Zero Punctuation: Nintendo 3DS

[The Human Torch]

I hate it when Yahtzee's opinion mirrors my own, yet he manages to word is so much better. Damn you and your superior vocabulary!

Also, I can't understand how Nintendo keeps curbstomping it's entire fanbase, yet they keep coming back for more. Bunch of sadomasochists...

 

[haibski]

Nintendo might as well add a physics effect to Donkey Kong's balls. That seemed like a snarky comment at first, but now that I think on it...over compensation for testicular weight could be quite revolutionary. P.S. Hardcore mode: Donkey lost a schnutt in an unfortunate mine cart excursion. P.S.S. Schnutt has now been copyrighted and has as many over-exaggerations of the letter t as I like.

Sincerely, ...

 

[UlytimateDestruction]

I'd never thought you would review the 3Ds, but it is another brilliant and hilarious review again!. I especially like the ending, mind if i borrow that line whenever I great my quests in?.

 

[Nostalgia]

I wonder if Microsoft decided to give (sell) Rare back to Nintendo, and if that would cause some creative explosion that propelled Nintendo to do something other than rehash with one hand while tantalizing the crowd with some "twist" using the other. The games sound like such a throw-back to the N64 that they're basically saying "Look, that was the best it ever got, so deal with it."

You do know that Rare's most recent game is Kinect Sports, right?

When I say creative explosion, I mean just that: Some universe, space-time-continuum bending phenomenon that makes Rare somehow good again by being with Nintendo, like the days long ago.

But yeah, right now Rare is like a pathetic, shell of a joke that you feel too guilty about laughing at afterwards with the garbage they've been producing for Microsoft. Mii-Avatars, especially. Something is dreadfully wrong if they managed to muck up Banjo Kazooie, that is for sure.

Ah. I had a feeling that is what you might have meant, but I wasn't sure. I agree with ya though. I do miss Rare of Nintendo. A lot of my favorite games on the SNES/N64 were developed by them.

I haven't played Nuts & Bolts, so I can't say for sure if it's a bad game. I like games in which you can build and be creative in, but I think it was too much of a shift. Perhaps that's what Microsoft/Rare wanted, who knows.

 

[Fluffis]

Excellent video! 3DS seems like it's even more of a fail than I'd thought.

Looking forward to next week as well.

And something tells me that he'll be jamming forks into his eyes at some time in the future.

Keep up the good work, Yahtzee!

 

[Electrogecko]

Seems to be some confusion about the price of 3ds games. To clarify, they are $40 USD.

I found the jetpack easier to maneuver than the other 2 vehicles after about an hour of practice. To say it handles badly is asinine- you simply are a bad driver.

And I'll say it for about the 1000th time- The Zelda games have more variety between them than just about any major videogame franchise in history. Exactly how can he review about 30 games from this generation that are the exact same concept (shooters) then rip on Zelda for being unoriginal is beyond me.

Oh and the streetpass feature works fine. I don't know what he's going on about during that segment.

A: He didn't say that all Zelda games are the same, but that Ocarina of Time has been released on every console following a different Zelda release. Ocarina of Time was bundles with Wind Waker, and released on the virtual console.
B: He constantly rips on shooters for being generic, gritty, boring and often cover based.

He's not the only one who's had problems with Streepass either.

You're right. He didn't say all Zelda games are the same. He said they're all Ocarina of Time. He didn't touch on the fact that OOT has been released on multiple consoles.

And the cover system is one of the biggest innovations the shooter got this generation. The fact that he rips on it is pretty narrow-minded, but my point remains that he uses this "Nintendo rehashes everything" as the crux of all his anti-Nintendo arguments (along with way too many users of the Escapist) when they are in no way deserving that criticism.

I think there's confusion over the initial setup of Streetpass and the requirements for it to initiate, but neither me nor anybody I know that owns the system has had any trouble with it (not that I've heard of anyway) and I just don't think it's a legitimate criticism. It's not rocket science- you have to have streetpass enabled for w/e titles you want, your wireless switch needs to be on, and it needs to be in sleep mode. (closed w/o being shut down)

I think people put waaaaay too much faith in Yahtzee's words. I'm sure the man is well aware that several of his points are bullshit and there for comedic effect, but the majority of his viewers don't seem to understand this.

