At this point I seriously question why they even bothered to go to E3.

That's disappointing, not even a Nintendo World Championships, where will they announce Mother 3 now?

They already said Zelda was going to be the only game they show at E3 last week, not sure why some people are still surprised?  When you tell your investors at your end of year financial conference you will only have Zelda at E3, you're not going to magically have a bunch of non-Zelda games shown, or else Nintendo wouldn't have said we'll only show Zelda at E3 last week.

Probably because even though they said that no one really thought they were going to fill 8+ hours worth of Treehouse Live programming with just one game. Also, you'd think a Nintendo Direct or Digital Event would have included some 3DS stuff since, you know, they still plan to sell 5 million of them this year and Kimishima said there were still some unannounced games.

I thought the initial statement was that New Super Zelda U would be the only game playable.  I didn't think it'd be the only game they even talk about.  And not having a digital event at all is such a bummer.

I'm honestly worried that by the time the NX launches, Nintendo will have no more social cache.

Hopefully, there'll be any kind of Direct prior to this because I feel like Treehouse Live is usually a slower experience compared to showing highlight after highlight in a row.  There are some who'd prefer a digest trailer rather than watching for a whole day waiting for special announcements.

Here's the kind of silly thing about focusing on Zelda so much - without the NX this is an incomplete picture.  They can show off all this great Zelda stuff they want but that key decision of whether to get the Wii U or NX version can't be considered until the NX debuts.  They're showing off what will almost certainly be the LESSER version since it would be pretty stupid if the newer console couldn't do the game better than the current one.  So let's all get hyped up for the Wii U version that's going to take a backseat to the "real" version on the NX?  Huh?!

I like treehouse a lot.  That said, the nice thing about the Digital event was the level of polish in the presentation, while Treehouse was fairly casual in nature.  I was looking forward to at least a long-form reveal for Zelda with that digital event shine.

...I joked about this a few days ago on Twitter, saying they would probably spoil a bunch of the game if they did something like this.

But this. I mean, for real? Is this really their plan for Wii U this year? Show a game that's not even coming out on the 30th anniversary for E3 2016 and nothing else...?

Nintend00med

I really don't understand why they don't also have a Direct.  You figure they'll show a trailer or something.  When they stopped doing the presentation they still would have a Direct so it was like the same thing but not live.  People have jobs so watching a relatively short Direct is a lot easier to fit into their schedule then a dragged out day of streaming.  I'm concerned about spoilers of course but I also like having a simple video to look at to get an idea on how a game is coming along.  There is some marketing value in having something short and sweet like that that someone can just provide a link to.  It's an accessible way to provide a sneak peek.

Plus I figure only really hardcore fans are going to pay attention to this Treehouse stuff.  Directs and the old E3 presentation are in a format that is more enticing to general videogame fans that aren't specifically interested in Nintendo.  Only the converted will be willing to tune in to an all-day event focused on one game.  I don't see a problem with having the Treehouse event but JUST that?  That just isn't good marketing.  It requires too much investment from the audience.  They need something short and to the point for a more general audience.  Maybe they'll still have videos and screenshots released online.  I sure hope so.

This is the last E3 before the NX comes out and Nintendo is being weird even by their usual standards.  That doesn't give me a lot of confidence.  By this point, several years after it was clear the Wii U was a flop and a new approach is needed, I feel Nintendo needs to have shown a major positive change and I don't see that at all.  Seems like the same old Nintendo.  So the same old Nintendo is secretly getting everything right with the NX while publicly being their usually out-of-touch goofy selves?

To say they're only showing one game and that game won't come out for another 9 months is bonkers.  A broader Direct is needed.

I still haven't completely wrapped my mind around how stupid Nintendo is acting now...

E3 isn't the show it used to be, and Nintendo is making sure of that.

After the reaction to last year's digital presentation, this isn't all that surprising. Since they've decided to hold back all the NX stuff and all their big reveals until later this year, skipping the digital presentation is probably the right call. I'm just excited to see Zelda at this point.

While I'm still fine with the plan of launching the NX in March 2017 (or later), I do think they could be handling E3 better than they are even if they don't want to show the NX. Zelda is not the only game they have in the pipeline, so I don't see a reason to not feature anything else.

The reason the reaction to last year's direct was so poor was because it was a jumbled mess in comparison with the year before, which they nailed pretty flawlessly.

