Topic: LoZ: TP delayed until Nov...

[IceCold]

Mon February 13, 2006 11:24 AM

EDIT: The most users ever online was 1383, on Mon November 01, 2004 at 9:51 AM.

[Dasmos]

Quote
Originally posted by: Requiem

Quote
Originally posted by: JonLeung
Dear Nintendo,

I am a big Zelda fan.  My birthday is on April 7.

Sincerely,
Jon

You stole my birthday! I want it BACK!

Too bad, you can't steal both of my birthdates you bastard!

I do have two birthdays...............think about it

QUIET! You both stole my brother's birthday...!

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Oh I agree that Wind Waker's fighting was pretty weak.  I was talking about the N64 games.  I probably should have, you know, mentioned that.    There's an example of an exciting complex fight pulled off with a streamlined control interface.

Fair enough, but I personally think the fighting in all of the 3D Zeldas wasn't very engaging and it was only the boss battles and puzzles which made the games what they are (and the excellent storyline, of course). Arguably, the boss battles ARE puzzles so it's the points where the game makes me think which I find the most fun, just like how I mentioned that the Gerudo guard battles were among the most memorable because they violated the formula.

[Requiem]

Smash Brother:

Why would Zelda have to be FP in order to play well? Changing the view to FP would require alot of retooling to the game. Why not instead make it third-person as it always has been.

I have come up with a control scheme that I think is very pratical, but I'm sure it has its problems. Anyway, the point is that Zelda could control beautifully if it were to stay in third-person (even if its just for fighting and the like).

Go here to read the control scheme (scroll down a couple posts)

As for Manditor:

I finally understand your complaint. When Nintendo concentrates on a game and how it must be controlled, the game is essentially tooled to make the controller limitations as transparent as possible. Your Big Poe example fortified this point.

Now your saying that if TP were to use the Revmote for the entire quest, its potential would go to waste. A valid point.

However, who cares? You may feel gipped, but you must come to terms that you are not playing Zelda Revolution. So any potential you feel was lost, is not lost at all. You are simply playing Zelda TP, but with a revmote. It is still intended to be played on a GC, but the REV allows for a taste of the future. Plus, can you honestly tell me that 6 months before Zelda REV is due, that you wouldn't be playing TP using the Revmote?  

[wandering]

Quote
Nintendo always plans their next gen well ahead of time. The remote is directly related to their non-gamer strategy which is pretty new. The very concept didn't even really exist until a few years ago. So the Rev probably started off as a "normal" console with Mario 128 in the works for it.

Then Nintendo decides to do this whole blue ocean non-gamer routine which seems to be in direct response to the success of Warioware. It seems like that triggered the whole concept. So Nintendo decides they have to rethink their controller. That takes time. In fact I think the reason we haven't seen any Rev game yet is that it took so long for Nintendo to reinvent the wheel they probably haven't had enough time to have a game far enough along to show. So during this huge redesign Mario 128 is on the backburner. Nintendo comes up with the remote. Now Mario 128 has a problem. It wasn't designed with that type of controller in mind so now it too has to be redesigned.

I've always felt that the Rev controller is the result of someone saying "we have to be innovative and inviting to non-gamers" and then they tinkered with the idea until they came up with the remote. But they didn't necessarily have any actual ideas for the thing as they created it.

So, to simplify, you think meetings in Nintendo went something like this:

'hey, WarioWare sold well, let's focus on non-gamers now!'
'okay, but we need to throw together some stupid gimmick at the last minute for our next system to do that!'
'okay, how about 3-d motion control!'

I doubt this very much. I think you're being colored by your negative view of the controller.

What's far more likely, is that Nintendo has been playing with motion control for a long time. Miyamoto has probably wanted to use it for years.

Quote
My reasoning for the remote being developed without any ideas is based on my impression of the DS touchscreen. Nintendo launched the DS with only a port as the lone first party launch title and the initial uses of the touchscreen were pretty meh. It suggests to me they thought of the idea but had to scramble for ideas to launch the system in time.

Or maybe the DS was rushed to market to beat the PSP? And maybe, in fact, Nintendogs proves Nintendo's stance that they were kicking around ideas for a touch-screen gameplay in a handheld well before the eventual creation of the DS? Nah.  

[couchmonkey]

I think Nintendo has been messing around with 3D control for years.  Marionette.

Anyhooo, glad to hear EBGames flubbed.  I still wouldn't be surprised if this game gets delayed a little, but I'm hoping for an earlier launch.

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: Requiem
Why would Zelda have to be FP in order to play well? Changing the view to FP would require alot of retooling to the game. Why not instead make it third-person as it always has been.

Sorry, that's just my desire for a first person slasher showing through.

I mention the FP sequences because it would be the easiest to map the controls there to the remote.

I like the control scheme you laid out, though.

[Ian Sane]

"However, who cares? You may feel gipped, but you must come to terms that you are not playing Zelda Revolution. So any potential you feel was lost, is not lost at all. You are simply playing Zelda TP, but with a revmote. It is still intended to be played on a GC, but the REV allows for a taste of the future."