OK, I see was wrong with Zelda, and you are right when you say he gives unfair criticism that isn't meant to be taken seriously, but is. Really, I love the 3DS, but he does have several valid points here.
I also mentioned the fact that he complains about cover based shooting because you said he NEVER complains about shooters, when he complains about just about everything. There are actually quite few games he doesn't complain about. You seem to want to disagree with him which makes you just as bad as anyone who wants to agree with him. I agree with him when he makes a valid point, that doesn't mean I share his opinion.
Also, one more question. How is hiding behind a cover, getting up to shoot, hiding, waiting for your health to regenerate, then repeat the process the biggest innovation? You could hide behind covers in Half-Life, that's not a new game.
Also, how stupid do you think I am? Of course I carry the 3DS in sleep mode while walking around in places where there should be someone else with a 3DS while having wi-fi turned on. Having IQ over 80 I understood this as soon as I understood there was something called Streetpass on the thing. It gives you a tutorial that explains everything to you in so much details that you would have to be an idiot not to understand it.

I do not take pro/anti-Yahtzee bias into my arguments. I agree with a lot of the things he said in this vid. Obviously, the motion controls don't combine well with the 3d and the streetpass features can be exploited- these things are inarguable. He could've also commented on the lack of a messaging system between friends, the mediocre battery life, or several other complaints about the system.

As you say, cover is an important part of shooters whether there's a control mechanic built around it or not, and I happen to think that being able to crouch behind a wall and peer over it with precision is better than having to constantly bob up and down like no human would ever do in a firefight. Innovation doesn't have to mean a completely unique game.

How exactly was I supposed to know you even owned a 3DS? I'm sorry if I upset your self esteem with my comment on the set-up process of streetpass.

 

[SelectivelyEvil13]

I wonder if Microsoft decided to give (sell) Rare back to Nintendo, and if that would cause some creative explosion that propelled Nintendo to do something other than rehash with one hand while tantalizing the crowd with some "twist" using the other. The games sound like such a throw-back to the N64 that they're basically saying "Look, that was the best it ever got, so deal with it."

You do know that Rare's most recent game is Kinect Sports, right?

When I say creative explosion, I mean just that: Some universe, space-time-continuum bending phenomenon that makes Rare somehow good again by being with Nintendo, like the days long ago.

But yeah, right now Rare is like a pathetic, shell of a joke that you feel too guilty about laughing at afterwards with the garbage they've been producing for Microsoft. Mii-Avatars, especially. Something is dreadfully wrong if they managed to muck up Banjo Kazooie, that is for sure.

Ah. I had a feeling that is what you might have meant, but I wasn't sure. I agree with ya though. I do miss Rare of Nintendo. A lot of my favorite games on the SNES/N64 were developed by them.

I haven't played Nuts & Bolts, so I can't say for sure if it's a bad game. I like games in which you can build and be creative in, but I think it was too much of a shift. Perhaps that's what Microsoft/Rare wanted, who knows.

I haven't played Nuts & Bolts, either, so I can't definitively say that it's officially gone and done for as far as Banjo and Kazooie. But what I begrudge is how not only was it such a departure for the series, there was no consoling for fans of the past games. I can get a departure "spin-off" in a situation where the spin off is in addition to a true Banjo Threeie, but completely going for something out there just spurred me in the opposite direction of interest.

The best example I can think of is that Banjo was a racer in Diddy Kong Racing on the N64 (as was Conker... how I miss Conker as well), and Nuts & Bolts comes off like it went too far in the vehicle direction and took too much inspiration in game design from Diddy Kong Racing's multitude of vehicle types. That's wonderful! Innovation is great! But don't go calling that the threequel to the Banjo Kazooie series. Releasing a "Gears of War Tank vs. Big Locust-mount-critters-things" game and calling it "Gears of War 3!" would peeve me just as much.

Nintendo has done this in the past (I'm looking at the Gamecube), and Microsoft apparently is using Rare to try the same thing: Depart from the norm fans come to love in favor of experimental changes or outright gimmicks. For instance, the Gamecube had Mario Sunshine that played off of the water gun, but never anything remotely as charming as Mario 64 until (from what I have heard) Mario Galaxy on the Wii.

Mind you, sticking to something familiar to the fans can easily be confused with blunt stagnation, and unfortunately, Nintendo hasn't been able to really grasp that all too well in many cases[footnote]See overdone Mario Spinoff criticisms many people have[/footnote], but they aren't the only company guilty, either. Innovation and differentiation have sparked some truly great changes for video games (see the cover based shooter discussion people are having) because we would otherwise be playing the same games again and again and again. But there comes a point where it is pretty bad once people like myself start associating the term "new innovation!" with "stupid gimmick throwing in distracting crap nobody asked for in the first place."

 

[Drakmorg]

Pretty good review. I absolutely loved the 3DS in the top hat.
The Senor Koquonfaes bit was also good for a few laughs as well.

