises he is credited for creating. That is not counting the number of games he worked on or influenced.

He is currently a manager for Nintendo Entertainment Analysis and Development branch, which from what I understand is their R&D. He had direct involvement with at least the planning of the DS, Wii and most likely it's successor the WiiU.

Is he past his prime? Maybe, I like his games but the industry is changing and Nintendo is clearly having trouble keeping up.

Is he a "talentless hack?" No, your just ignorant.