I think that it would be a poor first impression.  No one really asked for a new standard so Nintendo has to show that they're really onto something and not just pushing a novelty to attract attention.  If all they do is map button presses to gestures then they're not doing anything to justify a major change.  All they've done is found a more awkward way to do what we could do before.  So it's incredibly important that Nintendo demonstrates right away that the remote really is the future.  If Twilight Princess is the first game a lot of Rev owners buy then they have a tainted first impression because all they're playing is a Cube game with the remote.

Imagine if the N64 didn't launch with Super Mario 64.  Imagine it launched with an arcade conversion of Street Fighter Alpha.  That game uses digital control and is better suited for a d-pad than an analog stick.  Imagine if that was the game Nintendo pushed the analog stick with.  The stick would have never taken off the way it did because for a game like that the analog stick is just a clumsy imprecise substitute for the d-pad.  The fact that they sold N64s on the strength of a game that really demonstrated how crucial the analog stick was for future gaming is why the analog stick took off.

[Smash_Brother]

I think it depends entirely upon the fun factor involved with the change.

Mario 64 was what it was because it was a fun game. The analogue stick was only "necessary" for the game because the situations in the game which required its use worked well toward making the game fun and challenging.

Again, I don't think a game which uses only the remote and no nunchuck would be necessary. I just think a game has to be more fun through using the remote than it would through using the standard controller to sell its appeal.

Basically, anything to say "You couldn't do it this way without the Revmote" would suffice, so long as doing it that way was more fun.

That doesn't mean that a game which uses the remote entirely isn't a good idea, but I think that a "standard" game which uses the remote in entertaining ways is more important than a so-so tech demo which uses the remote alone.

[trip1eX]

Zelda:TP is still scheduled for April 1st 2k6.  

Just because a retailer has some backwards date on their computer system means jack.  It was just a weak lameass rumour that was quickly thrown around cause some people get bored with reality.  

[Bill Aurion]

Hahaha!

[Pale]

God dammit, how can nintendo be so stupid to delay it more than 400 years?

They are freaking d00md.

[vudu]

More than 400?  It's goddamn near 500 years (493 years, 274 days).  Time to start a new count down, stevey.

At least it's still coming out for GameCube.  

[JonLeung]

Nearly five hundred years means nearly a hundred Nintendo consoles will have lived their full lives by then.  o_0  How would anyone keep track of any game series, if they could still be fresh enough to have one or two games on each one?

If I waited until 2500, not only would I have Twilight Princess, but perhaps hundreds of other games in that series alone...as well as Mario Party 502...

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: JonLeung
If I waited until 2500, not only would I have Twilight Princess, but perhaps hundreds of other games in that series alone...as well as Mario Party 502...

I don't intend to buy 502, as I hear 503 will finally introduce online play.

[Ian Sane]

If Twilight Princess is being delaying until 2500 it better be like the best game ever made.  Bill, you should email them back and ask what kind of assurance Best Buy can provide to prove they'll still be in business in 494 years.  After all it might be in your best interest to pre-order from a more secure retailer.

[Bill Aurion]

Thankfully it's not my pre-order...I'm not even going to bother getting the game at all, because Nintendo won't even exist in 500 years!

[JonLeung]

Quote
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
Thankfully it's not my pre-order...I'm not even going to bother getting the game at all, because Nintendo won't even exist in 500 years!

That's right, it'll be Ubertendo, in a time when the prefix "uber" is back in fashion, and it'll be a monopoly of all interactive video entertainment.  Actually, it'd probably be an evil empire, and several planets that they've conquered will be named after fictional characters that they used to call "video game characters".  Planet Zelda will be a pleasure planet.

[Bill Aurion]

"I am Paul with Best Buy Customer Care.

We are pleased to let you know that the estimated arrival time for this pre order is 2/15/06 till 2/22/06 this is when we are expected to have it shipped to us.

Thank you,
Paul
Best Buy Customer Care Team"

Hahahahahahahahaha!

[Nile Boogie]

I hate this thread.
It mocks my pain.
I wish it dead.
I want this game.
I hate this thread.

[Requiem]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"However, who cares? You may feel gipped, but you must come to terms that you are not playing Zelda Revolution. So any potential you feel was lost, is not lost at all. You are simply playing Zelda TP, but with a revmote. It is still intended to be played on a GC, but the REV allows for a taste of the future."

I think that it would be a poor first impression.  No one really asked for a new standard so Nintendo has to show that they're really onto something and not just pushing a novelty to attract attention.  If all they do is map button presses to gestures then they're not doing anything to justify a major change.  All they've done is found a more awkward way to do what we could do before.  So it's incredibly important that Nintendo demonstrates right away that the remote really is the future.  If Twilight Princess is the first game a lot of Rev owners buy then they have a tainted first impression because all they're playing is a Cube game with the remote.

