James

[quote]The issue at hand is that you keep trying to say that "Change is change" but such a phrase is empty and meaningless here. Of course games change throughout their development. I never argued otherwise. What I've been saying is that the changes you've been mentioning are typical for dev cycles. The very fast changes and decisions we've seen in the past nine months are not typical for dev cycles. I called the WiiTP changes unusual, because they're the red-headed stepchild when it comes to dev time.[/quote] [font=arial]You are referring to development time, right? Let's just establish that first. You're saying that it's unusual for these types of changes to occur so late in a game's development. What I'm telling you is that this is simply incorrect. Many games go through these types of changes (and more complex ones) this late in their development cycle. If that [i]is not[/i] what you are saying, then please clarify it, because the point seems to keep changing.[/font] [quote]Your responses here are just totally ignoring why I said what I said. I brought up "change is change" because you've been trying to lump in every development change with each other under the singular flawed umbrella concept of "change happens." You've since largely disregarded the use of exploring why certain changes happen and what they mean. You've been a stickler for making distinctions in the three or four years that I've known you, James. Dozens of your posts in the past have hyperfocused on making minute distinctions, especially when it comes to games. So why should this be any different? You know perfectly well that Nintendo didn't plan ahead at all for WiiTP. These changes were the Wii equivalent of a shotgun wedding.[/quote] [font=arial]The problem is that you are hair-splitting and running around in circles here. I [i]am[/i] making distinctions, but you are ignoring them. So let me repeat: You are telling me that these changes are the equivalent of a shotgun wedding. They are not. Nintendo has had plenty of time to implement these changes - they've had almost one year. That is a [i]long[/i] time in any game's development. Therefore, nobody should be concerned that Nintendo is simply riding roughshot over the game, because that simply isn't the case.[/font] [quote]But even in light of that, I'll still humor your O'Reilly-esque point distraction. You say that WiiTP is getting much better treatment than most of the other ports? The swordplay in WiiTP barely qualifies as swordplay (vertical swipes with the Wiimote translating to horizontal slashes is PATHETIC no matter how you try to spin it in Nintendo's favor). Marvel UA is getting a hell of a lot better treatment. Even Madden 07 is getting better treatment. Far Cry Vengeance's entire control scheme is being re-built to utilize the Wiimote as much as possible. Splinter Cell: Double Agent is seeing almost a dozen control changes, some of which are utilizing pressure sensitivity based on the Wiimote. If anything, WiiTP is getting mediocre treatment at best because the game only had nine months to be converted to Wii, whereas the other ports were at least being designed with Wii in mind from the start. Especially Marvel UA going to a specialty developer. [/quote] [font=arial]Let me address my quote first. First of all, I made that comment in August of 2005 - [i]well[/i] before E3 2006 came along. Secondly, the comment must be taken in context - you yourself are pulling a classic O'Reilly by disregarding the quotation's placement in the discussion. You have to remember that when the quote was made, the Wii's technical specifications were not fully understood by anyone outside Nintendo. In fact, this was even before the controller was unveiled (that was in October 2005). So, the quote isn't entirely relevant to this discussion, because you are trying to compare apples and oranges - you're raising a red herring, which really hasn't got the same foundation as this discussion. At that point in time, the quote was assuming that the Wii was going to be significantly more powerful...it was also assuming that the game would be entirely redeveloped for Wii (rather than simply ported from GameCube). Thus, it's not a very good comparison to make. To reply to your quote...again, you can't really accuse me of "O'Reilly" tactics when you are making very awkward comparisons. You are comparing games that were "built for Wii from the ground up" with a [i]port[/i]. Again you're comparing apples and oranges. I don't care how TP compares to a game that is built for Wii from the ground up because TP [i]is not built for Wii from the ground up[/i]; it is a port. lol I am only referring to ports here. In addition, nine months is a long, long time for a port - it's longer than most ports get. Few games actually see such major changes when they make a platform switch. And those that go even further than WiiTP take similar amounts of time to develop (RE4, anyone?) And before you try to compare RE4 to TP, I will make one quick point about the development time - don't forget that Wii is essentially a GameCube, hardware-wise. The API is basically the same. This means that the porting process is significantly easier - developers do not have to worry about making any major changes to code to get a game to run on Wii, because Wii