Ending of an Era

[NoName]

Eurogamer has a short article (http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=60754) up quoting a radio interview with Miyamoto about the upcoming Zelda.

This will be, without a doubt, the last Zelda game as you know it in its present form...
I worked on it personally, more so than Wind Waker. I haven't invested as much into any game as I have this one
In addition to this Miyamoto talks about how "Mario 128" has played a large role in the Revolution's conception.

I wonder what the future of Zelda is. How will the Revolution change it so much that this is the last Zelda as we know it?

[Rirath]

Sounds like a great idea. Take a widely successful formula, one that everyone is waiting for, and do away with it. Swell.

[thecrazyd]

Sounds like a great idea. Take a widely successful formula, one that everyone is waiting for, and do away with it. Swell.
Oh, so you want them to make the same fucking game over and over? I wouldn't mind an evolution.

[Orphiuchus]

If they could make games on the level of ocarena of time over and over I'd be fucking game.

All good things must end, but cutting off something so damned good is nothing but stupid.

[thecrazyd]

Oh, and was it stupid going from Link to the Past to Ocarina of time?

[TrackZero]

Exactly. He said Zelda in it's present form, not ZELDA itself. Sheesh. This is, IMHO a good thing, it's time for the next Zelda changeup. I want to know how the Revolution is going to change gameplay.

[Orphiuchus]

Every zelda since the origonal legend of zelda has had the same general setup. Graphics have improved, more interaction has been added, but the whole time its been the same thing at its core.

[thecrazyd]

Bullshit. Zelda 2 was side scrolling. LttP was top down. OoT was full 3d. They are not the same at all. They play totally differently.

[Chandler]

I think Orphiuchus is just upset because Wind Waker was total ass.

Agree right :)?

[thecrazyd]

Now you are trolling. Wind Waker was awesome.

[KamaItachi]

This could be a very good thing indeed. Capcom did a good job re-inventing RE after the premise started to get stale, but that was only after half a dozen or so titles.

However, Zelda has been a long-loved franchise (almost 20 years?) and messing with it will doubtless upset the fans but if Nintendo are willing to take a chance and try something new, more power to them.

[if76]

The original NES zelda is nothing like Ocarina of Time. The fight system in Ocarina, Windwaker, and the new one is antiquated compared to games like God of War and it's about time for a change.

I'd like to see a return to the old Zelda. I want a big SEAMLESS world that I can explore on my own without being interrupted by cutscenes. I want a true feeling of adventure. I hope this is what the revolution will bring.

[Opty]

No one's ever satisfied when it comes to Nintendo:
Nintendo: "Let's change up what we're doing."
Internet: "NO! Keep doing what you're doing! If you change it'll suck!"

Conversely:
Nintendo: "Let's keep doing what we're doing."
Internet: "And release Mario Party fifty-billion? Another Mario game? Ha, Nintendo sucks!"

[thecrazyd]

Welcome to the Internet, Opty!

[fushi]

Just so you know, this was (probably) based on an English translation of a French translation of a Japanese radio show, so...

( here's the original in French (http://salon.p-nintendo.com/news/N-1064063874.html) )

[bardockkun]

Now you are trolling. Wind Waker was awesome.
I agree, even with endless complaints about sailing and the look of it, it was very well done. As for the next Zelda game, i don't know how they can top the Z-targeting done by Orcania of Time seen in nearly every game (it's hard to imagine games before they had that) interms of creating something every game has to follow by. So hard to see how much further it can all go gameplay wise, though im sure all the more reason we have to buy into the hype of the Revolution. Damn you Nintendo! Bad enough you had me at a new Super Smash Bros!

[thecrazyd]

Sailing and the look were the best things about WW!

[Achilles]

Sounds like a good idea to me. They’ll have to re-think their game anyway because times have changed and because the Revolution’s controller, whatever it is, will probably result in a bit different gameplay. I’m still looking forward to Twilight Princess (a game with an unfortunate acronym). Mario World was great and it was technically the last Mario game of its type as well.

[Zeal]

Nintendo has realized that it will either evolve or become extinct.

[Player 1]

Smoke and mirrors boys, smoke and mirrors.

It's the Nintendo specula-tron running into overdrive.

Nintendo do this with every goddamn product they can - if they can't plonk Mario in it they'll roll Miyamoto out to say he's had personal time with the product and that it's "very special" and "won't be what you're expecting" and other ambiguous claptrap.

After that, they just lean back and watch the fanboys do all their marketing for them - witness 50 billion forum threads to the tune of "Wot will nu Zleda be like after Twiglet Pincess??!!?" for the next 6 years.

Oh, and I seriously don't expect Nintendo to change their formula now.. ..they haven't for the last 20 years.

I've played through all the Zelda games and, to my critical eye, they're all the same. They all feature the same mechanics as the last one. Pushing blocks onto switches and all that malarky (remember the teaser trailer for Twilight Princess the other year? I was amazed - until I saw a glimpse of Link dragging a block onto a switch. After that I knew it was going to be just like all the rest). OK Miyamoto, if Zelda is going to change 'as we know it' then I don't want to see any more switch pressing or block pushing in future episodes.

Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen, do you?

As for Windwaker - place some generic no-name character in it and you see the average game for what it is. Slap Zelda's name onto it and the crowd goes wild.

Don't believe the hype.

[Morrolan]

I love the rationalization, here. If you are in favor of something, you're an enlightened soul who has risen above the base instincts of internet forum-going. If you're against something, you're a mindless troll/drone caught up in the fashionable hating so common online.

Give me a break. As it happens, I'll wait to see what the Revolution is before I make a call on this one. Changing it isn't necessarily bad. However, I'm not sure why they feel the need to change it. If they want to make different types of games, nothing is stopping them from doing so without using the Zelda name. If people continue to love Zelda games in their current form, why not *GASP* actually come up with an original game premise, rather than sticking with the same things over and over. Hell, you can even slap Mario in there, if you want.

I don't care if these 'new' Zeldas are the greatest games ever made. I hope they are. But either way, I'll still miss the current-style Zelda games.

[Achilles]

Nintendo do this with every goddamn product they can - if they can't plonk Mario in it they'll roll Miyamoto out to say he's had personal time with the product and that it's "very special" and "won't be what you're expecting" and other ambiguous claptrap.