Imagine if the N64 didn't launch with Super Mario 64.  Imagine it launched with an arcade conversion of Street Fighter Alpha.  That game uses digital control and is better suited for a d-pad than an analog stick.  Imagine if that was the game Nintendo pushed the analog stick with.  The stick would have never taken off the way it did because for a game like that the analog stick is just a clumsy imprecise substitute for the d-pad.  The fact that they sold N64s on the strength of a game that really demonstrated how crucial the analog stick was for future gaming is why the analog stick took off.

Ian, we both don't know how well the revmote will work, but you have the most pessimistic of views.

Even if Nintendo doesn't change any of the gameplay to make the revmote appear more exciting, what's wrong with tweaking the controls so that it at least plays well? Nintendo could tweak the camera, the items, the fighting, and the horse-back riding to accomadate the revmote. And you now what? It could play brilliantly, especially with Nintendo behind the reigns.

Manditors concern was about the REVs gameplay potential and how it would be lost if TP were to be fully playable with the revmote. Your concern is that it would be a "meaningless" or "sloppy" conversion of control; a conversion that would only make the flawless design awkward. You must realize that those are two different complaints.

Its laughable to think that the control scheme we have today is the best there ever will be. Come on....think outside the box a little.

As for your Mario - streetfighter analogy, that really doesn't apply here. Think of it this way....OOT was rereleased on the GC, and it played better because of it. Yet, if Nintendo really wanted to make OOT special, or even, say....magical, they could have implemented the WW control scheme to make it that much better. Would you bitch about how they not only provided the original control scheme, but also the new one, the one we hadn't yet experience? Would you bitch about how sloppy or meaningless the conversion was even if it played alot better? For your sake, I hope not.

[Ian Sane]

"OOT was rereleased on the GC, and it played better because of it. Yet, if Nintendo really wanted to make OOT special, or even, say....magical, they could have implemented the WW control scheme to make it that much better. Would you bitch about how they not only provided the original control scheme, but also the new one, the one we hadn't yet experience? Would you bitch about how sloppy or meaningless the conversion was even if it played alot better?"

I think that's a pretty different experience.  The Cube controller is not THAT different from the N64 controller for example, at least not as different as the Rev is from the Cube.  The Wind Waker scheme isn't that much different either.  It would be a pretty minor change.  I don't think Nintendo ever really had to sell the Cube controller because it wasn't that big of a change and it was very similar to the widely received dualshock.  And Ocarina of Time was never being pushed as a potential system seller for the Cube.  It was just a freebie with a pre-order.  There was no pressure so it didn't matter what people thought of it.

It's not hard to come to the conclusion that using the remote merely to replace buttons is a more awkward.  Buttons are digital: on or off.  It's incredibly easy to determine if you are pushing the button correctly.  Motion control doesn't have that.  There's a lot of room for it to interpret what you do.  You might think you're doing a sideways motion but in reality you're half an inch off so it think you did a diagonal up motion.  The analog stick has physical resistance to it and when you stop moving it goes back to the same centre position every time.  There is no resistance with motion control.  You stop moving when you hold the remote still but that could be in any position.  And of course waving a wand is more physically tiring than pushing a button.

Motion control only makes sense to use when what you're doing can't be done any other way.  It's just like how an analog stick only makes sense to use when you don't want digital control.  I have NEVER played a game designed for a d-pad that played better on an analog stick.  It's just more imprecise and harder to use.  I've never played a game designed for digital shoulder buttons that didn't play worse with analog shoulder buttons.  I think it would be the same way with motion control.  Games rarely play well when shoehorned into a control scheme they aren't designed for.  They're at best workable but rarely as good.

And since Twilight Princess is being pushed as a system seller it is responsible for selling this new control concept and show that it's something worthwhile.  It can't do that if it's just a Cube game using the remote.

I don't think the control scheme we have today is the best there ever will be but I do think that for the games designed for it it's the best.  I love the analog stick but games that were never designed for it play like crap on it.  Game control is just too precise to just convert something to something else without compromising the way the game plays.

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Game control is just too precise to just convert something to something else without compromising the way the game plays.

You still seem to be saying that any inclusion of Revmote control in TP will compromise the way the game is played. I fail to see the correlation in, say, using the Revmote to aim my hookshot as opposed to an analogue stick and Zelda being compromised as an enjoyable title.

I don't think anyone here is talking about redoing the entirety of TP to work with the Revmote (I know I'm not). I'm talking about using the Revmote in a few choice places in the game where using it wouldn't interrupt the continuity of the gameplay.

But then again it might go MUCH further than that, as Reggie's quote still stands. As long as the Rev controller has all of the buttons which the cube does, there's no reason why it would be "compromised" on the Rev, but I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo wants to do more than just that.

[King of Twitch]

same arguments, different thread! they just go round and round and round!

[vudu]

Quote
I am Frank with Best Buy Customer Care.

We are pleased to let you know that this pre order shipped on 11/24/98.

Thank you,
Frank
Best Buy Customer Care Team