All I'm saying is, Zelda better be a damn good looking game. The past few snippets we've seen of the game looked markedly worse than the initial reveal, which was gorgeous. It better look great, and demo well, or I'm gonna be at a loss for words during the next 9 months- rather similar to Nintendo's own message, hilariously enough.

Yeah...no, I think I'll pass on watching this, thanks. Zelda is my favorite franchise, but I couldn't watch an all-day stream of it. Thing is, Nintendo does have other games on 3DS & even some Wii U stuff like Paper Mario. I just don't understand why they're overexposing Zelda this much. Even if the game wasn't 9 months away, I wouldn't want to spoil so much of the game for myself.

Since Nintendo says they're only covering Zelda, is it possible that Paper Mario, which is the only other remaining Wii U release I can think of, has been moved to the NX?  You figure if that's still a Wii U title that this is it's last E3 so why wouldn't they show it?  Why would Nintendo intentionally restrict themselves to only one game if they had more to show?  It really doesn't look all that good to show only one game since it implies you only have one game in the pipeline.  So if they have other stuff in the pipeline, wouldn't they show it?  If it has been moved to the NX then it gives a valid excuse to not show it since Nintendo can't without revealing the NX itself.

Nintendo probably bought the space before NX was moved to 2017.

Kimishima admitted that NX is launching next year so more games will be ready. Good. I'll gladly take a delay if it means there won't be a repeat of Wii U's ass cancer of a first year. Unfortunately, that leaves an NX shaped hole in Nintendo's E3 floor. Still, will it matter? EA, Activision, and Disney are all ditching E3 this year. Granted, I care about Nintendo's output a lot more. And I have always loved E3 season, but I've been spoiled by the Nintendo Directs. With social media and all the other ways to reach fans, huge press only events like E3 are getting harder to justify.

https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2016/160427_4e.pdf
It's still a Wii U game according to the investors report. I should hope that Nintendo has a mini direct planned for shortly before or after E3 to show the rest of their line up with a few localisations that NOA has neglected up to this point, like Box Boy 2 and Picross 3D 2. For the end of a cycle there is actually a decent amount of stuff coming, but it seems like they are intentionally trying to screw themselves over with their messaging.

What should I do this year instead of E3? open to suggestions.

With all the focus they are putting on it, Zelda had better be amazing.

That was a big part of it, true, but a lot of the criticism was centered around the fact that they had nothing big to show. No matter how on point they are with the presentation, they're still showing Tokyo Mirage Sessions, a Paper Mario game that a lot of people are already angry about, and possible second or third tier Wii U releases they haven't announced yet. Is that really exciting for most people? The biggest thing it does is reiterate the fact that they've effectively abandoned the platform. There are a lot of interesting 3DS games coming out this year so from that angle it makes a bit more sense, but even if they focused on those, the story would still be how there's barely anything for the Wii U.

Really, they can do a digital presentation showing off these games whenever they want in the form of a Nintendo Direct. It doesn't have to be during E3, when they're competing with everyone else and fans have come to expect big announcements. Maybe they even do one a couple weeks before E3 like the "Direct Micro" last year (except with content on par with what we got in the March 2016 Direct), where there's less pressure.

So there's pressure to deliver at E3 so Nintendo just isn't going to really bother to avoid the pressure?  It doesn't work like that.  As long as E3 still attracts enough attention there will be expectations to deliver at it.  Nintendo just not cooperating doesn't change that.  Nintendo will be judged against Sony and MS no matter what and right now they're going to come across as only having one game... which is unflattering enough as it is but also isn't even accurate.  Maybe Nintendo is trying to make it obvious that they're doing this on purpose so everyone will know they don't actually have only one game and thus it isn't as damaging as the small actual number?  "We COULD have dozens of games but we're focusing on just one at this event."  I think that assumes that people pay too much attention to the details.  I think it will just be "hey they only have one game LOL!" and the detail of Nintendo doing this on purpose will be lost.

Sun and moon people...

I wonder how crowded Nintendo's booth will even be?  Many Nintendo fans are skipping out, so it'd only be people who couldn't cancel and diehards.