After that, they just lean back and watch the fanboys do all their marketing for them - witness 50 billion forum threads to the tune of "Wot will nu Zleda be like after Twiglet Pincess??!!?" for the next 6 years.
This reminds me. The only time that I said anything "won't be what you expect" was when I was talking on here about Sudeki before it was released. If anyone remembers that I never explained what I meant. I meant that people probably wouldn't expect that you could play through the entire thing as a first person shooter. So what you don't expect might not always be good.

But still, Nintendo's a hard one to pin down. They make a certain kind of game that most other people don't, and they might as well keep making those kind of games in my opinion. I've got problems with certain things they do with their franchises, or don't do, but whatever. I'm still interested in Twilight Princess, it's what I was hoping Wind Waker would be and I'm glad it's getting all the attention and dev time that it needs.
*puts on ill fitting Nintendo Fanboy hat.

[Nintendo Revolution]

I'm actually suprised that Miyamoto is working more with TP than WW. He's not even the director this time.

And as for change in the series goes: The Legend of Zelda is a series that is constantly changing, so I'm sure that whatever lies ahead will be just fine and do justice, so long as the right dedicated minds are developing it and that Shigeru Miyamoto is still existant in working with it.

[Fonz]

I guarentee you all its going to be is some dumb peripheral your going to need to pay for to play future zelda titles, something liek a sword controller, Japanese nintendo PR guy: " INNOVATION!"

[Chagrinful]

Anyone shitting on Wind Waker might have not seen the incredible awe inspiring Master Sword retrival sequence, it was simply brilliant. Wind Waker has the entire "feel" of the old school ass kicking zelda to the tee, its pretty damned amazing.

[KDups]

Well I guess some people are cranky that summer vacation is over...

[Rangoth]

I take Nintendo at their word when they say that the whole Z targeting system is gone. I for one applaud them for it. Yeah, its pretty damn cool but that does not mean that they can't find something better. Or maybe they won't, who knows. Atleast they are not afraid to try! How many companies these days have those kind of balls? Come on! When is the last time an EA, Sony, Valve, Rockstar or other large company said 'Hey, we are going to take our successful franchise and make a radical change because we feel that, while this is really good, innovation is our main goal.' Rockstar says its all about gameplay, lets see them add some RPG elements to the next GTA game. Yeah, Nintendo may do some weird shit(Virtual Boy anyone?)and make some choices that make you wonder what exactly they are smoking sometimes (Nintendog's...who woulda thunk?) but if you do the cojones check of the 'Big 3' I'll but money down that Nintedo has a big brass set the size of Alaska.

[Player 1]

When is the last time an EA, Sony, Valve, Rockstar or other large company said 'Hey, we are going to take our successful franchise and make a radical change because we feel that, while this is really good, innovation is our main goal.'

*Lord of the Rings tactics?

*Saving Katamary Damaci from missing Europe entirely? (slightly off topic, but worth reminding to those who have difficultly applying logic wherever the letters E and A are mentioned)

*If you look at the PRODUCT instead of the LABEL you'll see EA make changes to their sports games every year - not always sucessfully, but they do make a change. Which is more than I can say for Nintendo who prefer to re-release the identical product repeatedly.

*Squaresoft make a big change with traditional RPG components in every Final Fantasy iteration. (Doing away with winning gold from battles in 8 for example)

Rockstar says its all about gameplay, lets see them add some RPG elements to the next GTA game.

I don't know about you, but I see plenty of RPG elements in GTA: SA. Getting better at a skill through constant use and developing your character's overall abilities like strength are pivotal RPG elements. Just because there's no Elves in green hats in GTA doesn't mean there's no RPG elements. :p

Yeah, Nintendo may do some weird shit(Virtual Boy anyone?)and make some choices that make you wonder what exactly they are smoking sometimes (Nintendog's...who woulda thunk?)

Which is a copy of a 20 year old Activision 'game' called Little Computer
People. (And let's not even mention Dogz shall we?)

but if you do the cojones check of the 'Big 3' I'll but money down that Nintedo has a big brass set the size of Alaska.

Words cannot express how strongly I disagree with that statement.

[Rangoth]

Square knows that any RPG they release with the FF name will sell eighty-four quadrillion copies because the Square fanboys will buy them. I am not saying anyone is one but at this one there are a crapton of them all over the multiverse who blindly buy because it says Square and we all know its true.

As far as EA and their sports games, I am not even going to debate sports products. Due to the development cycle it is unfair to compare this to the development of games in other genre's.

Nintendog's is not a copy of any Activision game. The concept comes originally from an idea of creating a simulation on the DS of having a virtual parrot on the DS. Little Computer People had nothing to do with it. If you wish, I can point you to the RESEARCH of which I speak.

I would love to have you attempt to express in words how strongly you disagree with my statement. :) After all, the Greek's did always says Rhetoric is the highest art one can aspire to is it not?

[Rirath]

I want to know how the Revolution is going to change gameplay.

I'm guessing they'll get rid of the tried and true gameplay and add a gimmick.

"It's KIRBY, but not the platformer you all enjoyed. You'll use a TILT SENSOR to roll around!" (GBC)
"Oh, it's KIRBY... but not that platformer we sold so many of. No... you'll use a STYLUS and draw RAINBOWS!" (NDS)

What made the GBA work for me is they gave us classic games, in classic formula, without screwing around with it.
(Note: I enjoyed Kirby Canvas. Give me the platformers any day, however.)

[Zeal]

I find it interesting that Miyamoto described the game as "melancholic". Zelda II took place in a post-apocalyptic Hyrule and it's actually one of the best, in my opinion.

The Zelda franchise needs to become darker, deeper, more mature...It has a lot of potential to become more than what it is.

Could you imagine a Lord of the Rings/Kingdom of Heaven type Zelda film? I could.

By the way, this is a technical question for Zelda fans:

Zelda II's story actually places it as the most current, final Zelda game in terms of the timeline, correct? What's the order?

1. Ocarina of Time
2. Majora's Mask
3. Link to the Past
4. Wind Waker
5. Legend of Zelda
5. Zelda II: The Adventure of Link

[Rirath]

To the folks saying Nintendo is screwed either way... not true. Nintendo milks their characters like cash cows, see for example every game staring Mario not related to the main series, but nobody is asking them to do away with the Mario 64's or the Star Fox's or their evolutions. We (people like me) simply ask them to quit making games like Star Fox Adventures and Star Fox Assault instead.

Mario 1 -> Mario 3 -> Mario World -> Mario 64 = Evolution
Metroid -> Super Metroid -> Metroid Prime = Evolution.