 

[Yopaz]

I do not take pro/anti-Yahtzee bias into my arguments. I agree with a lot of the things he said in this vid. Obviously, the motion controls don't combine well with the 3d and the streetpass features can be exploited- these things are inarguable. He could've also commented on the lack of a messaging system between friends, the mediocre battery life, or several other complaints about the system.

As you say, cover is an important part of shooters whether there's a control mechanic built around it or not, and I happen to think that being able to crouch behind a wall and peer over it with precision is better than having to constantly bob up and down like no human would ever do in a firefight. Innovation doesn't have to mean a completely unique game.

How exactly was I supposed to know you even owned a 3DS? I'm sorry if I upset your self esteem with my comment on the set-up process of streetpass.

Really? Because it seems like you have to prove him wrong on every account. In your first 2 posts you didn't want to admit to agree with anything he said, not before I said you were just as bad as the sheep who agrees with everything he says did you admit that sometimes you agree.
That something is innovative, doesn't mean it's only used in one game, true. However basing your game on one single element like crouching behind cover kinda ruins the fact that it's innovative because it ruins ALL variation in the game. It also stops being innovative when 70% of all shooters have it, also Deus Ex did this so it's not form this generation. If you're thinking of the way it's done in third person shooters I can't believe you claim it's more like what humans actually do. I have never seen a human crouched with his back against a chest high wall (you know the kind that you find only in those shooters) and looking over it at the same time before he pops up gun already aimed at a guy on the other side of the room before he shoots him. You can't look over a wall without lifting your head from the back of it. The kind where you stand against the wall and looking into a corridor also isn't that probable, even in fps games. In that case you usually end up shotting with only your head and a little part of your upper body out there, and that makes firing a gun far less accurate. In any case, whether it's realistic or not, my point still stands. When you can go through a game using only one tactic it kills off any new game mechanic that might have been interesting unless they change the execution of it. Take Portal, their interesting feature is the use of portals, then making puzzles that work as tutorial, then making them harder and harder. Most cover based games give you the options to hide behind cover or die. So in the first firefight you hide behind cover, shoot when it's safe. In the second one you hide behind cover and shoot when it's safe. In the third one you hide behind cover and shoot when it's safe. See how complaining about that "innovative" game play might get dull when you're in fight 50 and using the same tactic as in fight 1-49? In Perfect Dark you could go a whole level without killing someone, being able to choose your tactics was a huge part of that game's success.

 

[Electrogecko]

I do not take pro/anti-Yahtzee bias into my arguments. I agree with a lot of the things he said in this vid. Obviously, the motion controls don't combine well with the 3d and the streetpass features can be exploited- these things are inarguable. He could've also commented on the lack of a messaging system between friends, the mediocre battery life, or several other complaints about the system.

As you say, cover is an important part of shooters whether there's a control mechanic built around it or not, and I happen to think that being able to crouch behind a wall and peer over it with precision is better than having to constantly bob up and down like no human would ever do in a firefight. Innovation doesn't have to mean a completely unique game.

How exactly was I supposed to know you even owned a 3DS? I'm sorry if I upset your self esteem with my comment on the set-up process of streetpass.

Really? Because it seems like you have to prove him wrong on every account. In your first 2 posts you didn't want to admit to agree with anything he said, not before I said you were just as bad as the sheep who agrees with everything he says did you admit that sometimes you agree.
That something is innovative, doesn't mean it's only used in one game, true. However basing your game on one single element like crouching behind cover kinda ruins the fact that it's innovative because it ruins ALL variation in the game. It also stops being innovative when 70% of all shooters have it, also Deus Ex did this so it's not form this generation. If you're thinking of the way it's done in third person shooters I can't believe you claim it's more like what humans actually do. I have never seen a human crouched with his back against a chest high wall (you know the kind that you find only in those shooters) and looking over it at the same time before he pops up gun already aimed at a guy on the other side of the room before he shoots him. You can't look over a wall without lifting your head from the back of it. The kind where you stand against the wall and looking into a corridor also isn't that probable, even in fps games. In that case you usually end up shotting with only your head and a little part of your upper body out there, and that makes firing a gun far less accurate. In any case, whether it's realistic or not, my point still stands. When you can go through a game using only one tactic it kills off any new game mechanic that might have been interesting unless they change the execution of it. Take Portal, their interesting feature is the use of portals, then making puzzles that work as tutorial, then making them harder and harder. Most cover based games give you the options to hide behind cover or die. So in the first firefight you hide behind cover, shoot when it's safe. In the second one you hide behind cover and shoot when it's safe. In the third one you hide behind cover and shoot when it's safe. See how complaining about that "innovative" game play might get dull when you're in fight 50 and using the same tactic as in fight 1-49? In Perfect Dark you could go a whole level without killing someone, being able to choose your tactics was a huge part of that game's success.

