Nintendo E3 Discussion Thread

[Gigaguy64]

Im not sure.
It starts at 3:00pm where i live.

And i don't think Sony can top Nintendo unless they ditch Move and introduce a System that lets you "Jack In/Log In" a game.

You're out West (at least from me) if I remember correctly. Central I think?

If so, dang! I'll miss it by an hour... (Eastern time zone)

Yep, Central time.
And don't worry, someone will post it on youtube sooner or later.
I think i might catch it.
Just for the Lulz.

[sup]yes i am upset at Sony[/sup]

 

[yoyo13rom]

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

I go to eat a burger, and 3DS goes into detail!

What's Calumon's opinion, btw? Or is he eating and has his mouth full?

Actually Calumon is watching the Kirby gameplay again. The Mon loves that Pink Ball.

Calumon: I just think Kirb's cute is all. :3

Aaaa, poke-love, that's sooo cute.
Just be careful to be safe! 'Cause that's how we can prevent those new pokemon generations from getting fucked-up and mutated.


OT: I don't own anything Nintendo; I can even say Mario bores me sometimes. But this press coverage just blew my mind away(not because it was spectacular, but because Nintendo seem to be the only people knowing what to do, and the only people that seem to have a plan other than:"petty tiger and fakey motion controlery stuff that goes *blup*")

Sorry about that rant there; just got distracted, that;s all.

 

[deckai]

Nice lineup, I'm definitely satisfied. Not over hyped but looking forward.

Toned down, my bad.

I never said that the characters make a game bad, its lack of innovation that does. DK looked nothing different from DK 64. Kirby did look good because it was doing something new. Kid Icarus had a few cool parts like the lasers, but the other parts, nothing that hasn't been done before.

Super Mario Galaxy is a good game as well as the sequel because it approached the genre from a new angle, it wasn't just Mario 64 with new textures.

Yes, on one hand i too want new innovations, but it's not possible to improve everything at once. For me the 3DS seems to be a big step forward. Bigger than everything else i saw this year, so far.

And in terms of old franchises.. let me say it this way... i love chocolate ice, when i order chocolate ice, i want chocolate ice and not something else.. thats why Nintendo is still so successful. They improve their games little by little without destroying the core idea of it.

 

[DrDeath3191]

Worst presentation yet. So no new titles, a rip off of mario party, a zelda with dodgy controls. Metroid which looks hollow, Kid Icarus, a dead franchise from the 80's, another generic side scrolling platformer (DK) etc. Golden Sun probably will be good, and kirby looked interesting but Mickey looked boring and Perfect Dark on XBL has taught us that remaking old games is pointless as they offer nothing close to the level of gameplay we expect from modern games.
Christ how is Nintendo not broke?

Your fanboy is showing.

Best E3 conference ever?! Pretty fucking close. I'm not too concerned for the controls in Skyward Sword: I've played games with M+, I know it works. Then we have a new Kirby, Donkey Kong Country, Goldeneye, Golden Sun, and Kid Icarus. Then we saw Epic Mickey and the 3DS. This is, bar none, the best presentation Nintendo has done in 3 years, and the best one of this year.

My fanboy is showing?? You aren't concerned about the controls of a game?? Yeah, leave now fanboy.
All you've done is say what they showed, not why any look decent and not just rehashes of what's been around for DECADES.
Clearly you are trolling, so please, leave us all in peace and descend onto youtube, 4chan or wherever you go to post your bile.