Sadly, Nintendo is claiming a "Revolution" rather than an "Evolution". Some of us still like playing the old style games. See New Super Mario Bros, Castlevania: DOS, and Minnish Cap. Hence my dismay at its 'death'.

(Zelda's timeline is disputed and can be most easily found via Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_of_Zelda_series#Chronology)

[president_fred]

I think what zelda needs is a fuckton of extreme alternative rock and I want link to wear black and carry a gun and have magic abilities linked with darkness. Darkness of extreme.

[Achilles]

I think what zelda needs is a fuckton of extreme alternative rock and I want link to wear black and carry a gun and have magic abilities linked with darkness. Darkness of extreme.Jak 2?

Seriously though I think they could mature the storyline without poisoning the game with that kind of crap. Game of Thrones is a pretty mature book but it does it without containing Rock music, nor a an angsty teen infused with dark energy. I don't know why people always think of Xtreme when ever someone talks about making a storyline more mature. Xtreme blood and gore isn't mature, it's immature teen schlock.

[Zeal]

It's because most Nintendo fans are afraid of growing up. They live in Neverland.

What's funny is that it's actually considered a real pseudo-physiological disorder known as "Peter Pan Syndrome". Look it up.

[Player 1]

Square knows that any RPG they release with the FF name will sell eighty-four quadrillion copies because the Square fanboys will buy them. I am not saying anyone is one but at this one there are a crapton of them all over the multiverse who blindly buy because it says Square and we all know its true.

Awesome! How you can apply that logic to a game series in a topic ABOUT Zelda whilst not giving any credence to the fact that that this mentality is used by Nintendo for every Zelda game since the first one is breathtaking.

So, let's get this right. You're suggesting that Nintendo are brave and daring by hinting at the fact that future Zeldas may be different in some way and are in no way capitalising on the fact that you could sell a bottle of air with the word ZELDA LIMITED EDITION for a million bucks and they'd still fly off the shelves?

Whereas Squaresoft have actually already taken the risks with their most valuable IP but, as far as you're concerned, that's irrelevant.

As far as EA and their sports games, I am not even going to debate sports products. Due to the development cycle it is unfair to compare this to the development of games in other genre's.

Not even going to debate? How magnanimous of you. And since when did Evil Avatar ever bother about FAIRNESS when reporting matters relating to Electronic Arts. Show me, please!

You asked for examples, I gave you examples, you just waved your hand and dismissed all of them with the flimsiest of reasons.


Nintendog's is not a copy of any Activision game. The concept comes originally from an idea of creating a simulation on the DS of having a virtual parrot on the DS. Little Computer People had nothing to do with it. If you wish, I can point you to the RESEARCH of which I speak.

I'm not concerned with your apparent proof. All I know is that I see Nintendogs and people screaming "LOOK! NINTENDO INNOVATION!!!!1" and all I know is that I've seen it all before. That, to me, isn't innovation. Just because other's havent seen it before doesn't disprove it's not original - it just proves that they don't have an anally retentive memory like some gamers.

I would love to have you attempt to express in words how strongly you disagree with my statement.

Based on how keen you are to dismiss logic and objective thinking I really can't be bothered to make the effort. If you want to debate what I say then be my guest. If, on the other hand, you just want to shoot down what I say without addressing the points I've actually made then go ahead - just don't expect me to consider that a mature debate.

I'm not an EA fanboy or a Nintendo hater - but there's an incredible bias of attitude towards the latter and against the former. I'm a gamer, an ex games producer and a freelance games journalist and I follow the industry and culture pretty closely. I'm no authority but I know bias and narrow-mindedness when I see it.

[deathfan]

on the dogz game and the other one you are shitting on about, you can't even compare that crap, then you could say it's a rip off of tamagotchi. The level and depth in nintendogs is so different to DOGZ. dogz was a dog on the screen and you brush it and play with it and it runs around your desktop. you couldn't teach it tricks etc, build it up and let it interact with other dogs to the level you can in nintendogs. the difference is that nintendo now has the ability to develop on a past concept and make it more involving, stimulating and prettier. And adding more depth to the whole package. so fuck you.

thats like some idiot saying playstation is a rip off of atari. because like atari had a console so long ago. you're a fucking moron, and don't even dispute it.

OMGHAXXORKTHNXBYE

[deathfan]

On a side note, I am looking more forward to this new zelda than any game before. Miyamoto san didnt even need to say anything and I would still be wetting my pants because I am nintendos bitch and i buy what they say.

When I first played ocarina of time I was so blown away because I had never played anything like it. I was always a PC gamer and useda play stupid shit like FPS etc. I'm heavily into fantasy novels and this game just put me right into one and it was a beautiful experience. Now I'm a little older and (maybe) slightly more mature so a darker more mature zelda really gets my dick hard. Even though OOT had plenty of underlying evil and darkness and even sexual innuendo. Zelda is master of not so cleverly described sexual innuendo.

No other game has ever been able to suck me in to the adventure as much as the legend of zelda, and no other game made me take days off school to run around rolling into trees with a fairy tryna get gold skulltulas.

The only sad part is that maybe by the time this comes out not enough people will care having probably got their xbox's and ps3's.

[Player 1]

on the dogz game and the other one you are shitting on about, you can't even compare that crap, then you could say it's a rip off of tamagotchi. The level and depth in nintendogs is so different to DOGZ. dogz was a dog on the screen and you brush it and play with it and it runs around your desktop. you couldn't teach it tricks etc, build it up and let it interact with other dogs to the level you can in nintendogs. the difference is that nintendo now has the ability to develop on a past concept and make it more involving, stimulating and prettier. And adding more depth to the whole package. so fuck you.

Interpretation:

"I don't know what other thing you're talking about so I'm going to throw insults at you and accuse you of being wrong"

I like your sig. :rolleyes:

[fushi]

Edit: ^^^^ Well, look past his dumb insults and you'll see that, strangely enough, he has a point. ^^^^

Yet another asinine discussion around the word 'innovation' :)
Which is a copy of a 20 year old Activision 'game' called Little Computer People. (And let's not even mention Dogz shall we?)
A very good example, but calling Nintendogs a copy is stretching it, to say the least.

Nintendo rarely innovates, but they flesh out ideas fer better than any other company. Nintendogs isn't just a copy of Catz/Dogz, even if you somehow manage to see likenesses in the very basics of the concept (which, to be really honest, isn't such a revolutionary idea that it should be tied down to a single product), it has a lot of neat little ideas, touches, etcetera put into it that make it much more enjoyable than other games of it's kind.