I'm offended by your consistent insinuations that my opinions are influenced by Yahtzee or random people on the internet's opinion of me.

Saying that including a cover system destroys gameplay variety is.....well....controversial at least. The problem in your argument is you're associating cover systems with things they don't necessarily need to be associated with, such as regenerating health, being able to see behind your cover as you're hidden, or a heavy reliance on cover combat or chest-high walls. Cover systems do nothing except make it easier to do what you would be doing (or trying to do) without them. I don't see how being able to easily hide behind a wall (which, believe it or not, people do a lot in gunfights) creates a fundamental difference in the gameplay or level design.

 

[Yopaz]

I'm offended by your consistent insinuations that my opinions are influenced by Yahtzee or random people on the internet's opinion of me.

Saying that including a cover system destroys gameplay variety is.....well....controversial at least. The problem in your argument is you're associating cover systems with things they don't necessarily need to be associated with, such as regenerating health, being able to see behind your cover as you're hidden, or a heavy reliance on cover combat or chest-high walls. Cover systems do nothing except make it easier to do what you would be doing (or trying to do) without them. I don't see how being able to easily hide behind a wall (which, believe it or not, people do a lot in gunfights) creates a fundamental difference in the gameplay or level design.

I didn't say that a cover system ruins the variety, I say that cover based games, or in simple terms so you understand, a game based around the cover system so that covering is the thing you'll end up doing all the time. The kind you're thinking of, where you can cover, was found in Deus Ex, which is about 11 years old, so not an innovation from the current generation. Also the whole point I tried to make when I first made the comment about Yahtzee complaining about cover based combat was that you said he always says something bad about Nintendo and their "innovative" games while he never says anything bad about shooters. Way to go on missing my point 100% by sticking to your claim that it's the biggest innovation from this generation. Yes, it might have been improved, but that's like adding a clock to an invention that's already made. Sure it's practical and it will sell, but that doesn't change the fact that it's an old invention. Rainbow Six (1998) and Deus Ex (2000) both had a cover system where you could peek from behind cover. These games that were made over a decade ago has this thing you explain as the biggest innovation of this generation shooters. Explain one part of the cover system today that makes it innovative, and not just an improvement of what was already there. As it is you haven't given me any reason why it is.
There's a difference between innovation and imitation.

 

[Electrogecko]

I'm offended by your consistent insinuations that my opinions are influenced by Yahtzee or random people on the internet's opinion of me.

Saying that including a cover system destroys gameplay variety is.....well....controversial at least. The problem in your argument is you're associating cover systems with things they don't necessarily need to be associated with, such as regenerating health, being able to see behind your cover as you're hidden, or a heavy reliance on cover combat or chest-high walls. Cover systems do nothing except make it easier to do what you would be doing (or trying to do) without them. I don't see how being able to easily hide behind a wall (which, believe it or not, people do a lot in gunfights) creates a fundamental difference in the gameplay or level design.

I didn't say that a cover system ruins the variety, I say that cover based games, or in simple terms so you understand, a game based around the cover system so that covering is the thing you'll end up doing all the time. The kind you're thinking of, where you can cover, was found in Deus Ex, which is about 11 years old, so not an innovation from the current generation. Also the whole point I tried to make when I first made the comment about Yahtzee complaining about cover based combat was that you said he always says something bad about Nintendo and their "innovative" games while he never says anything bad about shooters. Way to go on missing my point 100% by sticking to your claim that it's the biggest innovation from this generation. Yes, it might have been improved, but that's like adding a clock to an invention that's already made. Sure it's practical and it will sell, but that doesn't change the fact that it's an old invention. Rainbow Six (1998) and Deus Ex (2000) both had a cover system where you could peek from behind cover. These games that were made over a decade ago has this thing you explain as the biggest innovation of this generation shooters. Explain one part of the cover system today that makes it innovative, and not just an improvement of what was already there. As it is you haven't given me any reason why it is.
There's a difference between innovation and imitation.

You need to take a look at your first sentence. It's incomplete, but I have the feeling the direction it was headed in was contradictory. And I'm sorry that my first experience with a cover system was on my 360 and that it made one of my earlier points partially invalid.

I got the point of you mentioning the topic the first time around thank you very much. That doesn't mean that we can't debate about it. Way to, once again, make a false accusation in a condescending manner.