Considering I own and have used a Motion+, I know for a fact that the controls work. I'm looking forward to some hands-ons from people online, which will likely have far less interference.
Have you ever considered why the games remain similar in the most basic of senses? Because the games are fun. DK Country remains one of the best 2D platormers of all time; a new one is great for 2D platforming fans. Kirby's new excursion offers a unique style, and some nice gameplay dynamics in regards to thread. Goldeneye is... well, it's Goldeneye. The classic gameplay is still spectacular, and seeing an update with the new advantages of IR control is something worth looking forward to. Kid Icarus is also a kickass game, which is seeing a revival: good stuff.
In conclusion, yes you are a delusional fanboy. You blind yourself to the excellence of this lineup because you are unwilling to believe that Nintendo would actually have something of quality. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

If you don't want more from a game, then why the f**k didn't you just stick with a NES? Yeah, take the nostalgia goggles off kid. Kirby does look interesting, but that was the only game there that did, other than Golden Sun.
OMGOSH GOLDENEYE!!! Dude, get a life. I grew up playing it and there is no reason anyone should still be playing it when there are better games out than it. Hell, Timesplitters 2 was far better than it and that's ignoring this generation of gaming. Golden Eye is pretty much an unplayable mess of a game when compared to todays FPS'. Kid Icarus was last around in the f**king 80's so I think you can hardly say a new game is going to be good or bad; we simply have no idea.

SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS! Look, Goldeneye does things that many other modern shooters do not (difficulty-based mission-objectives, location-based damage, AI-Bots, 4-player local multiplayer), which are absolutely spectacular. Does that mean it can't be improved? Absolutely not, but even outdated, imperfect products can be fun. And are you really telling me to get a life? That is among the lowest insults you can use to damage your own reputation on the Internet (along with questioning someone's age or sexual preference). Do you really expect to be taken seriously like that? Come on.

......Location based damage? AI Bots? 4 player local MP?
Wow. I think I can safely say you need to come out of the 90's and play games on the PS2 and this generation as you clearly have no idea what modern FPS offer.
Of course if you haven't played any modern game for years, Nintendos offerings are good. But if you have been playing games since the PS2, well, you wouldn't have made all those slip ups.
PS. Internet reputation...? Really?

Yes, really. HD games have lessened focus on splitscreen in favor of fitting more polygons onscreen, and a steadier framerate. AI bots have gone into extinction since the introduction of online play. Name a recent shooter where you could A) Shoot a hat off an enemy, B) Disarm enemies with a well-placed shot, C) Shoot a person in the foot, and have them do a dance in pain. These things have gone by the wayside for Internet play and polygons. Not a bad thing to focus on, but you occasionally miss such little things of character. I like both modern and older titles: that does not make me delusional, an idiot, or a fanboy. You are the only person here whose sanity and trollish nature is being questioned here.

If you want to be taken seriously, don't be a douche.

Yeah split screen has gone down but a lot of the big ones still have it, the main example being the Halo franchise.
Killzone still has bots, and to be fair, why not play online when it is so easy nowadays?
All modern shooters have location damage like that...Sorry but it just shows you haven't been playing any since the PS2 generation. Timeplitters 2 you can shoot off hats, shoot guns out of hands and shoot in the feet....And that's a PS2/Xbox/GC game....
Those things really haven't gone by the wayside at all, think you need to play some modern FPS' and try those things out.
If done right, no old game should be better than a modern game because games nowadays can do more, be bigger etc. If there has been no innovation in the last 10 years, that's worrying. The fact that people don't want improvements is even more worrying, unless they think the game is perfect.

Some, not all. It is great when games have this functionality, but the vast majority of focus is not on that element. That's a shame for people like me who have friends nearby who want to play a four-player game. Timesplitters was made by the people who made Goldeneye; it makes sense that it would be similar, and a good game to boot. You can whine and complain all you want about how old games can never be as great as new ones: you will never be right. Deus Ex is still one of the best RPGs ever made, Counter Strike is still a beloved game, Tetris is played near-constantly, Goldeneye too is still a game enjoyed by many. And there are many more games of the past which are simply FUN, a concept you don't seem to be willing to comprehend. Of course technology should be better, and we should strive to move forward, but games today are a completely different beast from games of the past. Today's games focus on showing you movies, and then letting you play. Older titles didn't need any of that nonsense. Their focus was being good games first, and they delivered on it (sometimes). I am not a believer in a game's greatness dying; Chess, despite being several thousand years old, is still fun to play. Yes we now have things like computers and processors which should make technically more adept games, but the very basics of game design were so well implemented that we still play it and enjoy ourselves to this day. It stands to reason that a truly great game remains great, and Goldeneye did.