It's the so-called Nintendo magic, you know.

[bapenguin]

Change is good.

[Player 1]

Yes, the definition of 'Innovation' these days does rather seem influenced by whether you're a true blue Nintendo believer or not. If you handn't guessed, I'm not.

Innovation, to me, is not embellishing somebody else's idea with bells and whistles. I apply the same logic whenever I see a new product by Blizzard. They have a huge and loyal fanbase but when you look at their output objectively you realise that their entire reputation is based on taking someone else's idea and spending three years shining so bright that most people are blinded by it. The Warcraft games are not innovative - they're very shiny copies of Dune 2.

Nintendogs is not innovative, it's a very shiny copy of other products such as LCP, Creatures, Dogz and, as my esteemed colleague pointed out, Tamagotchi.

Do not let the pretty graphics and hype confuse you - this product is a derivative of all those I just mentioned as much as those old games are derivatives based on the original innovative concept of artificial intelligence.

Poking Fifi in the balls with your stylus (once again, not original as many Pocket PC and Tablet owners will testify) is just a novel, gimmicky way of doing something old hat.

But, if you're inclined to 'feel that Nintendo magic' and consider yourself a friend of 'Shigsy' then you're going to swallow the spiel hook, line and sinker. Hell, you'll probably buy the game three times over just so you can have the complete experience.

What's most telling is that EA aided Will Wright in doing the same thing about 6 years ago and the result was The Sims. Currently the most succesful PC game ever. What is it? It's a virtual pet game. Who's funded it's entire development and published it? EA.

I wonder what you all think of The Sims compared to Nintendogs? And before you bleat about 'all those addon packs' - don't forget that EA only launched one flavour of The Sims. They didn't have the bare-faced cheek to launch the same game three times in one day.

The fact of the matter is gamers are astoundingly biased when they hear the words Nintendo or EA. Evil Avatar shows this mentality loud and clear. Gamers also consider themselves to be experts on the industry just because they spend 50 hours on a product that's taken 4 years to produce. Ask them for examples and explanations of what an NDAs, TDDs or TRCs are and the confidence disappears.

Gamers, as a general rule, rarely look at the broader picture, consider themselves to represent the majority demographic (any sales chart should show you whether your buying choices represent the majority or not) and simply can't see how much the industry manipulates them.

Next time gamers check up on their Zelda Timeline on Wikipedia or want to tell me about that 'Nintendo Magic' they should also check out that old fable called "The Emperor's New Clothes".

Now that's something I *can* believe in.

[Rirath]

Next time gamers check up on their Zelda Timeline on Wikipedia

I'm sorry... what? How the heck did I get in this? :confused:
I simply enjoy looking something factual up over guessing.

[Nessus]

Yeah. Nintendo doesn't innovate. Not like z-targeting revolutionized 3rd person games.

Not like Mario 64 provided the foundation for 3d platformers.

Yes they've been idle this generation, but they've only released ONE Mario game and ONE Zelda game since. And both of those have featured at least as much variation as one EA or Final Fantasy game to the next.

If Twilight Princess in the end proves derrivative then maybe your argument would have weight, but so far I don't think it's fair to say that.

And yeah, I like the kinds of games Nintendo makes, I prefer them even to the kinds of games most other comapnies make. I also own an Xbox and PS2 and love Riddick and Devil May Cry.

Enjoying a game like Kirby: Canvas Curse (and god is that game fun) does NOT fucking perclude enjoying "teh mature" games.

[Player 1]

Yeah. Nintendo doesn't innovate. Not like z-targeting revolutionized 3rd person games.

Funny, I recall playing games with 'lock on' in 3rd person targetting years before Nintendo bastardized it and named it after a button on their own control pad. You have to admire Nintendo's sheer levels of arrogance.

Not like Mario 64 provided the foundation for 3d platformers.
Certainly not. As factual history recalls and as quality, impartial gaming websites like Next Generation online document, that honour goes to PlayStation 1's Jumping Flash series of games. Still, never let little things like facts get in the way of a good dose of gamer bias eh? ;)

Yes they've been idle this generation, but they've only released ONE Mario game and ONE Zelda game since. And both of those have featured at least as much variation as one EA or Final Fantasy game to the next.

Oh well, if we're going insist on judging company on it's PAST rather than PRESENT output then you'll be hard pushed to beat EA when they pumped out genre-defining legends such as M.U.L.E. and the seminal Wasteland to name but two.

If you want to delve into history, go ahead - but look before you leap.

If Twilight Princess in the end proves derrivative then maybe your argument would have weight, but so far I don't think it's fair to say that.

Based on the block-pushing gameplay I've already witnessed I'm not expecting anything wildly different from this version. Just like all the last. Other people have made extremely good points about why Nintendo shouldn't fix the unbroken Zelda formula - if they've got such great new ideas then surely they're strong enough to support a game without latching IP onto it.

And yeah, I like the kinds of games Nintendo makes, I prefer them even to the kinds of games most other comapnies make. I also own an Xbox and PS2 and love Riddick and Devil May Cry.

I like the kind of games Nintendo make too. I just see them for what they are. This aura of any new Zelda being the equivalent of the return of some Messiah that we should all bow down and worship doesn't wash for me. It's a game in a box. Just because the box has the word "Nintendo" or "EA" on it doesn't automatically make it good or bad. Amazing but true.

[Blade]

Wind Waker was awesome. Too bad that EAD didn't properly finish it.

[Heretic Machine]

You know, I really hope he didn't just say that Twilight Princess is an OoT/WW clone... Because I couldn't finish WW, it was far too boreing after completing OoT two or three times. New games need new gameplay.

[AversionFX]

The next Zelda game had better be a tactical-strategy game!

[Dragos]

dogz was a dog on the screen and you brush it and play with it and it runs around your desktop. you couldn't teach it tricks etc, build it up and let it interact with other dogs to the level you can in nintendogs.


So... You haven't played a Dogz game past 1? You could most definatly teach your dogs tricks... with a mic that came with the game even, but dont let that bother you, it's not like the games had a heavy interaction system that even included breeding and playing with Cats from the Catz series.... Oh wait. :rolleyes:

[Cubfan]

Wind Waker was a beautiful, sufficiently enjoyable game, marred by a lack of difficulty, and a blatant lengthening of the game via an unnecssary fetch quest. As a Zelda game it was subpar. More dungeons, more real gameplay this time, please. Thanks.