uses the same development tools as GameCube (whereas with RE4, you're going from GCN to PS2, which have remarkably different development environments). So, to do a direct port, it would probably take a month or less - this is without controller changes or additions. If you work from this basis, Nintendo still had months (well over six months) to implement additions and controller changes. Most of this time would have been dedicated to testing and analysis. As a result, nobody can say with any degree of authority that this is a rushed port, or a port that suffers from the transition. You can talk about how you don't like the canned sword attacks, but every Zelda has had these - pressing the same button to achieve different swipes is no different to simply moving the controller. I know what you'd [i]like[/i] to see, but again, that is a different issue and I'm not debating what you'd like to see...I'm simply pointing out that this isn't some kind of roughtshot port.[/font] [quote]Yes. Six to nine months ago at the tail end of a multiple year development cycle after the original target version had been delayed three times in the span of one year. [/quote] [font=arial]Right. What is your point? That the game had a multi-year development cycle and was delayed multiple times has [b]nothing[/b] to do with converting the game to Wii. lol[/font] [quote]I offered two options, James. That was made fairly clear by my use of "either" and "or". One explanation was a quick decision. The other was jerking players around for almost two years and hoping that most would be so enthralled by the tiny little carrot being dangled in front of their faces that they'd just completely ignore just how stupid and bone-headed the decision was. And so far, I'm thinking their plan worked perfectly. [/quote] [font=arial]I ignored neither of your options - I simply said that these are the only options you're providing. Both are biased and reflect your own inaccurate view of the development process.[/font] [quote]James, look at the launch list. You've got less than six original properties on there that are being designed specifically for the Wii from the ground-up (and even some of those are totally gimmicky, just like the DS launch line-up). Everything else is a port with very gimmicky Wiimote features.[/quote] [font=arial]I'm simply not going to go into an entire debate about the launch list. I'm just not going to go there at the moment - I barely have the time to keep chasing my tail here, lol. Maybe we can discuss the launch lineup in a new thread when the system is actually available. ^_^[/font] [quote]So why even bring it up in the first place? You just explained how it was completely irrelevant when it comes to Wii.[/quote] [font=arial]It wasn't my point that was irrelevant, it was the interpretation being used that wasn't relevant. I was using the tea table analogy to point out that it's normal for major changes to occur late in a development cycle and that this is completely normal. None of this implies a slack or rough approach to development.[/font] [quote]No, you see, there's no fundamental change to play control when the game itself still performs like the typical traditional Zelda game: methodical and slow, with stationary ranged enemies, near-non-existent urgency to act in non-boss battles, enemy AI that is still plagued by stupid patterns, boss battles that are still plagued by stupid patterns...when all of that is still present, it does not matter whether you're using a joystick or a Wiimote. You can still take all the time you want and not have to worry about anything. The play control does not change because you're not playing the game any differently, because the game itself does not require you to play any differently.[/quote] [font=arial]Well, again...all of this is based on what? Ultimately it's based on an assumption. What you're describing also ignores my original point. Regardless how the AI behaves or how the levels are designed, playing Zelda on Wii is going to feel completely different because of the interaction method used. Let me give you an example to make this a little clearer. Think of Super Mario 64 DS and compare it to the original Nintendo 64 version. Both games are identical in terms of structure (other than some additions for the DS version), so they are "fundamentally the same", right? No, not at all. Even if we [i]only[/i] look at the controller changes, it would have to be said that the game plays quite differently with a D-Pad. Apart from the fact that it can cramp your hands up quite a bit (heheh), the actual "feeling" was not at all similar to the Nintendo 64 version - in many cases, players had to approach situations differently, knowing that they didn't have the same nimbleness on the DS. In a broad sense, this same comparison can be made with Zelda. Of course, you are still using the analog stick to walk around...but movement and game interaction are fundamentally different on Wii - not necessarily [i]better[/i], but different. That's my point. Whether or not the enemies are different isn't really relevant here. If you find it more difficult to aim your arrow with the remote, because of the added sensitivity and physical movement, this may change the way you approach certain situations in the game - it might make you more cautious, or if you are better with this system, it might make you more confident and more willing to dive into the action. In the end, it will have an impact on the overall game experience. [/font] [quote]So let me get this straight. It's basically the casual gamers/public who aren't going to know about the GCN version delay? If the casual people don't know or care about the delay, presumably they've already been sold on Wii and WiiTP, right? So then presumably they'd have been following that news, and rarely if at all has Nintendo released news about TP that didn't include information about both versions. I'd see that as a strong likelihood they at least knew something.