 

[EBHughsThe1st]

That was the most disappointing conference so far. Nothing new there what so ever. 3DS? It sounds destined to failure before its even begun.

....but the 3DS is new. You are contradicting yourself, no?

yeah a new DS is certainly not going to sell, just look at how badly the current DS is doing

Look how it preformed during it's market debut.

 

[DrDeath3191]

Found these in an IGN Wii Board post.

 

[DrDeath3191]

Yeah split screen has gone down but a lot of the big ones still have it, the main example being the Halo franchise.
Killzone still has bots, and to be fair, why not play online when it is so easy nowadays?
All modern shooters have location damage like that...Sorry but it just shows you haven't been playing any since the PS2 generation. Timeplitters 2 you can shoot off hats, shoot guns out of hands and shoot in the feet....And that's a PS2/Xbox/GC game....
Those things really haven't gone by the wayside at all, think you need to play some modern FPS' and try those things out.
If done right, no old game should be better than a modern game because games nowadays can do more, be bigger etc. If there has been no innovation in the last 10 years, that's worrying. The fact that people don't want improvements is even more worrying, unless they think the game is perfect.

Some, not all. It is great when games have this functionality, but the vast majority of focus is not on that element. That's a shame for people like me who have friends nearby who want to play a four-player game. Timesplitters was made by the people who made Goldeneye; it makes sense that it would be similar, and a good game to boot. You can whine and complain all you want about how old games can never be as great as new ones: you will never be right. Deus Ex is still one of the best RPGs ever made, Counter Strike is still a beloved game, Tetris is played near-constantly, Goldeneye too is still a game enjoyed by many. And there are many more games of the past which are simply FUN, a concept you don't seem to be willing to comprehend. Of course technology should be better, and we should strive to move forward, but games today are a completely different beast from games of the past. Today's games focus on showing you movies, and then letting you play. Older titles didn't need any of that nonsense. Their focus was being good games first, and they delivered on it (sometimes). I am not a believer in a game's greatness dying; Chess, despite being several thousand years old, is still fun to play. Yes we now have things like computers and processors which should make technically more adept games, but the very basics of game design were so well implemented that we still play it and enjoy ourselves to this day. It stands to reason that a truly great game remains great, and Goldeneye did.

Timesplitters was done by Free Radical, not Rare, the guys that did GoldenEye....
Though I do understand the problem of finding 4 player local games, but there are the one or two out there which do offer a modern gaming experience without harking back to the N64.
Sorry but you are confusing the difference between storyline and gameplay if you think that old games are still just as good with hindsight. Few things that make games worse with age:
1)Graphics. In some games not important, but in others, like Ghost Recon, very important. Not to mention that with good graphics comes a better sense of immersion. It's hard to relate to someone who looks like lego, but not so hard when you can see the sun gleam of their hair.
2)AI. In old games, the AI is pig sh*t thick. The most basic of tactics can be used to run circles around them while they react in an inhuman manner, which again can destroy a sense of immersion. Not to mention if a game is not a challenge, then that removes part of the enjoyment - to play to be entertained. If something is easy, then you are more likely to become bored of it.
3)Innovation and refinement. GoldenEye handles like ass nowadays. The levels are dull, the gameplay repetitive and so on. Take Driver. It was good, but nowadays it handles awfully etc. By your logic, if you enjoyed GoldenEye and still do, you should be euphoric while playing any other FPS because they are simply better in every way. Well that isn't the case, and frankly I'm not alone on this because all the reviews for Perfect Dark say the same thing - good for it's time. With hindsight the game is worse on every gameplay level.