[SaintArnold]

I'm actually suprised that Miyamoto is working more with TP than WW. He's not even the director this time.

And as for change in the series goes: The Legend of Zelda is a series that is constantly changing, so I'm sure that whatever lies ahead will be just fine and do justice, so long as the right dedicated minds are developing it and that Shigeru Miyamoto is still existant in working with it.

Miyamoto wasn't the director of Majora's Mask or Wind Waker either, both were directed by Aonuma (sp?).

[Abednigo]

This will be a good thing. As much as I love Zelda, I really do get tired of feeling like I'm playing the same game with just more polish, better graphics and a slightly different story. But there will ALWAYS be series staples. Much to someone's obvious dislike (I don't remember who), pushing blocks onto switches is a series trademark. Like statues with laser eyes, one way doors, etc. The series can be dramatically different but still contain those things. Like the weapons. They may introduce new ones, but some have been the backbone of the series. Like the boomerang. These things make it a Zelda game.

In the same way that they will NEED to change Metroid up a little after the Prime series is done (which I think is the idea). If they keep making the same type of Metroid game, it will get old and stale no matter how amazing the game is (and they are amazing). People always fear change, but it's a good thing.

I just can't wait until they finally unveil the Revolution, it's controller, and the launch games. I have a feeling that what they showed at E3 isn't what it's going to look like at all.

[Pumped'Up]

You GC owners (and Zelda fans) should be ever so lucky to get not only 1 Zelda title but 2! on the GameCube. The superior grand father system, SNES, got only 1 frickn Zelda title!..yes, the best of the series even to this day, but I wished every night that there was another at the time.

Although I don't have a GC, I'm looking forward to this release.

[bardockkun]

You GC owners (and Zelda fans) should be ever so lucky to get not only 1 Zelda title but 2! on the GameCube. The superior grand father system, SNES, got only 1 frickn Zelda title!..yes, the best of the series even to this day, but I wished every night that there was another at the time.

Although I don't have a GC, I'm looking forward to this release.
Let's not forget the Four Swords for Gamecube. Miyamoto was rather involved with that one and with somewhat high expectations of linking GBA's with the Gamecube. But hell if you have the GBA you get like what? 6 or 7 Zelda games? Not to mention all aiming for the same feel of Link to the Past, not that im saying that they can compare to the original Link to the Past but still theyre there.

[fushi]

Yes, the definition of 'Innovation' these days does rather seem influenced by whether you're a true blue Nintendo believer or not. If you handn't guessed, I'm not.
That's like, your opinion man.
It isn't that bad, really. You're just visiting the wrong forums, I guess. And EvAv isn't as black/white as you may think. Not all of us, at least.

You do seem to monger such an approach, though. Just saying.

they're very shiny copies of Dune 2.
Which might just as well be a copy of Herzog Zwei! Which, in itself, might be a copy of a ZX Spectrum game I've never played!
( sorry, I just wanted to be an ass for a moment )

a lot of things, mostly nicely articulated insults.
I used the term 'Nintendo Magic' rather metaphorically (and poorly) to refer to a certain touch of polish and humor that seems to be present in most of Nintendo's games. I'd rather not elaborate on it though, it's more of a fan thing than anything, I guess. :)

But it's nice to see that you realised that 'innovation' is more of a press-induced buzzword than genuine truth, which eager fans picked up on to defend (and praise) the often maligned company. Nintendo is far from revolutionary (who is, in this day and age anyway?) but in my sincere opinion the Kyoto main building is one of the best development houses in the world. The constantly high quality of just about every game to come out of there is remarkable. Not everyone's cup of tea, obviously, but as a bit of a fan I'm almost never dissapointed (more on the GBA and less on the 'cube, though).

And it's the Internet, for christ's sake. Nintendo fans have certain stereotypical tendencies, but not all of us aren't ignorant towards EAs rather stellar past and somewhat solid present, nor do we think that Nintendo is messianic. We just enjoy Miyamoto's quirks and Matsuokas humor a bit more than Will Wright's mind-blowingily creative ideas (and for the record, I can't fucking wait for Spore).

And to most of your other points: being factual and right is nice, being factual, right and an asshole due to that is not.

---

And as a complete aside, anyone else slightly disappointed by the recent changes inside Nintendo? Something broke inside me after I heard that Nintendo EAD consumed Nintendo R&D1 (Mario Paint, Wario Ware/Land, Metroid)

[Achilles]

So... You haven't played a Dogz game past 1? You could most definatly teach your dogs tricks... with a mic that came with the game even, but dont let that bother you, it's not like the games had a heavy interaction system that even included breeding and playing with Cats from the Catz series.... Oh wait. :rolleyes:This is the case, I was going to post the same thing. I taught my Sephircat to attack my Aeriscat on command, then I put it down because the game began to terrify me. Nintendogs is essentially Dogz with a series of unlockables and missions, which adds a lot to how fun it is by the way.

[bardockkun]

And as a complete aside, anyone else slightly disappointed by the recent changes inside Nintendo? Something broke inside me after I heard that Nintendo EAD consumed Nintendo R&D1 (Mario Paint, Wario Ware/Land, Metroid)
You mean with them releasing something like Metroid Pinball? Yeah, just a bit.

[DaXIthR]

Just because other's havent seen it before doesn't disprove it's not original - it just proves that they don't have an anally retentive memory like some gamers.

Man, stick to shorter sentences. Re-read what you type.

It's shit like this that pisses me off to no end.

What the FUCK are you trying to say?

I mapped this shit out with a logic tree to see where the hell all your double, triple and quadruple negatives were trying to get...and it still doesn't make any sense.

Don't you have any sense of dignity or self-respect? How do you post shit like this when it's that much more important to be careful with your words? When you're in the middle of a debate/discussion/argument with someone?

That said, there's no need to be so obdurate. No one's going to think you're a prick if you admit that someone else has a good point.

One more thing, Player 1. How great was the sense freedom and movement in 3D before Mario 64? Ever play the Tomb Raider games that predated September 1996? And how many camera issues did true 3D games have before Mario 64?

Sir, Jumping Flash is shit.

[Nessus]

"This aura of any new Zelda being the equivalent of the return of some Messiah that we should all bow down and worship doesn't wash for me."



We are in total agreeance. I think the new Zelda will be a good, fun game. But nothing revolutionary.

