Topic: Is Zelda's delay the writing on the wall for the Wii U?

What exactly would the writing on the wall say?

"Here I sit, broken hearted. Paid a penny and only farted."

I'll spare you my honest feedback.

I'm not sure what additions in the delay period could hurt the game overall. I mean, that's usually general stuff that's already set in the conceptual stage like Pokemon's dialogue waiting times, Skyward Sword's motion controls, or Sticker Star's lazy story. There's not much he could add on that would be anything worse than a subpar sidequest, etc, unless we're to assume that he's upending the tea table.

I don't want him to be too ambitious. That's all

I'm going to go ahead and assume that "upending the tea table" is exactly what @TingLz is afraid he may be doing, considering how little "2015 release date is no longer our top priority" ACTUALLY tells us. They may have started something they're not sure will be ready on time, but can't live with cutting it from the game. Or maybe they're revamping everything and we won't see this game until 2020. There's really no telling with that kind of statement. My only advice is to realize that he didn't specifically say the game wasn't coming in 2015, so the delay won't likely be so big, but again, there's no telling.

If it's not coming to E3 2015 then it's certainly not a 2015 game and probably not a pre-June 2016 game.

@CaviarMeths I don't need to play them to know they're iterative, it is plain as day when they're repeating a formula. Significant gameplay changes are very easy to demonstrate without needing to play the game, they can easily be observed or described. You'll know when they've changed up the formula when you see the game being played in a completely different way from when it previously did. None of the games post-Galaxy do that, they're all games that involve using the same moves you always use, progressing through the game in the exact same way (all of the levels involve reaching the flagpole, progressing through a plain map, and beating castles to reach the next world), and no significant, game wide twist to create new possibilities or put a twist on existing mechanics. The new games basically amount to creating new levels for the same gameplay, that's it. When any of that changes, I'll be all over the next game, but I will not bother with anything less, it's a waste of time and money.

@Haru17 You may be correct, but the fact of the matter is that we still don't KNOW. Amd did we forget how little Nintendo thinks of E3? How many games do they announce at E3 vs announced out of E3? They may just reveal more about Zelda in their own time. This is Nintendo we're talking about. They're anything but predictable.

@Bolt_Strike Now you're objectively wrong. You DO have to play a game to know that it's iterative, otherwise, you're judging without experiencing gameplay, and that's where you screw up. Nintendo is all about the gameplay and the feel of the game. Tropical Freeze doesn't feel like classic DKC and feels like a vastly improved DKCR. That's definitely NOT A bad thing. 3D World feels absolutely nothing like NSMB, but you wouldn't know that because YOU HAVEN'T PLAYED IT.

@Haru You may be correct, but the fact of the matter is that we still don't KNOW. Amd did we forget how little Nintendo thinks of E3? How many games do they announce at E3 vs announced out of E3? They may just reveal more about Zelda in their own time. This is Nintendo we're talking about. They're anything but predictable.

@Bolt_Strike Now you're objectively wrong. You DO have to play a game to know that it's iterative, otherwise, you're judging without experiencing gameplay, and that's where you screw up. Nintendo is all about the gameplay and the feel of the game. Tropical Freeze doesn't feel like classic DKC and feels like a vastly improved DKCR. That's definitely NOT A bad thing. 3D World feels absolutely nothing like NSMB, but you wouldn't know that because YOU HAVEN'T PLAYED IT.

@UGXwolf Feel is a pretty subtle component of video games, it doesn't have as much of an impact on the game as much as the actual mechanics, the actions you can take in the game. And the latter is not something that needs to be played to judge. If I cared that much about controls or feel, then certainly I would play a game first before forming an opinion on it. But in an argument about whether or not something is new, creative, or progressive, gameplay mechanics matter much more than feel.

You're definitely wrong there. Feel is a very prominent feature of games, but one that many gamers become oblivious to when they're used to developers that don't play with the feel of a game. However, you can definitely tell the difference between Super Mario World and Yoshi's Island. Not just because of the graphics or the mechanics. I mean, you're still just trying to get to the end, right? Wrong. Super Mario World incentivized getting to the end while Yoshi's Island incentivizes exploring the game world.