Seriously have you owned a modern console since the N64? Saying games focus on showing you a film and then the game, well, one title - Half Life 2. Enough said on that matter. Plus older games still had cut scenes- think about Final Fantasy 7 - 9, Metal Gear Solid, Ocarina of Time etc. Not quite sure what games you are on about unless you mean pac man etc.
You can't compare Chess to PC games, they are two different beasts, unless you want to start throwing in everything with the word "game" into the same category =S

Put it like this: Why should someone choose to play Golden Eye over Halo: CE, or Timesplitters 2?

Free Radical was made by ex-Rare employees after the big split of Rare and Nintendo. The people who made great games went to form Free Radical. Everyone else gave you Nuts and Bolts.

1) Beyond serving the function of showing you what you are doing, graphics serve no purpose.

2) This is true, somewhat. AI was much simpler back then, but in some cases this can leave the fun level of the game untarnished. Besides, AI for the most part will always have its stupid moments.

3) Innovation does not in any way make a game good. Alone in the Dark was innovative, but it was shit. Refinement is something important, and Goldeneye has it. Yes, the controller is odd, but once you adjust to the controller, it works well. Part of the reason I'm looking forward to the upcoming game is the IR controls; I'm not fond of single-analog control. But in terms of single-analog control, Goldeneye is king.

Yes, cutscenes existed for a while, but the main focus was still the game back then. Now when developers are interviewed, the first thing people discuss is the story. It is a sign of fucked-up priorities in our industry.

No, Chess and videogames are very similar. All games, regardless of their nature, have three things: An objective, rules to achieve the objective, and obstacles to impede progress. I can compare boardgames and videogames because in the end they are the same. Chess is timeless. Videogames can be too, and they are.

Why would I choose any game over another: because the one I choose I believe to be more fun. You can scream all the technical advantages of today all you want, and I'll agree with you. But that doesn't mean that newer games are more fun, or that older games are less fun. Nor does it mean the opposite; it merely means that the technical capabilities of the games differ. If the basics of game design shine, regardless of age, then the game will be good.

 

[AdamRBi]

@Mazty; Calm down man, Nintendo are not going to take your brown boring shooters away from you.

It's just a sad day when nostalgia takes over from quality

It's also a sad day when it's assumed nostalgia = poor quality. Nostalgia is a powerful tool and Nintendo has proven time and time again that despite using pre-existing characters they can deliver a solid game with hours of fun, enjoyable gameplay.

 

[Anticitizen_Two]

Nintendo just won E3.

 

[Mehall]

That was the most disappointing conference so far. Nothing new there what so ever. 3DS? It sounds destined to failure before its even begun.

....but the 3DS is new. You are contradicting yourself, no?

yeah a new DS is certainly not going to sell, just look at how badly the current DS is doing

Look how it preformed during it's market debut.

It performed well enough, it's just that the DS Lite has had it take off, then the DSi has shot it through the stratosphere.

 

[escapistraptor]

What does Golden Eye do well in comparison to modern FPS'?
Nothing. The only reason someone would enjoy it today over modern FPS' is sheer nostalgia.

I hate console-based FPS's, so I'm not emotionally invested in Goldeneye or any modern FPS at all. But the answer to your question is easy, an updated Goldeneye would obviously play equally well as, if not better, then a modern FPS and Goldeneye fans are excited to see their favorite franchise updated. What, do you assume Nintendo is just going to release the N64 version? No, they're making a new game. Halo/Modern Warfare/Gears of War fans are excited when their sequels come out, why wouldn't Goldeneye fans be equally excited?

It's pretty obvious Nintendo won E3 this year. Sony/Microsoft fans may say that Nintendo just now finally being able to play movies on their portable is either copying them or far too late in the game, but they'd be grasping at straws since Sony/Microsoft is pretty much doing the same with copying the Wii's and DS's innovations. Whereas the latter camps are copying the first camp's entire gimmick. Oh, and the chance that someone has finally figured out how to make 3-D not suck is exciting

 

[motyr]

All I really cared about was the announcement of the new Zelda, but got a new Goldeneye as an added treat, and the 3DS actually looks like it could work. Hey, sounds like a pretty solid outing to me.