Personally I have no problem with block puzzles, though I hope they make them a little more difficult this time.

Perhaps Nintendo didn't invent z-targeting (or whatever you want to call it) and 3D platforming in the strictest sense, but for some odd reason Jumping Flash isn't as fondly remembered (not that it was a bad game. Also, it only beat Mario 64 to the punch by a few months, so both teams must have come up with the idea independantly).

Couple that with the fact that the original PSX controller lacked analog input and it's not hard to see why, rightly or wrongly, Mario 64 is billed as the definitive 3D platformer.

As for Ocarina Of Time I have a very tough time recalling previous games that featured a similar targetting system, though I guess there were some.

Again, obviously they didn't make as great an impact because they occupy (myself included) virtually none of the public's mindshare. You'd think that if they'd done it and done it well and crafted a great game around it they would have been recognized.

Yes, I am aware that sometimes games fall through the cracks, Beyond Good And Evil being a more recent example. But this is hardly an era where the media is especially kind to Nintendo, so it seems unlikely that this was due to bias on the part of the media.

Nintendo at the very least brought both ideas to the mainstream, and they have since become standards. I find Nintendo will take ideas that may or may not have been done before, and they streamline the hell out of them.

Like your other examples, Dogz, etc. clearly Nintendogs does something those games didn't. I think the voice recognition and interaction is also a big part of it. Most pet sims focus on taking care of the animal. The mundane taks, feeding, watering, etc. Very precise, less emotional. As Nintendo has pointed out a large focus of Nintendogs is the actual communication and interaction with the animal.

Also Nintendo has apparently managed to sell 100 000+ copies of Nintendogs to females in the US in under a month, itself a significant achievement.

Personally I'm not all that interested in Nintendogs, but it is different than what is currently going on in the market. They may not have invented the pet sim, but they've possibly created the most immersive/intuitive one so far.

To downplay these achievements.. I don't know. I don't understand the point.

Also, I didn't insult EA. I've played EA games I enjoyed, though I don't care for sports games in the least and those seem to be EA's forte.

I understand being frustrated with the blind Nintendo fanboys. Reading the IGN boards I just want to kick them in the teeth. At first I thought it was because they must be all really young, but then an age poll put most of them at over 18 years old. That's when I realized that they were just stupid. The majority of those retards still think the Revolution will be as powerful, if not more powerful than the 360.

Then I realized that the vast majority of the IGN boards are populated with similarly stupid people. I like this site because the readership is significantly older, and generally smarter. Maybe that comes with being on the fringe rather than the mainstream.

But yeah, Nintendo has flaws, many. They've been fairly inactive this generation and have only created three new franchises that I can think of, Animal Crossing and WarioWare and Pikmin. Pikmin I felt was a bit overrated, but I think the other two games show what Nintendo can do when they focus. Animal Crossing borrows elements of The Sims, but it its own game.

I disagree with Nintendo's decisions often, I think they are too conservative. I disagreed with their decision to sell off all their 2nd party developers. They are too Japan-centric for the American market sometimes.

But there is something intangible about their flagship series (Mario, Zelda, Metroid) that I haven't experienced anywhere else. To suggest that this is "peter pan syndrome" is insulting, which I suppose it was meant to be. I'm very well capable of enjoying violent and bloody games, but I won't deny myself a game like Kirby: Canvas Curse just because it has colors.

[fushi]

You mean with them releasing something like Metroid Pinball? Yeah, just a bit.
No, not that. Metroid Pinball is being developed by an outside studio, Fuse, who developed the rather underwhelming Mario Pinball game. I still have hope in them, though, Nintendo rarely chooses crappy outside companies to handle their franchises.

And to be quite honest, I'm interested in the game. The prospect feels rather sarcastic to me and interesting at the same time. I don't see it as a bastardization, really.

What worries me is that one of Nintendo's most creative sub-studios is incorporated into the more conservative (save for Pikmin, I guess), factory-like EAD. Since it's being led by Miyamoto, it handles mostly major Nintendo franchises and somehow I wouldn't want to see the R&D1 people working on a Mario game, even if it's better than Super Mario Land.

Then again, I only know rumors and have only a basic grasp of what is going on inside Nintendo.

And DaXIthR, cool off.

[mister_slim]

What's most telling is that EA aided Will Wright in doing the same thing about 6 years ago and the result was The Sims. Currently the most succesful PC game ever. What is it? It's a virtual pet game. Who's funded it's entire development and published it? EA.

I don't see how you could characterize 'finally agreed not to cancel the game so Will Wright would stop bothering them' as 'aided'.

Oh well, if we're going insist on judging company on it's PAST rather than PRESENT output then you'll be hard pushed to beat EA when they pumped out genre-defining legends such as M.U.L.E. and the seminal Wasteland to name but two.

If you want to delve into history, go ahead - but look before you leap.

You really think the current EA is comparable to the EA of Dani Bunten's era? I haven't seem many ads with featuring their electronic artists recently.

What worries me is that one of Nintendo's most creative sub-studios is incorporated into the more conservative (save for Pikmin, I guess), factory-like EAD. Since it's being led by Miyamoto, it handles mostly major Nintendo franchises and somehow I wouldn't want to see the R&D1 people working on a Mario game, even if it's better than Super Mario Land.

I think it's more of a paper reorganization than a complete change to the culture. And EAD Tokyo seems to be taking up the slack a bit.

[deathfan]

yeah sorry for insulting, it was late at night and work really sucks... but I strongly disagree with what you said. and I think you're writing the product off for a stupid reason. not calling you stupid. the reason is stupid. you may be very smart. :)

[valkyrie_cs]

Wind Waker was both awesome and completely different from Ocarina at its core: waker was all about sailing a boat and the mysteries of sea, whereas ocarina was all about riding a horse. They are all similar in some aspects: exploration, dungeons, item based puzzles, simple action based combat, grand stories and a "magic memory" item. I cannot believe a knowledgeble people would call Waker a failure: look at gamerankings for a clue to its impact on the CUBE.

If you actually did play Waker and hated it then fair enough: I thought the sales were quite respectable too. I don't understand why the creater of Waker keeps saying HE was disappointed, to the point of apologizing ! Maybe the sailing was too slow and boring ? maybe not enough (complex) dungeons compared to previous games ?

It's a 10/10 !!! (geeze, it even came bundled with Ocarina and Mask) How can you not enjoy throwing pigs into the ocean and pissing them off ?

