@chrisbingle I have every right, because that's exactly what they are, and if you believe they aren't then it is you that will not remove your Nintendo tinted rose glasses and see the truth.
Y'know, the sad thing is, you emphasize that we've only had SEVEN console Zelda since 1986, and many GeoW, GoW, etc since 2006, yet all those game in that time-frame have added more features and innovated in their respective genres in 7 years than Nintendo has done with Zelda in TWENTY SEVEN years. 27!!! Think about that for a moment. The lack of Zelda's progression wouldn't be so bad if we got more than 1 new original console iteration a gen (and I wouldn't be complaining if that were the case), but we don't. They are very rare releases, and it is because of that that their lack of any meaningful evolution is even more apparent and painful. Whenever a Zelda releases per gen I feel like it's last gen with a coat of new paint.
The basic underlying structure of Zelda has remained the same for all this time. It is far past due for it to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up, alongside many of their core games. Galaxy I will grant was a much needed departure from the older Marios and I give LARGE credit to Nintendo for it. It's was entirely new and fresh and changed the way platformers were played. But this has not happened with Zelda. It has been stagnating with no real advancements in its core design, only superficial novelties laid over (a boat, new controls, a new artstyle, oh boy) a 26 year old formula.
You may be fine with this; I am not. I'm bored to death with Zelda and mostly all of Nintendo's core franchises. Does MS and Sony reuse franchises? Of course, any company does. But we are seeing games such as TLOU and Watchdogs among others, aren't we? Where's the big hitters from Nintendo. The really BIG hitters? Nowhere. And even if Nintendo makes them, you can be assured that the first game will remain the same as games in its lineage years from now. And what the hell's up with Metroid? Nintendo has this great franchise but refuse to make another. Why?
Make no mistake, they are sitting on their ass and laughing all the way to the bank because people keep shelling out for the same games with minimal improvements. Go ahead, support them. But once again, make sure you keep on playing the same games in twenty years from now as you have been from the previous twenty and keep telling yourself that they're "innovating".
Excellent, EXCELLENT article. You Nintendo fanboys need to wake up. Nintendo is now a lazy, complacent company regurgitating the same crap year after year. Their E3's are laughable, third party support mediocre, and work ethic non-existent. They rarely put in any effort into anything, and when they do it's for games that come out far and few between. I never wish any company to go down, but when they become so apathetic and by the numbers (as they have been for years now), they need a wake-up call. But people keep buying their sh!t over and over and over, so it's more than likely that'll never happen.
Thanks fanboys. Keep on playing the same games twenty years from now that you have been for the previous twenty.
Apologize? How about putting in some effort instead of being the complacent company you have for a while now? Eh, that'd take work. Mine as well keep regurgitating the same thing over and over with new coats of paint.
Nintendo's blessed: they are a company whose fans are fine with complacency.
So Relic goes to Sega, huh? Well I guess it could be worse (Ubi). They seem to let their devs do their own thing and keep their hands off, so I'm not too upset about this.
Biometric sensors? Yea, I can guess the use of this tech: link one controller to be usable by only that person. Want to play with a friend? Sorry, go buy a controller that works only for them. The sad thing is, as ridiculous as that sounds, considering the way the industry is headed I don't think this is out of the realm of possibility. Hell, they're in the process of linking software to one console, so why notits hardware?
@IamTheBesteva Not a fanboy, really. I'm open to hearing how they're different that it's OK for cable TV to do it yet not game consoles? Ads are and always have been there even if paying. Yes, the platforms are different, but the principle the same.
If I'm wrong on this, then explain to me how the platform makes it different in practice.
People, you pay for cable and satellite tv, yes? As far as I know, they haves ads, and ones you cannot ignore if you're watching a live broadcast. Live's ads can be ignored. I don't like this anymore than you do, but let's not single out MS here and claim them greedy when everyone does this and has been for many years now.
MirkoS77's comments