 

[DrDeath3191]

Timesplitters was done by Free Radical, not Rare, the guys that did GoldenEye....
Though I do understand the problem of finding 4 player local games, but there are the one or two out there which do offer a modern gaming experience without harking back to the N64.
Sorry but you are confusing the difference between storyline and gameplay if you think that old games are still just as good with hindsight. Few things that make games worse with age:
1)Graphics. In some games not important, but in others, like Ghost Recon, very important. Not to mention that with good graphics comes a better sense of immersion. It's hard to relate to someone who looks like lego, but not so hard when you can see the sun gleam of their hair.
2)AI. In old games, the AI is pig sh*t thick. The most basic of tactics can be used to run circles around them while they react in an inhuman manner, which again can destroy a sense of immersion. Not to mention if a game is not a challenge, then that removes part of the enjoyment - to play to be entertained. If something is easy, then you are more likely to become bored of it.
3)Innovation and refinement. GoldenEye handles like ass nowadays. The levels are dull, the gameplay repetitive and so on. Take Driver. It was good, but nowadays it handles awfully etc. By your logic, if you enjoyed GoldenEye and still do, you should be euphoric while playing any other FPS because they are simply better in every way. Well that isn't the case, and frankly I'm not alone on this because all the reviews for Perfect Dark say the same thing - good for it's time. With hindsight the game is worse on every gameplay level.

Seriously have you owned a modern console since the N64? Saying games focus on showing you a film and then the game, well, one title - Half Life 2. Enough said on that matter. Plus older games still had cut scenes- think about Final Fantasy 7 - 9, Metal Gear Solid, Ocarina of Time etc. Not quite sure what games you are on about unless you mean pac man etc.
You can't compare Chess to PC games, they are two different beasts, unless you want to start throwing in everything with the word "game" into the same category =S

Put it like this: Why should someone choose to play Golden Eye over Halo: CE, or Timesplitters 2?

Free Radical was made by ex-Rare employees after the big split of Rare and Nintendo. The people who made great games went to form Free Radical. Everyone else gave you Nuts and Bolts.

1) Beyond serving the function of showing you what you are doing, graphics serve no purpose.

2) This is true, somewhat. AI was much simpler back then, but in some cases this can leave the fun level of the game untarnished. Besides, AI for the most part will always have its stupid moments.

3) Innovation does not in any way make a game good. Alone in the Dark was innovative, but it was shit. Refinement is something important, and Goldeneye has it. Yes, the controller is odd, but once you adjust to the controller, it works well. Part of the reason I'm looking forward to the upcoming game is the IR controls; I'm not fond of single-analog control. But in terms of single-analog control, Goldeneye is king.

Yes, cutscenes existed for a while, but the main focus was still the game back then. Now when developers are interviewed, the first thing people discuss is the story. It is a sign of fucked-up priorities in our industry.

No, Chess and videogames are very similar. All games, regardless of their nature, have three things: An objective, rules to achieve the objective, and obstacles to impede progress. I can compare boardgames and videogames because in the end they are the same. Chess is timeless. Videogames can be too, and they are.

Why would I choose any game over another: because the one I choose I believe to be more fun. You can scream all the technical advantages of today all you want, and I'll agree with you. But that doesn't mean that newer games are more fun, or that older games are less fun. Nor does it mean the opposite; it merely means that the technical capabilities of the games differ. If the basics of game design shine, regardless of age, then the game will be good.

1) Why not just ignore my comment about immersion? Plus what about factors such as realism in simulator games such as sport and camouflage where it is important to be able to distinguish two different things?
2)A game isn't fun when it offers no challenge. Part of a game is to be challenging. And no, please, the fact you haven't played a modern FPS is embarrassingly obvious. AI doesn't tend to have coma moments like it used to.
3)I didn't say innovation always makes a game good, but not changing is just claiming the game is perfect, and I don't believe that any game of any genre can claim to be that. Golden Eye has refinement compared to Doom, but not compared to most FPS' after it.