There's pressure to deliver the kinds of announcements that Nintendo has already told us they're saving for a later date. If anyone is still expecting Nintendo to "deliver" at E3 after last week's announcements, they're going to be disappointed no matter what, especially if they're comparing Nintendo's presentation to Sony unabashedly hyping up big games that are several years out from release. I just really don't see what they stand to gain by doing what is essentially a Nintendo Direct right at E3 as opposed to doing it a couple weeks earlier or later when you're further removed from everyone's big announcements.

But even if it is amazing, it can't be the only thing you show. You're either spoiling a large part of the game or you're repeating the same content ad-nauseam. You can get the same kind of reaction with a well-made trailer and a strong 20-30 minute-ish demo.

You know what would make people not angry about Paper Mario? If they ACTUALLY MADE A FUCKING RPG like the fans wanted.

People want to see more Zelda. But, a whole damn day of it? I'd rather see some Tokyo Mirage Sessions just to cleanse the palette.

Well anyone who paid attention to Nintendo's announcement that their E3 presence isn't going to be much won't expect big things at E3 but only Nintendo fans are really going to pay attention to that.  E3 attracts a more general gamer interest.  At least for me I just end up noticing announcements for consoles I don't even own because the gaming sites have headlines covering all platforms and certain things catch my eye.  For that gamer Nintendo will be largely absent.  They'll either not think of Nintendo at all or think "gee aside from Zelda I haven't seen anything for Nintendo".  But if Nintendo also shows Pokémon Sun/Moon and Paper Mario there's at least two more potential headlines and two more items that may catch someone's interest.

And while people are angry about Paper Mario I would think if Nintendo had the awareness to not show the game because of backlash they would also have the awareness to not make it like Sticker Star in the first place.  If Nintendo is scared to show a game then what commercial potential do they think that game is going to have?

I fear that if Nintendo is too absent in videogame news for too long then they won't be able to generate NX hype because people will have written them off and moved on.  Nintendo ideally wants the small Wii U userbase to also buy the NX but this Christmas that userbase will have to either go with nothing or potentially buy another console to get their gaming fix and it won't be a Nintendo console because there isn't one.  I feel like Nintendo is disappearing for 10 months or so and that could really hurt them.  Not that they can just fill the space with games that don't exist but it's just unfortunate and may be a problem.

They aren't getting a buy from me, that's for sure.

The irony is delicious. After showing merely a couple minutes of footage for the last two years, much to everyone's chagrin, they decide to dedicate an entire convention around it.

And people still bitch.

There's a middle ground between "showing nothing" and "only showing 1 thing" when it comes to conventions like this. Every hardware manufacturer seems to understand this but Nintendo. But then again, every hardware manufacturer other than Nintendo has more than 1 game to show.

I'll be curious to see how much pity coverage sites give Nintendo at E3 this year, given how just about every other publisher has a more diverse & more interesting lineup of games to show off. Plus, the games press are obsessed with VR.

Pokemon is a given. There will have coverage on it to some extent. Maybe Pokemon Gold, Silver, and Crystal on VC as well.

Zelda they are going to really need to sell me on. Because between the rumors, how it is being handled, and how Skyward Sword was, I'm not sold. At all. Not even as a die hard Zelda fan.

And something to try and justify the New 3DS.

Huh? It's an in-depth look at the new Zelda game. I'm sure plenty of sites will be giving more than just "pity coverage" to what will probably be one of the most talked about games at E3.

Yeah, especially since Nintendo is confident enough to show hours worth of gameplay for this game, which should mean they succeeded in making an open world Zelda that's filled with meaningful content.  The number one worry most had was that the world was going to be barren so if the game was going to suffer from this problem Nintendo probably wouldn't want people spending hours watching it..  The fact they're going to allow people to play this game for so many hours in what's still an unfinished game must mean they're pretty damn proud in how the game is shaping up.

Plus if the rumors are true and the game does allow players to choose genders and it has full voicework as well, it'll be months before Zelda discussions finally die down.  Just in time for when Nintendo is finally ready to reveal the NX.

Nintendo is like that cursed monkey's paw where they'll grant you your wish but in some fucked up way you don't want.

You want Zelda?!  HAVE ZELDA AND NOTHING ELSE!!! HA HA HA HA!

Put me into the camp who doesn't even care what goes on at E3 anymore. I am sure I will hear about it eventually but I stopped watching videos and reading live coverage stuff years ago. If other major companies are starting to skip out on E3 then maybe it is time to start moving away from it.

