Hello Sean,
This e-mail isn’t for you, it’s for the guys who don’t believe you when talking about people not finishing Ocarina.
As someone who bought Ocarina of Time when he was eight years old and followed every bit of Wind Waker info with lots of anticipation, I can easily repute every single one of you idiots who don’t believe that Miyamoto said that people didn’t finish Ocarina. I can do this because I have a whole bunch of Nintendo magazine’s such as NGC Magazine with interviews in them in which Miyamoto states that Wind Waker would be easier because people didn’t finish Ocarina of Time.
At the time, that was one of the reasons why I was looking forward to WW so much. And do you know why? Because I didn’t finish Ocarina either. And along with me a whole host of other people who got confused at that stupid Water Dungeon. In fact, Ocarina had plenty of moments of being plain BORING. I didn’t finish the game until years later after which I never played it again. So there…
Of course, the big irony is that I never finished Wind Waker either when that damnable fetch quest came up at the end.
But anyway, Ocarina being the fan favourite is hogwash of the highest degree Malstrom. The only reason why Ocarina is the favourite is because most who grew-up with the N64 are entering adulthood right now. However, this is masking the love for the classic Zelda’s, in particular Zelda II which is lot’s and lot’s of fun.
Just wanted to say that after reading so many e-mails from a bunch entitled little sods.
I wonder why they think I would make something up like this. I thought it was common wisdom that Nintendo felt Ocarina of Time was a little too difficult and felt the need to make the game easier. The Zelda games that followed have been ridiculously easier in comparison.
I think it is because they are unused to hearing anything ‘wrong’ with the game. When I once said that Super Mario Brothers 3 was ‘too difficult’ in the context that it wasn’t a game you gave to people who never played a platformer before, I received much anger. In the latter span of the NES life, its games became more and more complicated. This lost the older adult gamers who liked RBI Baseball and other simple sports and other games. I noticed everyone played Super Mario Brothers but with Super Mario Brothers 3, the game was more complicated and those older adults didn’t follow.
“Why is this a problem?” It wasn’t on the NES. The problem was with Super Mario World as it was around as complicated as Super Mario Brothers 3. By having a complicated platformer at launch instead of a simple one (and simple games), the SNES lost those older adult gamers. Much of the Wii explosion is due to the Wii appealing to those older adult gamers (through simple games like Wii Sports). I think the best solution to the 2d Mario situation is to have at least two 2d Mario games per console. One of them comes out at the console’s launch (must always have a 2d Mario at a launch). This launch 2d Mario is the ‘simple’ Mario, the entry Mario. It is like NSMB or Super Mario Brothers. Then the more complicated Super Mario Brothers 3/ Super Mario World equivalent comes out which further drives excitement and momentum for the console. Imagine if there was a follow-up to NSMB on the DS. The DS momentum would have shot up. That may have prevented the PSP from rebounding in Japan.
What bothers me about Nintendo is their selfishness (which they confuse with their ‘philosphy’. All their spouting is just the developers trying to excuse their selfishness). A good example is Aonuma putting in trains or flying because he promised that to his son. I cannot imagine any developer, in any other company, in any other industry, getting away with behaving so outrageously. Imagine if the Nintendo hardware developers decided to design the hardware based on what pleased their children. If it is wrong for the hardware developers to do that, why is it OK for the software developers to do it?
A huge revelation about how Nintendo thinks about Zelda is with the Four Swords Adventure. No one considers this a Zelda game and only consider a type of spin-off, something to use the connectivity of the Gamecube for. Nintendo and others tried to say this is a sequel to Link to the Past. It is nothing similar at all. Four Swords is nothing more than puzzle after puzzle in a linear fashion with no overworld. How on Earth could anyone think Four Swords is an actual Zelda game?
My point is when Nintendo took the Aonuma definition of Zelda and returned it into 2d form, the stark differences are clear between it and Classic Zelda. The games are so completely and radically different.
“Why does this matter?”
It matters because the Aonuma definition of Zelda is unable to stand on its own. It is hiding behind massive production values, behind the colossal Nintendo marketing machine, and lack of competition on Nintendo systems. When given a choice between Aonuma Zelda and an actual adventure game, we find Aonuma Zelda in the bargain bin as we did with the DS Zelda games. When someone asks for a DS RPG or adventure game, no one recommends Zelda and for good reason. There are so many far superior choices to choose from.