Chess and videogames similar? Well why not lump sports as well. Sports are playing games. Why not try to lump everything done for the sake of entertainment together? Seriously, don't digress, it's pointless.
Chess is timeless because it's perfectly balanced etc. Gaming is different because gaming has a f**king huge technical element to it. Not to mention chess is a very complex and tactical game. Would you really try to compare an RTS to a 2d platformer? No you would not, so why the f**k you trying to compare chess to every single video game in existence?

Well why is Golden Eye more fun? Does it look better? No. Is it better designed? No. Frankly as I said XBL Perfect Dark proves my point. As all the reviewers said, these games do not age gracefully. Everything we come to expect in an FPS to make it a more enjoyable experience are not in old games e.g. the AI, the handling, the weapon balance and so on.
If Golden Eye is so damn good, then go out, find a kid who was brought up on the era of Halo etc FPS' and give him Golden Eye. He will tell you it sucks. Why? The basics are not enough.
I'll put it as simple as I can:
What does Golden Eye do well in comparison to modern FPS'?
Nothing. The only reason someone would enjoy it today over modern FPS' is sheer nostalgia.

1. Immersion isn't needed to make a good game.

2. Yes it can. Challenge is not needed to be fun. And while AI has become more complex, it only leaves more areas for a bug.

3. No, not at all. Change is good, but that doesn't make the original bad.

Sports actually could be lumped together with videogames and boardgames, and it fits my point exactly. You don't want to see that all games are in essence similar, because it would prove me right. And no, in reality Chess is not all that complicated; each piece has a way to move, they can be killed and the objective is to kill the king. That is not complex. The complexity comes through manipulating simple rules to your advantage. That is what makes Chess, Goldeneye, Baseball, Go, Shogi, Starcraft, Doom, Soccer et al so much fun.

Goldeneye is actually much better designed than the majority of games today. The cathartic nature of shooting enemies, the way the game entices the player to play the game on a different difficulty setting by adding new mission objectives, the possibility to advance despite a mission failure, and more. The guns are fun to use, and have plenty of strategy attached to them. That's why people liked it back then, have been clamoring for a remake for 13 years, and now are excited that it's coming out. If a kid doesn't like it, fine; that's his opinion. But the structure of the game is solid, and that is what makes it great. I can tell you I don't like Final Fantasy games; however, I can admit they are great games. The structure they provide is highly regarded and deservedly so; just because I prefer something else proves nothing. The basics are everything.

 

[DaMan1500]

Worst presentation yet. So no new titles, a rip off of mario party, a zelda with dodgy controls. Metroid which looks hollow, Kid Icarus, a dead franchise from the 80's, another generic side scrolling platformer (DK) etc. Golden Sun probably will be good, and kirby looked interesting but Mickey looked boring and Perfect Dark on XBL has taught us that remaking old games is pointless as they offer nothing close to the level of gameplay we expect from modern games.
Christ how is Nintendo not broke?

Yeah, because if some guy who played games in these franchises when they were new twenty-some years ago is sick of them, then clearly all the people who just started playing videogames with the Wii shouldn't get a chance to experience them. If people were just buying these games because of nostalga, then they'd probably sell like crap because the majority of Wii owners didn't play the origional games. It's obvious that both older and younger gamers like these games. Plus, you're ignoring the changes in gameplay from the early games in the series. Metroid and Kirby are both departing pretty radically from what they've done in the past, there are some obvious changes between the origional Goldeneye and the remake (in addition to the graphics), the new Kid Icarus has almost nothing in common with the origional, and Wii Party and Epic Mickey are both new franchises. Of course, I've been assuming that you've actually played the early iterations of these franchises. For all I know you could be a teenager who just started playing games this generation and's too insecure to play anything other than shooters.