[/quote] [font=arial]No...not at all. I'm not saying that casual gamers don't know about the GCN version being delayed - I'm saying that many simply won't care. Many casual gamers don't even play Zelda, for starters. lol Also, there are plenty of people who simply don't own a GameCube. Wii may be some people's first Nintendo console. Many casual gamers grew up with Xbox or PlayStation - don't forget about these people, who are now in the majority. For them - especially those who do not follow gaming news (those who follow gaming news are mostly early-adopters), it's just not going to be an issue. You also have to remember that many casual gamers simply aren't as informed as you or I. Plenty of people are going to simply say "Yeah, I'd rather play this game on a new system than an old one". Sure, it's not something you or I would say, but plenty will say it, I assure you.[/font] [quote]But here's another problem with what you said. The only way a casual person won't care about GCN TP is if they're already sold on WiiTP.[/quote] [font=arial]No, that first point disqualifies what comes after it. You are [i]assuming[/i] that all casual gamers are Zelda players. Most are not. Most casual gamers (and non-gamers) don't even own a GameCube - and they are certainly not going to buy one just for Zelda. These people are more likely to be reached by Wii, due both to its different control system as well as its software library...which is not only far broader than any other platform launch for this generation, but which also contains software that is non-gamer-friendly.[/font] [quote]But 250 for the system, plus 50-60 for the game, plus a memory stick around 20-30, and controllers that cost 60...are not casual prices. Hell, even regular to "hardcore" gamers winced when they heard some of those pricings. You say that casual people won't care about the GCN TP delay. I think it goes even farther than that. Casuals won't even care about Wii when they see an immediate expense in the upwards of 400 dollars. [/quote] [font=arial]Well...let's put it in perspective. $250 for the system, $50 for the game, controller is included and no memory stick is required (game saves can be stored on the system's Flash ROM). So it's certainly not an expensive proposition - this is particularly true if you compare it to everything else that is available on the market in the next generation (Xbox 360 and PS3, for example). I certainly don't think that [i]non-gamers[/i] are really willing to spend a fortune on this type of entertainment...but Wii is more likely to appeal to these people than any other system, GameCube included.[/font] [quote]So then it comes back to the "hardcore" gamers, which is the complete opposite of what Nintendo has been striving to do with Wii in the first place. Instead of seeming inclusive they've made a major mistake here and now seem even more exclusive than they were when they only had the GCN around. Appealing to the "hardcore" gamers is not what Nintendo wanted to do with Wii.[/quote] [font=arial]I don't quite know how you figure that Nintendo isn't intending to appeal to hardcore gamers with Wii. Let's see...entire back catalogue of Nintendo, Sega and Turbografix software...backwards compatibility with GameCube...Zelda, Mario, Excite Truck, Resident Evil, Metroid... Nintendo is appealing to all gamers with Wii, there's just no question about that. The only question is whether or not the system is going to appeal to [i]non-gamers[/i]. I don't know if it will, but I guarantee, it has a better chance than any other platform available today (with the exception of DS, which has already proven itself there).[/font] [quote]One, there is no Wii-base installed yet, so it's impossible for anyone to have a Wii, and since everything is hitting on launch day, there's no chance for preparation. Stores aren't even taking pre-orders yet. [/quote] [font=arial]No chance for preparation? How does that have anything to do with hardcore gamers? Hardcore gamers are already pre-ordering the thing. It's no different to any other launch in that sense.[/font] [quote]And two, these "hardcore" gamers...the ones that know about the GCN TP delay...are the ones who have had the GCN TP pre-ordered for almost two years now. And they got screwed over by the "pay attention to the birdie" launch dates trick. What's a month going to matter when it's been a little over a year of delays already? It's what that month represents that's really pissing people off; it's a broken promise, a discarded pledge. It's basically the final insult.