Is Nintendo unknowingly held to higher standards?

no i think the real issue with twilight princess was nintendo was dwelling to MUCH on the past, and tried to make it just like OoT. thus, it felt like it offered nothing new, so we think its slightly boring.
 
No, TP had bigger problems. Fairly linear, way too easy, crappy story, tacked on ending, bland dungeons, not enough use of most items, the wolf form sucked, Midna was very unhelpful, AI sucked, you got new combat, enemies didn't, fighting was simplistic with or without Hidden Skills, and plenty more.
 
Hinesmdc said:
no i think the real issue with twilight princess was nintendo was dwelling to MUCH on the past, and tried to make it just like OoT. thus, it felt like it offered nothing new, so we think its slightly boring.
Click to expand...

True, but I feel that at least some of the blame for that should be on how Wind Waker was received. When WW came out there was so much fuss about it being different that maybe Nintendo thought it would be better to make an OoT clone instead.

I guess they should just learn that you can never please a Nintendo fan. :lol
 
Wind Waker was worshiped post-release, it got killed for the graphics beforehand, then everyone was like, "Wow, this game kicks butt."
 
Mai Valentine said:
No, I think the point I was trying to originally make is that even though current Nintendo games are still good, Nintendo fans find them lacking because they are comparing them with past games.

Is Twilight Princess really that bad of a game? I doubt it, but for many people it just did not live up to OoT. People who haven't played a Zelda game before are probably enjoying it more because they are not comparing it with past Zelda games. Same thing with Super Mario Sunshine. People who played SM64 didn't like SMS because it wasn't SM64. But imagine someone who had never played SM64 and might have liked SMS.

The point I was trying to make is that even though most Nintendo franchise games are technically good games (they score well with critics) Nintendo fans and gamers in general don't hold them in as high regard because the newer games don't compare to older games in the same franchise. Thus, higher standards. Nintendo fans go into it expecting a game that is 10x times better then the game before it, and when it doesn't do that, even if it's a great game, it is not seen as being as good.
Click to expand...
Right on Mai.  I agree 100%.
 
Ugh, I feel like a broken record, so I'll sufficiently beat this dead horse one last time.
Is Twilight Princess really that bad of a game? I doubt it, but for many people it just did not live up to OoT. People who haven't played a Zelda game before are probably enjoying it more because they are not comparing it with past Zelda games. Same thing with Super Mario Sunshine. People who played SM64 didn't like SMS because it wasn't SM64. But imagine someone who had never played SM64 and might have liked SMS.
Click to expand...

I played SMB1 before I played SMB3, and I liked SMB3 better. I then played SM64 and that became my favorite. I then played SMS, and didn't find it as compelling a game as SM64 or SMB3. Many Nintendo fans out there would share the exact same experiences and opinions I have just listed. Nintendo fans have compared new installments of a franchise to old ones for 20 years! And it has only been in the last 5 or so that by and large people have been disappointed with Nintendo sequels. You don't hear people complain about Starfox 64 being too alike or too different from Starfox on the SNES because it was a good sequel. It took the fun and familiar elements of the original game and built upon those. It didn't try to re-invent the wheel, nor was it satisfied with being a mere graphical upgrade. This is an example of a good Nintendo sequel.

Take a look at the Metroid series. There was a lot of pressure on Retro Studios to churn out a Metroid game that was true to the original, and their task was made all the more difficult by taking a side scrolling game and making it an FPS. However, the change in fundamental gameplay did not matter because all the core elements of the Metroid franchise remained (exploration, upgrades, platforming, etc.). This is a perfect example of how a game in a series can be radically changed for the better, and still please the fans of previous titles.

People are losing faith in the Zelda franchise because the franchise itself is failing. People have had high expectations for every installment in the franchise since the original. Many thought that A Link to the Past would never be topped, but OOT came out and blew everyone away, critics and fans alike. There's no reason to expect the next Zelda game to be so-so just because the last one was really good.