I don't understand your argument. Are you claiming there's some fundamental difference between a so-called "cover based game" and any game that incorporates a cover system? It seems to me like the only difference between the two is an excess of chest high walls and other cover structures in the former, but this is a flaw in the level design and not in the mechanic itself. My argument is that some form of control that allows you to more easily shoot from behind cover is a recent major improvement to the shooter genre- that's all I meant by innovative, but I guess you win. You're absolutely right- cover systems are more than a decade old. Please leave me alone now.

 

[whitechip]

I love you.

 

[GxRacer]

Yahtzee, still not in 3D and waiting for the Matrix to take over.

or just the killer computer from Portal.

 

[LulzOdin]

LMAO!!! This episode was awesome. It would seem Yahtzee performs best when he is full of pure hatred and ranting power. XD

 

[Bluestripe44]

There are about 300 game devs who would slap you if you met them Yahtzee.

 

[siNwrath]

I hate it when Yahtzee's opinion mirrors my own, yet he manages to word is so much better. Damn you and your superior vocabulary!

Also, I can't understand how Nintendo keeps curbstomping it's entire fanbase, yet they keep coming back for more. Bunch of sadomasochists...

Look again. Nintendo have been amazingly consistent with their quality. They're the only company I know of that can translate from 2D to 3D and nail it every time. They not only earned their way into the history books, but continue to do so on a fairly regular basis.

The Wii might not have been particularly popular inside of hardcore gaming, but it introduced us to the world of motion controls squandered or not, but more importantly it introduced gaming to the masses, on a scale never seen before, and still Nintendo fans were rewarded and are rewarded. 2 Zeldas in one cycle? FUCK YES.

More importantly, Nintendo's success in motion controls threw Microsoft and Sony through a loop. They've just released Move and Kinect, and aren't prepared for any kind of next gen. If Nintendo can follow through, they have the opportunity to leave them in the dust.

Besides Yahtzee was incredibly unfair to the 3DS. I turn 3D off sometimes, sure. Its still a really nice console.

 

[Little Duck]

Most likely there will be a 3ds mild improvement which will have the whole illusion issue solved. And there will be games. But unless they're games I care for I still won't.

 

[xdiesp]

Think of how cool it would be to have a Microsoft handheld. Play as a marine in all games, now portable!

 

[The Human Torch]

I hate it when Yahtzee's opinion mirrors my own, yet he manages to word is so much better. Damn you and your superior vocabulary!

Also, I can't understand how Nintendo keeps curbstomping it's entire fanbase, yet they keep coming back for more. Bunch of sadomasochists...

Look again. Nintendo have been amazingly consistent with their quality. They're the only company I know of that can translate from 2D to 3D and nail it every time. They not only earned their way into the history books, but continue to do so on a fairly regular basis.

The Wii might not have been particularly popular inside of hardcore gaming, but it introduced us to the world of motion controls squandered or not, but more importantly it introduced gaming to the masses, on a scale never seen before, and still Nintendo fans were rewarded and are rewarded. 2 Zeldas in one cycle? FUCK YES.

More importantly, Nintendo's success in motion controls threw Microsoft and Sony through a loop. They've just released Move and Kinect, and aren't prepared for any kind of next gen. If Nintendo can follow through, they have the opportunity to leave them in the dust.

Besides Yahtzee was incredibly unfair to the 3DS. I turn 3D off sometimes, sure. Its still a really nice console.

Under quality I also put things like "large varied game library" and "online support". While I admit that the Wii has a been a great success among casuals, you can't build on these people since they are fickle at best and with a game library as limited as the Wii, things will get boring very fast. Even casuals don't want to play the same mini-games over and over again. Most of the Wii's purchased are now only used as a paperweight.

You mean 2 Zelda's in one cycle as if that would mean anything to me, it doesn't. You said it correctly yourself with: "still Nintendo fans were rewarded".
That's right. The Nintendo fans were, because appearantly they take pleasure in having a console with only a few Zelda, Metroid and Mario games. Nintendo fans always struck me as a weird bunch, since they get such a kick out of the playing the same holy trinity games over and over again.

The Gamecube was a failure and so was the Wii, it completely lost it's grip on the hardcore gamer market and now Nintendo is hoping to bring them back with a console that is slightly more powerful than a PS3 and (finally) with HD support. Hopefully Nintendo will also fix their online network, get rid of all the friend codes and what not.

Yahtzee wasn't unfair towards the 3DS, he was just. It's nothing more than a gimmick to justify released YET another version of the DS and it never ceases to amaze me how the Nintendo fans keep swallowing this garbage. They are like Apple fans I guess, gotta buy a new Ipod every 2 years, cause the next one has one extra GB of space. Whooooooooo.