[/quote] [font=arial]If these people are "hardcore gamers" and they've had the game pre-ordered for that long, then surely they would know that a month-long delay is absolutely peanuts for a Nintendo game. Start thinking about every Nintendo game that has seen a significant delay and it will start to become clearer. I'm not saying the delay is a good thing, because it's not, especially for GameCube owners. [i]However[/i], it's not worth tearing your hair out over. It really isn't. lol[/font] [quote]WiiTP good for hardcore gamers? Not at all. It's horrible for hardcore gamers, especially the ones who stuck by Nintendo during all of the delays. It's the hardcore gamers that really kept Nintendo alive. They're the ones who bought RE4 when the GCN was on its last legs. They're the ones who were willing to go with Wind Waker even when it wasn't a complete Zelda game by any stretch of the imagination. It's the hardcore gamers who lined up at midnight in front of Gamestops and Best Buys when the DS Lite was hitting retail.[/quote] [font=arial]The hardcore gamers will be the ones who will line up at midnight for Wii, too. The hardcore gamers are the ones who will still buy Zelda despite the delay. The hardcore gamers are the ones who will probably buy [i]both[/i] Zeldas in some cases. It's not a federal case, it's a month-long game delay. Those of us who have been playing Nintendo games for years are used to much worse. Again, I'm not condoning the delay...I don't think delaying the GCN version is the right answer for anyone. And I don't like it either. I'm simply pointing out that it's a minor issue in the scheme of things, especially in terms of Nintendo games in general.[/font] [quote]So it was good business back then to keep TP as a GCN exclusive, and now it's good business to ignore TP GCN exclusiveness entirely?[/quote] [font=arial]Again, you're pulling out a complete red herring. This is a [b]poor[/b] way to argue a case, Alex. lol Since you like bolding text, I'll bold my response. [b]I was talking about moving the game from GameCube to Wii...[i]not[/i] simply porting it and releasing it on both consoles.[/b] In addition, at the time that quote was written, we all assumed that Zelda was going to be released within a few months' time...not in more than a year. It's just not worth pulling out random quotes and ignoring the context.[/font] [quote]Translation for both of those: "At least we're getting this."[/quote] [font=arial]Not at all. The translation would be as it says - we're getting a port. And it's a port that goes much further than many other ports. This is a good thing and not a bad thing. As I keep saying, you don't have to buy the Wii version, nor do you have to like it. But that doesn't mean the port is somehow bad or Nintendo somehow did something wrong - it's [i]okay[/i] not to buy it or like it, you don't have to justify that by trying to imply something sinister about it. lol[/font] [quote]A concession is a defeatist statement. James, you're forgiving Nintendo because you got a carrot, plain and simple. What you're failing to realize is that carrot is nowhere near as healthy as it should have been. But you don't care because it's still a carrot. You're conceding to Nintendo that the carrot is good enough. But it's not good enough to anyone who's taken a step back and really thought about what's going on here with this entire Wii launch fiasco. What you're saying is totally defeatist optimism. It's a total concession.[/quote] [font=arial]You're simply misunderstanding my comments - perhaps they are not clear enough. So I will repeat myself again. First of all, I'm not conceding anything. I am happy to have the game ported to Wii and I'd rather play it with a new control scheme. This does not equate to saying "near enough is good enough", because I have never believed that, particularly when it comes to games (and especially Nintendo games). Secondly, I'm approaching the situation in a realistic manner. Do I expect a port of Twilight Princess to have Red Steel-esque sword control? No, I don't. Why? Because it's a port, not a Wii-original. And that's fine with me. I understand that I am not getting a totally different game, I'm getting a port. This doesn't mean I have a defeatist attitude in the slightest, lol. It simply means that I'm pleased with the attention Nintendo has paid to the port and I'm going to be happy to buy the Wii version, rather than the GameCube version. [/font] [quote]Funny stuff indeed, James, because I certainly see a...gasp! What is that? Is that...a single sentence?[/quote] [font=arial]No, it's an entire post that takes forever to respond to. Haha But good try! ~_^ Anyway, I think the bottom line with all of this stuff is simply that the proof is in the pudding. I am sure that plenty of people will be turned off by Zelda using Wii controls. Perhaps I will be too. But I won't know until I try it. I'm just not willing to try to find something "horrible" about the whole thing at this stage - I am [i]generally[/i] not willing to make such presumptions before I try a game. Also...I do think it's worth correcting certain misconceptions about game development. As long as these things are corrected, I think it's a bit easier to have a more accurate view of the whole situation. That won't change what people think of the game (if they don't like the experience, they don't like it). It also won't change what anyone thinks about the delay (I don't think any of us [i]like[/i] the delay, or any delay for that matter). But at least it will ensure that this idea of a roughshot port is completely disregarded - it's definitely not a fair point when it comes to all the people who have worked so hard to ensure that the conversion is handled with care and quality.[/font]