In what backwards world are we supposed to lower our expectations of a game to the point where it exceeds them? It would be like ordering a Big Mac at MacDonald's and then not being disappointed if they didn't give you a hamburger patty. Of course you should be disappointed that the bun and ketchup alone didn't meet your expectations, you bought the Big Mac specifically because you expected it to come with a patty! And why shouldn't it? Every Big Mac you ordered in the past did! If MacDonald's only wanted to sell buns with ketchup then they shouldn't call them Big Macs. If MacDonald's wants to change the Big Mac then taking out the patty and leaving the bun is not a step in the right direction. Rather they could use fresher ingredients, add another layer, drop the price, etc. In essence, they need to keep the core elements of the Big Mac in tact, and improve the elements of Big Mac that most people want improved.

The point is simply that gamers are not at fault for expecting a Zelda title to contain certain things. They are not at fault for being disappointed when new Zelda games fail to provide these things. Nintendo is not alone in bearing the burden of expectations. Konami, EA, Insomniac, Rockstar, Bungie... the list goes on and on... all of these developers have franchises that bring with them high expectations, the only difference is they have delivered on these expectations for the passed 5 years. Nintendo, while they delivered for a good 15 years or so, has dropped the ball in the last 5. There's not something wrong with gamers in general, they buy and praise game sequels with high expectations on a monthly basis, the problem lies with the Big N. People just need to stop making excuses for lackluster Nintendo entertainment.
 
That's true stealth.

Also, I wanted to point out that what you quoted me on is what I meant when I originally posted the topic, but it's not what I feel now. I agree that Nintendo has been dropping the ball on the Zelda series and the Mario series (although it looks like Super Mario Galaxy might remedy that).

But in some cases (not just for Nintendo) people go into games expecting a 10/10 game, and when it doesn't meet that (maybe its a 9.5/10 kind of game) then it somehow fails. I don't agree with that kind of thinking regardless of who made the game. No game is ever going to be perfect.
 
well i always say that ocarina was really good because it was innovative.... my first 3D zelda was majora's instead of ocarina. it took me a month to finish majora's at 100%, however it took me just a week to finish ocarina. i was not as suprised like everybody. sure ocarina is one of the best zelda games (i agree), but if someone that has never played ocarina, however played twiliight princess recently (and i know this happens) they are not gonna be that amazed by ocarina.

is kind of when someone plays halo 3 before 2 or (my case) i thought 3 is better than 2 . people just get blind by the old games as mai said.

in other words another ocarina, even if nintendo tryes very very hard.... IS NOT GONNA HAPPEN
 
It's not the games that drop the ball in most cases. Everyone just has the expectations that the next game should surpass the most revolutionary one, when clearly, the old one is so good because it was new, not like now. It just won't happen. It doesn't matter how well designed a game is, it's always 'inferior' to the revolutionary one. Look at Metroid Prime and Halo. The ranking of each game in both series is lower than the previous, yet in most of the 3 reviews, it says it's the best of the three. But one thing kept it from being higher. It'd been done before.
 
fhqwhgads said:
It's not the games that drop the ball in most cases. Everyone just has the expectations that the next game should surpass the most revolutionary one, when clearly, the old one is so good because it was new, not like now. It just won't happen. It doesn't matter how well designed a game is, it's always 'inferior' to the revolutionary one. Look at Metroid Prime and Halo. The ranking of each game in both series is lower than the previous, yet in most of the 3 reviews, it says it's the best of the three. But one thing kept it from being higher. It'd been done before.
Click to expand...

excellent point, my friend, excellent. another example i would like to use is RE4:WE. although ign says it is absolutely, hands down the best version of the game, it got the lowest scores out of all of the versions (save the PC one, of course)

they simply said it "came out at the wrong time"

this brings up another excellent point. maybe this tells us something about the review system. Maybe we are overlooking, therefore not playing, some excellent games due to low scores simply because they "came out at the wrong time"
 
We need to look at games as games, see how they better the last(as a port) or improve on generations of trial and error(in series).
 