The new game should be incredible. For those fans waiting: four swords is very underrated if played as a group: it's gauntlet + zelda. (and VERY hard)

[Player 1]

I don't see how you could characterize 'finally agreed not to cancel the game so Will Wright would stop bothering them' as 'aided'.

WTF? OK, to qualify that statement you must be one of three people:

1) Larry Probst
2) Will Wright
3) Some desperate "MUST KILL EA" gamer.

I know which one I'm putting my money on.

You really think the current EA is comparable to the EA of Dani Bunten's era? I haven't seem many ads with featuring their electronic artists recently.

Fantastic! You *almost* got the point.

Here, try this:

You really think the current Nintendo is comparable to the Nintendo of the NES or SNES era? I haven't seem any games featuring anything other than bravura and a "We are Nintendo. That is all you need to know - Now, go buy Super Mario Bros again" mentality in the last 15 years.

I'd give you the benefit of the doubt by suggesting you were being ironic but I'm not as gracious as that.

Still, you earn two brownie points for mentioning Bunten and Electronic Artists. So it's not all bad news is it? ;)

[bardockkun]

The new game should be incredible. For those fans waiting: four swords is very underrated if played as a group: it's gauntlet + zelda. (and VERY hard)
Yeah it is an underrated game, but than again so many of the Zelda games of this generation seem to be passed off by so many people (ithe look of WW worked perfectly for the game and could never be done by an "adult Link"). Also to me, Four Swords was hard mostly because my friends would kill me (and vice versa) before any enemies would, but hell still alot of fun (except for the switching to GBA to TV for the horse racting portions).

[Kefkataran]

Man. Player 1 must not play many games. I mean if all he's looking for is *true* innovation, ideas that have NEVER been tried before.

Me? I'm happy playing Nintendo and Blizzard games (among many others) realizing that while they may not be innovative in the sense of perfectly new, they are polished enough and fun enough to be good games.

Shit. He's going to respond to this post with an arrogant prick attitude isn't he? If only we could all be so socratic and worthy as he.

[Player 1]

Man. Player 1 must not play many games. I mean if all he's looking for is *true* innovation, ideas that have NEVER been tried before.

Thanks for addressing any of the points I've raised by ignoring them and judging my character instead. It really shows how well you've grasped what I'm saying. Well done.

I play a huge amount of games, I've all three current gen machines and a couple of GBAs. In fact, I've got more Nintendo hardware than any other manufacturer.

Just because I have an opinion on gaming, have very specific ideals about certain words thrown around the culture and have an active interest and involvement in the industry it doesn't mean I'm not a keen and active gamer. To suggest that I am shows remarkable narrow mindedness on your part.

Just like the guy that thinks I must hate Zelda block-pushing style mechanics. No, that's not what I'm saying at all. What I was suggesting was that it's not right to suggest something is 'all new' when 80% of it is years old. I was using the block-pushing as an example.

Jeez, I really can't believe I have to spell out every little detail to you guys.

It's like you don't WANT to hear any other perspective if it doesn't suit your kind of outlook.

Shit. He's going to respond to this post with an arrogant prick attitude isn't he? If only we could all be so socratic and worthy as he.

Why, aren't we the cunning double-bluff master? Yes, well done, by predicting my response you can now feel smug and pleased with yourself. What's the alternative? That I shouldn't express my point of view just because some person that doesn't [want to] understand the points I'm making might try to make me look silly?

It's a shame, I've been sharing some PMs with a guy here who's doing his damned best to convince me this is a mature and reasonable place to discuss games. People like you are undermining his efforts severely.

[Rangoth]

No Rules Roshabo! This is the only way to settle this fight!

[TheBrainKills]

Just like the guy that thinks I must hate Zelda block-pushing style mechanics. No, that's not what I'm saying at all. What I was suggesting was that it's not right to suggest something is 'all new' when 80% of it is years old. I was using the block-pushing as an example.

Jeez, I really can't believe I have to spell out every little detail to you guys.




ahhh you did say that the block pushing was "malarky", and you come across as a jaded gamer. Maybe being to close to the industry has made you so? Being forced to push so many blocks would get tiresome, just as I am when I see another FPShooter with a crate in it that I have to break or stack. That didn't stop me from seeing the greatness in HL2 though. And I will not hesitate to buy the sequel. Am I a puppet of their fanboy marketing ploy. No, I just enjoy the games for what they are worth. If Nintendo says they are going to change the franchise, I say go ahead and lets wait and see what they come up with before we get our panties in a knot.

[Kefkataran]

Just because I have an opinion on gaming, have very specific ideals about certain words thrown around the culture and have an active interest and involvement in the industry it doesn't mean I'm not a keen and active gamer. To suggest that I am shows remarkable narrow mindedness on your part.

The problem was just that all you've said before indicates that you were specifically not pleased with Nintendo games because they don't innovate, which by your definition means being a completely new, never-before-tried idea. And if that were the case, you'd be not pleased with a good 95+% of games. If that's not the case, then, yes, I was just mistaken. No big deal. I did skip two pages of the long conversation, so it's totally possible I would've missed something indicating otherwise, and I apologize for jumping to any incorrect conclusions. I was mostly just kidding anyways.

Just like the guy that thinks I must hate Zelda block-pushing style mechanics. No, that's not what I'm saying at all. What I was suggesting was that it's not right to suggest something is 'all new' when 80% of it is years old. I was using the block-pushing as an example.

See, I agree with that totally. But I also think it's a little bit of an exageration for you to say that Nintendo is simply re-making the same games over and over when it's obvious that there are major differences. While the game mechanics may stay similar, there are always some changes, be it in additions to the fighting system, new games systems, or, of course, new dungeons/level designs. Even if 80% of the game mechanics stay the same, there's still enough that changes from game to game to make them more than just the same game as the last one.

Thanks for addressing any of the points I've raised by ignoring them and judging my character instead. It really shows how well you've grasped what I'm saying. Well done.

That's jumping to conclusions too. ;) Just because I didn't address your points doesn't mean I didn't grasp them. Given my post, though, probably deserved.

Why, aren't we the cunning double-bluff master? Yes, well done, by predicting my response you can now feel smug and pleased with yourself. What's the alternative? That I shouldn't express my point of view just because some person that doesn't [want to] understand the points I'm making might try to make me look silly?