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/7/77/Homer-Donuthell.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20100621130553

supermario 2k's tag hahahahahahahahaha

Or they're showing off the huge mmo mode. What happens when you cross four swords, hyrule warriors, splatoon, and your typical mmo rpg?

I've never been a fan of mmo, but with open world talk and them somehow filling several hours it makes you wonder.

That would be terrible.

I see Zelda as largely a single player series.  Yeah there have been some multiplayer spin-offs like Four Swords but for the most part Zelda is a solitary experience.  So to me if Nintendo turned this Zelda into an MMO they might as well tell me "the new Zelda's cancelled".  It wouldn't be the Zelda experience I want anymore.  I don't have any issue with such a title as a spin-off but this upcoming Zelda has been promoted a main series Zelda game so I think it is fair for my expectations to be that it's a single player game offering a similar sense of adventure that the other "proper" Zelda games had.  Revealing a different genre after years of hype would be a cruel move.

With MMOs, I don't like how the Final Fantasy MMOs take up slots on the numbering of the main FF series.  In what universe would you assume that someone that loves the single player gameplay of the main FF series would want to play a game that requires playing with others to get their FF fix?  I suppose very extroverted people wouldn't see the difference but a single player game by it's very nature might very well attract introverts or at the very least offer something for people to play during "me time".  Reading alone and playing sports with friends are both fun activities but you wouldn't really want to outright replace one with the other.  I think the mentality of something like World or Warcraft is a better approach.  The naming convention suggests a spin-off of Warcraft, not a replacement for the main series (supposedly Blizzard is working on a new RTS Warcraft).

Nintendo can make a Zelda MMO but they should announce it well ahead of time as a Zelda MMO and not paint it as a "proper" Zelda game for years ahead of time.  Not that I assume they're doing that.  They're taking a hundred years because they're kind of befuddled by this "HD gaming" thing and they obviously delayed the damn game for the NX launch.

MMO is RPG. I've never seen an adventure game become an MMO. Zelda has some RPG elements with better shields and what not, but the majority of the items have a singular purpose...to explore. So an MMO doesn't fit the genre.

But I wouldn't put it past Nintendo considering Pokemon fans have been clamoring for it for years and they still haven't gotten around to it.

MMO just mean massively multiplayer(multiuser) online. I have seen mmo shooting games that weren't necessarily rpgs. Zelda could work as an online game. I would prefer it to be a big turf war game though, not a damn wait around for the monster to appear for 4 hours so it can drop an unusual rare item type game.

If I were to do it: Has anyone played Assassins Creed black flag? Well if anyone remembers the fortress raids, they were pretty cool. You basically in single player found this fortress, boarded from your ship, you and your pirate buddies invaded and took out all the captains. Eventually you could take on the boss of the fortress and once defeated you assumed ownership.

At that point you had control of it. There was some ability to add taverns and such, but it could have been a cooler
more expanded thing. It would be pretty cool if each fortress had an accompanying city to control. The fortress would be one part manual person defense, one part automated tower defense.

Now imagine a world where you can make a faction of 64 players broken up into teams of 4-8. Imagine if the world had like 15(not 16) big fortresses. The goal of the game would be to take control of the majority of the fortresses in the world. There may be several worlds in which you could travel between.

I'd imagine keeping character upgrading on the simple side could be done. Once you die you lose all your items and money, unless you store it somewhere. There would be armor, but your armor and swords would wear out after a while. I'd imagine I'd want to only put a few levels of armor or swords in the game.

The field would be filled with enemies, there would be dungeons for earning certain items just like in single player. Maybe dungeons reset every few hours or something? If someone has the key you need..you have to kill them to get it. Or possibly buy the key for a hefty price in the market as a loophole. Going through the dungeon could be Indiana Jones like because you're not the only one seeking a prize. There could be coin dungeons too. Or the endless hole type dungeons as well.

That sounds like a great game that isn't Zelda.

That sounds a little too radical, but they did say in the very first announcement video that their mission is to change two things about Zelda.

1. Complete Dungeons in a certain order
2. Play by yourself

For multiplayer I can see messages in bottles coming back from Wind Waker HD and a set of randomly generated dungeon that you can play in Co-op. The dungeon could design its self around the number of players and if you really wanted you could play it solo. Then perhaps the incentive for playing together is that you get increased materials.