Isn't that sort of the point though? Of course someone who plays Twilight Princess before they play ALTTP is going to think Twilight Princess is better. But it's not a fair comparison. By that logic I could come out with a game exactly like the original super mario bros., put it on the 360, and if anyone didn't like it I could simply say that's only because they're comparing it to other games. With that logic you could say every game is a perfect 10/10 because it's a completely unique and original experience like nothing else, provided you've never played a videogame before.

I think the context and time period should be considered when reviewing a game. Scratch that, has to be considered when reviewing a game. Otherwise every review and opinion is meaningless, because there's no standard at all to which the game can be compared.
 
stealth toilet said:
I think the context and time period should be considered when reviewing a game. Scratch that, has to be considered when reviewing a game. Otherwise every review and opinion is meaningless, because there's no standard at all to which the game can be compared.
Click to expand...

a review is to show gamers if the game is good or crap. not to compare it with other good games, or a standart.
if i was a reviewer, i would state the good things and the bad things of a game. not compare it with another game. is kind of what IGN is doing, reviewing old games(virtual console), they give them good scores if they are good.
 
stealth toilet said:
Isn't that sort of the point though? Of course someone who plays Twilight Princess before they play ALTTP is going to think Twilight Princess is better. But it's not a fair comparison. By that logic I could come out with a game exactly like the original super mario bros., put it on the 360, and if anyone didn't like it I could simply say that's only because they're comparing it to other games. With that logic you could say every game is a perfect 10/10 because it's a completely unique and original experience like nothing else, provided you've never played a videogame before.

I think the context and time period should be considered when reviewing a game. Scratch that, has to be considered when reviewing a game. Otherwise every review and opinion is meaningless, because there's no standard at all to which the game can be compared.
Click to expand...
You totally missed the point. I said games should be rated as stand alones, not instant tens since you aren't comparing. Since when do games not have flaws if you're not comparing? Flaws don't mean things others have done better, they mean problems in said game.
 
Um, no, not really. A game should be rated on how well it does something, not how well it stands up against something. Any game can do this. You don't have to compare anything. Graphics? Rate on if they fit the style of the game. Gameplay? See how solid it is, how good the controls are, how balanced. Music? How good does it sound and if the tracks fit the mood. It keeps going. You don't need to compare anything to anything.
 
fhqwhgads said:
Um, no, not really. A game should be rated on how well it does something, not how well it stands up against something. Any game can do this. You don't have to compare anything. Graphics? Rate on if they fit the style of the game. Gameplay? See how solid it is, how good the controls are, how balanced. Music? How good does it sound and if the tracks fit the mood. It keeps going. You don't need to compare anything to anything.
Click to expand...

you forgot an important fact... how long the games keeps being fun wich is now my issue with bleach... i returned it a day before because i got bored.
 
Ever since Nintendo fell from the top spot with the N64 they've had less 3rd party support. With fewer titles to chose from a lot of folks end up getting a Nintendo console simply for the franchise titles. Too much focus on the next Mario, Zelda, etc., may create unrealistically high expectations for each new franchise release.
 
FrakAttack said:
Ever since Nintendo fell from the top spot with the N64 they've had less 3rd party support. With fewer titles to chose from a lot of folks end up getting a Nintendo console simply for the franchise titles. Too much focus on the next Mario, Zelda, etc., may create unrealistically high expectations for each new franchise release.
Click to expand...
But the Wii is a giant third party magnet.
 
FrakAttack said:
Ever since Nintendo fell from the top spot with the N64 they've had less 3rd party support. With fewer titles to chose from a lot of folks end up getting a Nintendo console simply for the franchise titles. Too much focus on the next Mario, Zelda, etc., may create unrealistically high expectations for each new franchise release.
Click to expand...

You know, that's a very good point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top