[quote]Yes, they re-did it using the Doom 3 engine. They expanded the gameplay. Added loads of new content. It's a major, dramatic change. But it's the usual for the industry. It's happened before. We expect it...especially when it's a 3D Realms game from the mid 90s that was completely outdated by five or six years by the time Human Head was brought on board. But is it the "same type" of change we see in WiiTP? I'm not talking about the amount of re-programming required. I'm talking about what we regularly see in the industry versus what we're seeing in these very gimmicky Wii ports that all sound very knee-jerk when we really think about them. [/quote] [font=arial]Well, again, we can really keep going around in circles and get nowhere. The point I am making - and have been frequently making in this thread - is that it is common for games to go through major changes through their development cycle, even toward the end of it. Whether those changes are visual, layout-based, AI-based or controller based is not particularly relevant - the point is that companies often decide to add elements or change elements right up to the deadline. Are the changes in Prey the same or similar to what was changed in Twilight Princess? No. But the two games represent "the norm" in the videogame industry, in terms of such major changes being made late in the development cycle. And as I have also pointed out, there are other games (on Wii and other platforms) that go through these specific types of control changes toward the end when a port is being done. There is nothing unusual about that. Nintendo has gone through several stages of development on the controls alone, so as to ensure that the Wii version feels as natural as possible within the context of TP's gameplay. If they had rode rough-shot over the game and added something pointless or not worthwhile, they would not have taken that kind of care. But this should not be unexpected of Nintendo. It's what they do. Twilight Princess is no different.[/font] [quote]The changes in other games were parts of the regular development cycle, or due to changing developers. The changes in WiiTP, however, were implemented so Nintendo could have a Zelda launch title for their new system. That is not part of the normal development cycle and the reasons for the change are not the normal reasons for the change. Sure, we could say that Nintendo was planning for it from the beginning, right? And stringing everyone along? That they planned to include Wiimote sword control from the very beginning, right? That they were just toying with the public with repeated denials regarding the rumors going around about the fate of TP on GCN?[/quote] [font=arial]I see what you are saying and in a sense you are right. This is a port and this is not something Nintendo would have done with the original release (obviously). But we keep getting away from the issue at hand. The key point I'm trying to make is that the changes to TP on Wii are not only substantial (in that they change the feel of the game and by default the way it plays), but that they are carefully-considered changes that are designed to effectively gel with the game's existing gameplay - in other words, they aren't as "tacked on" as is being made out.[/font] [quote]There are two explanations here. Nintendo either made a very quick decision earlier this year or they have been f-cking with everyone for almost two years now. Personally, I'd respect them more for the very quick decision. And this is coming from a guy who loves f-cking with people's perceptions. But either way, Nintendo made a lousy decision in terms of development. It was either a last-minute decision after seeing the reactions and realizing they didn't have a very strong launch line-up, or they were just messing with everyone's heads in the hopes that it would be a positive response when they finally dropped the big news. [/quote] [font=arial]Nintendo made the decision late last year I believe - a few months prior to E3. But the reason you've suggested isn't really right, I don't think. I mean...you're kind of presuming that the only way they could have come up with this decision is by saying "oh my god, our launch line up is so bad that we really need to rush over a Zelda port!!!!" That's the only option? lol In truth, I think Nintendo saw the opportunity to provide TP on Wii and went with it. They had plenty of time to get the game right for Wii - almost a year. That's not rushed, nor is it some kind of impulse decision. It's fine for you not to like the idea behind TP or whatever, but there are a lot of assumptions going on. [/font] [quote]About 90% of the launch titles. And I'm just as displeased about them as I am with WiiTP. Very little in the launch titles aren't gimmicky. It's a DS launch line-up, hence my comments earlier. [/quote] [font=arial]I don't really agree, but nothing will convince you until you play the games. So that's my only advice. I think you will change your mind if you play several launch games on the system though.