It's a shame, I've been sharing some PMs with a guy here who's doing his damned best to convince me this is a mature and reasonable place to discuss games. People like you are undermining his efforts severely.

I respect your opinion. You can have it, and I agree with some of what you're saying. Like I said: I don't think Nintendo does innovate persay. I just don't think it stops them from making good games. The problem is just that you've taken a very condescending, I'm-right-you're-wrong tone about your opinions and shoving them down people's throats. If that's what you're looking for in "mature and reasonable" discussion, that's fine. It's not what I'm looking for. If that makes me an obstacle to mature discussion, then fine. I dunno what guy you're PMing with, but if he has a problem with me, he could discuss it with me himself.

I admit completely that my first post wasn't very conducive to discussion of the topic or exploration of the issue. I also admit, though, that it wasn't meant to be taken that seriously. I'm a bit wary of jumping into this discussion because I find it hard to tell from your tone that you're actually interested in discussing yourself. You seem more interested in strong-handing your opinion into being the only acceptable one, and I'm just not that interested in that. If that's not what you're trying to do, though, then awesome, good, I hope you stick around EvAv.

[KDups]

It's like you don't WANT to hear any other perspective if it doesn't suit your kind of outlook.

Well I'm guessing that most of us have encountered posters like you before, someone who rips on company X while turning a blind eye to company Y even though both companies do the same shit. I'm sure last year you wrote these types of inflamatory comments about Halo 2 , or Half-Life 2, or San Andreas. Each of those were hyped beyond belief, as if each game was going to be "the Messiah", so did you pipe up in every one of those threads? Now when gamers are excited about a new Zelda you scream "get over it, it's the same crap". Well great, spew that negativity. Reasonably intelligent conversation averted.

Really, games are all mostly the same crap just in a neater, prettier package. Doesn't mean fans can't get excited over a new entry in a strong franchise without fear of someone shitting all over them. I don't know why Nintendo gets blasted when we've got Jak platformer 12, Rainbow Six 15, and FPS 200. I won't even touch EA, who I don't strongly dislike (before you jump down my throat), I just know how they operate.

And you get pissy over people's critical responses when you started the discussion with a pompous "smoke and mirrors/Nbot fanboy" opener? What the hell did you expect? You were looking for a fight, and sure enough you got one. Stop feigning outrage, it's pretty clear why you posted here.

[Player 1]

KDups, regardless of how well you think you know me, I'd like to assure you that you're assumptions about me are wrong to an almost comical degree. I hope the rest of this post helps clarify my motives to you and any others who may have felt the same.

[edit: the rest of this response is to Kefkataran]

Thank you for responding. I know I tend to come across in a very strong and forthright manner - in many cases it's a pre-emptive mechanism for flames that inevitably appear when a point of view is expressed that I know swims against a fairly strong current. That current, if anything, make me more compelled to comment than not. I've always tended to find that popular opinion or beliefs benefit from a shake up every now and again - otherwise we might still think the world was flat, not round.

I am aggreived with the culture's perceptions of the actions of one or two major players. Some being universally praised, the others being universally damned. Take your statement:

See, I agree with that totally. But I also think it's a little bit of an exageration for you to say that Nintendo is simply re-making the same games over and over when it's obvious that there are major differences. While the game mechanics may stay similar, there are always some changes, be it in additions to the fighting system, new games systems, or, of course, new dungeons/level designs. Even if 80% of the game mechanics stay the same, there's still enough that changes from game to game to make them more than just the same game as the last one.

Now, I don't have issue you what you're saying - but I feel that the litmus test is to replace the word 'Nintendo' with the words 'Electronic Arts'. If you can do that whilst still remaining unbiased and objective I'd like to think that you'll find that the statement still stands up to scrutiny - even in reference to their sports games! I do this simple test with these two companies (chosen as they tend to represent polar opposites of the respect of gamers) and the results are quite alarming. Depressing even.

It's this realisation rather than any closeness to games work that has made me the sour old goat I must appear as. In truth, I adore games to an almost unhealthy degree and enjoy trashy good fun such as the new Hulk game as much as landmark titles like Ocarina of Time or Halflife 2. Ultimately, I say that if a game entertains then it's a good game. I just don't believe the accolades and scorn thrown in various directions are deserved and that a more critical, objective view of things would benefit all.


Oh, and the guy who I've been sharing PMs with has no issues with any individual here. Quite the opposite - he's been magnanimous and generous with his praise for the community as a whole.

[Kefkataran]

Now, I don't have issue you what you're saying - but I feel that the litmus test is to replace the word 'Nintendo' with the words 'Electronic Arts'. If you can do that whilst still remaining unbiased and objective I'd like to think that you'll find that the statement still stands up to scrutiny - even in reference to their sports games! I do this simple test with these two companies (chosen as they tend to represent polar opposites of the respect of gamers) and the results are quite alarming. Depressing even.

And the truth with me, at least, is that I've had less of a problem with EA's games than with their business practices. Truth, I don't think their games are generally as fun to play (for me, at least) as Nintendo titles, but the innovation issue has been lesser at best.

In truth, I adore games to an almost unhealthy degree and enjoy trashy good fun such as the new Hulk game as much as landmark titles like Ocarina of Time or Halflife 2. Ultimately, I say that if a game entertains then it's a good game. I just don't believe the accolades and scorn thrown in various directions are deserved and that a more critical, objective view of things would benefit all.

Again, I agree wholeheartedly. I'll toss in more later when I get back from class.

[mister_slim]

WTF? OK, to qualify that statement you must be one of three people:

1) Larry Probst
2) Will Wright
3) Some desperate "MUST KILL EA" gamer.

I know which one I'm putting my money on.

Ignorance is not a valid argument. Pay attention.

You really think the current Nintendo is comparable to the Nintendo of the NES or SNES era? I haven't seem any games featuring anything other than bravura and a "We are Nintendo. That is all you need to know - Now, go buy Super Mario Bros again" mentality in the last 15 years.
Considering the last Mario sidescroller came out on the SNES, I don't see your point. Maybe you'd feel better about downloading roms if Nintendo stopped making their classics available?

Anyway, interesting recent games from Nintendo: WarioWare, Zelda: Four Swords, DK: Jungle Beat, Kirby's CC, Metroid Prime, Pikmin. Interesting recent games from EA: Well, the interface for Fight Night and Tiger Woods was clever, they at least published Oddworld: Stranger, and they've made some smart choices as to companies to purchase. Very few of their games have had any personality or creative flair, though.