Years before the Wii even came out, I was confused why people kept praising Miyamoto and the Mario series. I scratched my head wondering, “Didn’t this guy destroy the Mario series? I mean, it was so huge when it was 2d Mario and transforming it to 3d Mario has only sent Nintendo into the abyss. Why are they pinning medals on this guy’s chest?” The truth eventually emerged (as it always does) that 3d Mario did not replace 2d Mario. Mario’s popularity is almost entirely due to 2d Mario.
I am encountering a similar though slightly different situation with Zelda. Aonuma has already gone out in public and declared how he has successfully transformed Zelda (GDC 2004 speech). But when I look at the sales and fans’ reactions, I do not see any evidence for this transformation. Every Zelda game keeps getting worse and worse reactions. More and more fans are complaining. Zelda is not creating new fans. This point is extremely important.
While Ocarina of Time was the best selling Zelda, it was not an Aonuma Zelda. Ocarina of Time was designed based on looking at Classic Zelda (i.e. the previous Zelda games). All its story, most of its gameplay mechanics, it all came from there. If any Zelda fan wants Zelda games to have the quality of Ocarina again, Modern Zelda must die. What is Modern Zelda? It is nothing more than Aonuma trying to sell Marvelous with a Zelda brand.
Just as 2d Mario never accepted the ‘transformation’ and always saw 2d Mario and 3d Mario as separate series, no one considers Aonuma Zelda games to be Zelda. At best, they might be a diversion. But Aonuma games lack the weight of Zelda.
I have never heard anyone say the following:
“The overworld in Zelda sucks. It should be removed entirely.”
“Why does Link have a sword and shield? That is too violent! Instead, he should be like Inspector Gadget and use gizmos to solve puzzles all day.”
“Zelda needs more NPCs with much more dialogue.”
I’ve done enough game development to know the effects of intoxication of the medium. When you put something in the game like new art or can put dialogue, you have this urge to put in more and more. You see the game as a reflection of yourself and of your personality. You begin to have a romantic relationship with the game not unlike Narcissus did with his reflection in the pool.
But here’s the problem. When someone plays the game, they only care about THEIR personality. They don’t give a damn about yours. If you designed an interesting mountain, the player will only see a mountain.
It’s not admitted but game players tend to be massive egoists. The desire to build up ego pushes us through the game. When you take a RTS game, for example, the players are focused on their personality and their ego as they destroy their opponents in multiplayer. They don’t give a damn about the cute little nooks and crannies you placed on the units. Something like an RTS game demands excessive balance and making the player feel overpowered (even though the units are balanced perfectly). These are demands of engineering, not of creativity.
What I suspect going on here with the 3d Mario over 2d Mario or Aonuma Zelda over Actual Zelda are microcosms of what Modern Nintendo is all about: valuing creativity over engineering. This is what Metroid: Other M represents. Metroid gameplay is an expression of engineering with its game balance and large world layout. But Sakamoto replaced all that with ‘character’ and ‘narrative’, i.e. creativity. Video games are expressions of engineering, not ‘creativity’. But music is also an expression of engineering and not of ‘creativity’ as was art and poetry before the free form modern phases (resulting in no one reading poetry today because its all crap).
If Nintendo was intellectually honest with themselves, they would find some glaring contradictions. For example, if Nintendo is so ‘creative’ and ‘unique’, then why constantly make the same IP games over and over again? If Aonuma was so creative, why not make a game that sells which has no relation to Zelda and its brand whatsoever?
“We are an integrated hardware and software company,” Nintendo says. Fine. So why does the hardware side have to follow an engineering context to development but the software side gets to embrace their ‘creativity’? After all, they are integrated so why aren’t they following the same context?
“You can’t have the hardware side embrace their creativity, Malstrom. That would be madness! You’d have consoles that would explode or something!” That’s exactly my point. This is precisely what is going on with Nintendo’s software side. Yes, there is an ‘engineering context’ when it comes to requiring every Nintendo software developer to know the hardware and to know how to program it. But I’m not talking about the process but the end result, the fruit, not the tree. All video games are engineering tools that are used by the players to embrace their personality and ego. Nintendo’s software side keeps abusing its position to embrace their personality and egos which is not their job.
My gripes aren’t really about 3d Mario or Aonuma Zelda but something much more foul and rotten that is inside Nintendo like a cancer. The best way I can label it is a type of ‘creativity religion’.