[/font] [quote]So "Change is change"?[/quote] [font=arial]Basically, yep. WiiTP is actually getting much better treatment than most other games get (as far as ports go). In terms of the quality of the port, there's absolutely no reason to be worried. But as I keep saying, that's different from not liking the idea of a port altogether. That latter point is something I understand but don't agree with, so there isn't a whole lot more to be said about that until the game actually comes out.[/font] [quote]Of course the game was going to change. Was there ever any other expectation from a demo trailer shown in 2001, shortly after the GCN had just been brought onto the market?[/quote] [font=arial]Bingo. Of course the game was going to change...of course most games change significantly. That's it, you got it. :catgirl: [/font] [quote]And so you feel that "upending the tea table" applies to WiiTP? That the changes dramatically change the game? That a sword control system that sometimes doesn't even differentiate between horizontal and vertical waves of the Wiimote is upending the tea table? That those changes are significantly altering or modifying fundamental aspects of a game when there's really nothing new being introduced? Aiming the bow with the Wiimote? Swinging the Wiimote to attack with the sword?[/quote] [font=arial]First of all, the tea table was upended long before any announcement about Wii. That's actually a seperate issue - I was just clarifying what the term meant. lol Actually, TP changed dramatically early in its development. Within the first few months, Miyamoto basically had everything changed and re-examined. But as I said, that isn't really related to what's happening with Wii. In terms of the latter part of your comment...I guarantee, the control changes significantly alter the experience. Aiming your bow with your arm and hand is very different from using only your thumb - that is an incredibly obvious observation and I'm surprised it's not making sense to you. Even playing a game with the analog stick is quite different from using a D-Pad (especially in a 3D game). I don't know why that aspect is even debatable. lol[/font] [quote]But from a consumer standpoint? That was a lousy move. It was totally misguided because it does send that mixed message of "We care about you but we care about this more" and it largely contradicts Nintendo's "we care about accessibility" mantra. And forking the customer between two pretty undesirable options from the consumer's point of view is not a good idea, because it may be good for business in the short-term, but longer-term, it's not good business. It alienates customers. [/quote] [font=arial]I don't think most consumers will know the difference - only the most hardcore gamers even know about the GCN version delay. So in that respect, I don't think most people will know or care. For the hardcore gamers...well, WiiTP is a bonus if you own a Wii. Otherwise you'd have to play the GCN version on Wii and use a GCN controller (this is not a bad thing, but it's not as exciting as being able to use your new controller with the game). That's how I see it, anyway. It's good business, but it's also a good deal for Wii owners (especially those who don't own a GameCube or who don't play their GCN anymore). We just disagree. That's about it really.[/font] [quote]If it's still a targeting reticle it's not a fundamental change. If all that's required to fire the arrows any distance is the minimal draw movement we saw in the gameplay demonstration, that's not a fundamental change. [/quote] [font=arial]What? If it's still a targeting reticule? That has nothing to do with it. That's like saying "if it still has a health bar, it's not a fundamental change". That only relates to visual presentation...it has absolutely zero to do with how the game feels or plays. lol Forget about visuals for a second and imagine the feel of using that bow and arrow with the remote versus simply moving your thumb. Thumb movement versus entire arm and hand movement...big difference.[/font] [quote] I don't see fundamental changes until the game itself has been changed. Until we're no longer playing a traditional Zelda game.[/quote] [font=arial]The controls are still fundamentally changed, no matter how much you'd like to split hairs over the issue. lol Is the game itself changed? It's changed in the sense that it feels and plays quite differently, yes. If you don't regard that as a "fundamental change", fine. But that's just a different interpretation more than anything else.[/font] [quote]I was always planning on waiting. WiiTP was going to be something to pass the time until I realized there's zero there to interest me. GCN TP ftw.[/quote] [font=arial]That's totally fine, I'm not trying to convince you to like it. I'm just correcting a few misinterpretations about it, that's all.[/font] [quote]I think that's terrible rationale. "We've got this at least so all is well." It's a rationale that borders on defeatist optimism. It's a concession for something that really should have been better for being the first Zelda game on Wii. [/quote] [font=arial]I don't view it as an "at least". I view it as getting more than we originally thought. I wanted the GCN game a lot. Now I know I'm getting the same game with a totally enhanced control scheme and a better viewing option. I'm getting a Wii anyway, so I want to buy the Wii version so I can use the new controller. It's not defeatist in the slightest - I am just acknowledging that I'm getting [i]extra[/i]. I just don't view that as a negative thing.[/font] [quote]Honestly? I would have never written about my views on the matter as much as I did. I was content to leave it at a single sentence from a few days ago. [/quote] [font=arial]You're joking, yeah? You don't know the meaning of "single sentence", Alex. lol Funny stuff. :catgirl: [/font]