I totally do not want to have to play Zelda multiplayer to get the proper play out of it.  To me that's as idiotic as making SSB single player.  I play games like Zelda during times when I have some time to myself to relax.  So if Nintendo is saying "you don't play by yourself" they might as way tell "I'm taking Zelda away from you".  And Nintendo wanting us to play with others is kind of idiotic then they hate things like voice chat which are necessary for online multiplayer games.

I just tend to play videogames during alone time.  When I socialize with others I usually want to go out and do something with my friends, not sit at home and play videogames with strangers online.  I understand that that's not a typical attitude since online games are very popular.  But I would say there is merit in the co-existence of online games and single player games.  But I find that it feels like single player games are being phased out, which makes no sense because it's a different experience with it's own distinct appeal.

Videogames as a concept should be constantly expanding as new ideas are introduced but it doesn't seem to do that.  Genres fall out of favour, we saw 2D games banished to handhelds for the longest time.  I look at something like Four Swords and think Zelda has expanded and Nintendo can now make both single player and multiplayer Zelda games.  But, no, for some reason multiplayer Zelda must REPLACE single player Zelda?  Why?

How would you compare playing games now as to how you played games during the n64 era?

I said mode above. I would never buy a game where it was multiplayer only, but if it had both it would be great. Or even an additional co-op play. I liked the marketing idea that Nintendo was an "and company", but of course Nintendo is a "can't get production together and can't plan too far ahead in a bubble company"

Once you beat a game, you've beaten the game. Its nice to have something to continue to play after your done. Most games multiplayer modes are totally gimped versions of the single player. Mainly because the systems have never been powerful enough to handle such a thing. I played Minecraft for a year straight. When I first got it there was no goal or end game. You just played. It had all the action adventure elements in it. Later on Mojang added more rpg features and a goal.

Actually when I played only the Minecraft single player for about 2 weeks I hadn't realized it was seeded. I didn't know the world was procedurally generated. It still felt like it was thought out. I'd go through caves, and it felt like someone had been there before, but I was actually the first one there.

procedural generation would be a nice addition to zelda. The world is not the same every time you play. The dungeons are rearranged. Nintendo has done this on a small scale in the past with animal crossing. On the other hand I do appreciate a well designed world. Maybe B quest has random worlds?

Nintendo is very talented at level design so I think if Zelda went with procedurally generated it would lose a lot of what makes it stand out as one of the very best game series.  The Zelda formula is really strong but Nintendo's own talent in dungeon design is a big reason why Zelda clones have not been able to top it.

But some games have optional procedurally generated dungeons so couldn't Zelda?  They could easily put something like that in as a sidequest or have a couple randomly generated caves here and there.  The only issue is what do you put in there?  You don't level up in Zelda and it doesn't really have loot in the traditional sense.  Perm, your suggestion about B quest might be the best way to do it.

Any online multiplayer elements would be better saved for the sequel.  Right now, the number one goal should just be to make Zelda's gameplay work in an open-world environment which is already a huge challenge for the team.  I'd rather they not be worrying how it might work with online multiplayer as well right now.  That's what they can add after finishing this game and have a better grasp on what does and doesn't work with open-world Zelda gameplay for the next one.

where is all this multiplayer talk coming from? Seriously Zelda needs to be a single player action game where the main character is a dude with a sword who dresses like an elf. The princess needs to be a blond chick locked in a dungeon held captive by a pig-wizard and the rest is irrelevant. If they really wanted to win over a new audience they need to make a side scrolling 2-D hack N slash pure dungeon crawler Zelda. No puzzles, no Triforce, no convoluted story just an elf on a quest to kill monsters, collect rupees and save the princess from a pig-wizard. Man I wish they would make a 2-D side scrolling Zelda for once.

Didn't most people hate Zelda 2?

The multiplayer talk came from "how come Nintendo is going to spend several hours discuss in new Zelda", one of the probabilities is they worked in some sort of multiplayer or online mode to show off. There could also be another Hyrule Warriors game. Then they are only half lying. Maybe a skyward sword HD game? What we know is treehouse will be several hours of Wii U zelda, this could be misleading in a number of ways.

and by your using the term side scrolling, do you mean mario/metroid perspective or topdown/isometric view? You use dungeon crawler and side scrolling in the same sentence. So its vague.