If you can't feel the direction a game is headed, it's either an indecisive game (maybe lending itself to an autonomous feel, like GTA or really anything Rockstar makes) or you're just completely blind to the true power that video games have as a medium.

Extra Creditz explains this better than I ever could, but essentially, mechanics are what the designer focuses on, but their ultimate goal is to create a certain aesthetic for the game, which is the end players work with. In Mario, it's not too hard to invoke a differe t feeling. Admit more room for exploration in the level design and maybe make items that are somewhat OP that also push the player in directions other than right.

However if your focus is on something as insignificant is "you run in a general direction, jump over pits with varying levels of difficulty, and make it to the end," you're going to find that games very quickly become disappointing.

And even if you ignore aesthetic and feel entirely, DKC STILL plays nothing like classic DKC games and STILL adds plenty of new mechanics that do actually show up fairly often to improve the gameplay IMMENSELY from the previous game.

Do I even need to respond to this? Do I need to mention how ridiculous it is to criticize a game without playing it?

What's the saying go..... "You've played 1 <insert franchise here> you've played them all" Sounds pretty provincial to me.

Well on that note, Metroid is entirely repetitive and has done nothing new since the first game. I should know because I observed all the games in the franchise!

FYI, I only played Metroid, Super Metroid, and Metroid Prime.

Tinglz, when you boil metroid down to that it hurts me right down to the soul, man. why you gotta bring me and my love for metroid down

That's not feel though, that's game mechanics and level design. You don't explore a level in Yoshi's Island because you feel like you should, you explore it because the game gives you a tangible reward for doing so (flowers, red coins, and stars, which allow you to increase your score and in turn unlock new levels and mini games) and because the level gave you a hint that there's stuff that's off the beaten path.

You mean find Mario and DK disappointing. Because that's all there is to their gameplay, jump, jump, run, beat enemies, jump, jump, jump, run, do this level gimmick, jump, jump, run, jump, goal, simple platformer gameplay with few defining features. Hell even Kirby and Yoshi have specific mechanics that impact the gameplay, so even if they repeat stuff at least they're more interesting to replay.

If you want to elaborate on that viewpoint, let's talk then. Otherwise, this doesn't really discredit my argument because you've done nothing to address the actual logic of what I'm saying.

I don't get why Super Mario Galaxy is a superior game to Super Mario 3D World. To me, 3D World is brilliant because of the great controls and the clever level designs. I find Galaxy atrocious, because I loathe the controls. I have played the game for several hours, trying to get the "feeling" of the controls, but they just feel wrong. Still, I like the level designs and all, but I don't find it that innovative compared to 64 or Sunshine. And in my opinion it is just as "stale" as 3D World. But the reasoning for all of this is me being better at 3D World, because the controls comes more natural to me. Had it been the other way around my opinion would surely differ.

I sort of understand what Bolt_strike says about knowing enough by watching gameplay. And I agree to a certain extent, but take for instance Metroid Prime. I have never enjoyed a FPS ever, until I played Prime. There are two reasons for this. 1, most FPS are gritty "adult" games about killing other people, while Metroid is a sci-fi game where you kill creatures. 2, I suck at FPS games, I can't handle the controls, but the controls for Prime feel easier too me. I was really skeptical to playing the game. I've never been good at an FPS before, so why now? But the concept of the game and the VC release at 90 kr persuaded me. I soon learned that the game played very differently to how it looked on gameplay videos.

You sure use a lot of words to say "I have not played these games, I have no intention of playing these games, and I'm very proud of my ignorance."

Hey, you're the one ignoring logic.

Stop. Think. "How did people know I haven't played it?"

Again, before you even admitted that you have not played the game, it was very easy to tell you haven't because what you're saying about it isn't actually true. What you're saying about the game isn't some subjective opinion. It's wrong. You're trying to argue that Thing A is not in the game, when in fact Thing A is in the game.

Stop trying to say that SM3DW doesn't have new ideas. It does. You're wrong. You are not informed on this subject. Your ignorance is transparent. This is woefully silly.