[quote]So going from a 3D Realms FPS featuring portals that essentially disguised load times, lessened processor strain and had the potential for independent room construction to a Human Head Studios FPS that features portals used to disguise load times, lessen processor strain, and expand upon the original potential of independent room construction...is considered being "completely re-tooled"? [/quote] [font=arial]Absolutely, but not for the reasons you listed. What you're talking about is the overall concept - you're either glossing over or are unaware of the actual changes that took place in the game. The [i]entire[/i] game was redesigned from the ground up. The new developer actually scrapped most of what had already been built - even the game engine was significantly tweaked. This is basically common knowledge in the industry and I thought it was common knowledge among most gamers as well, even those who barely followed the progress of Prey. Apparently that is not the case, lol.[/font] [quote]How is this a game of semantics? You said that there are plenty of games that go through "these types of changes" but so far, I haven't seen anything yet in your examples that isn't the typical development cycle changes. Levels and visuals are the usual changes that occur. Those types of changes are to be expected. They're the usual stuff. By this point in time, we expect the visuals and levels to change. Hell, we even know that characters will likely change dramatically. [/quote] [font=arial]Right. So why are you debating this point when there is nothing to debate? We [i]are[/i] dealing in semantics. What I am telling you is that games frequently undergo [b]major revisions[/b] even within the final few months of development. This may or may not include graphics (texturing, modelling, animation), A.I. (changes to routines), additions of major elements (levels, modes, etc), control changes (mapping changes, modifications to allow the use of peripherals, etc) and so on.[/font] [quote]But that absolutely is not the same type of changes we're seeing with WiiTP. This is not a game of semantics. I'm talking about what we would routinely see regarding changes during a game's development cycle versus what we rarely, if ever, see during a game's development cycle. And what we routinely see is your examples. What we rarely, if ever, see is what is being done with WiiTP. [/quote] [font=arial]You are missing the broader point though. The changes we are seeing in Twilight Princess are unique to that game - but the visual changes in one game to the next are always unique to the game itself. The actual point is that major changes do occur in this period - controller changes included. If you want to discuss games that have had their controls modified during development to run specifically on Wii, there are plenty examples of that. So Twilight Princess is not unique in that specific instance. At the end of the day, we can split hairs as much as we like...but the overall point is essentially the same here. On a development level none of this is particularly unusual.[/font] [quote]So I don't know why you insist that there's fundamentally no difference between adding in some bland and repetitive "Kill X number of enemies" missions in Starfox DS and what we see regarding the control scheme in WiiTP, because I certainly see tremendous differences between them, just like I see tremendous differences between Super Mario Sunshine's changes and WiiTP, just like I see tremendous differences between Prey and WiiTP's respective changes [/quote] [font=arial]Right, but again, you are either missing the point or deliberately splitting hairs. The changes that each game goes through are always going to be different. Radically changing Super Mario Sunshine's levels is definitely different from changing Prey's levels - the style of each game is different and the demands for specific gameplay types are different. What's important is that each for each of these games, it was necessary to make major changes during the development cycle - even toward the end of that cycle. That is specifically what we are talking about. Going into the detail of "SMS is different from Prey is different from TP" is actually a seperate issue and it's also an obvious observation - every game [i]is[/i] different and of course, the demands on developers are always different each time.[/font] [quote]You appear to be getting at "Change is change," as if the addition of a few levels or graphical improvement is in the same ballpark as re-doing sword attacks to be used with a motion sensor for a game that was ported over to a brand-new, next-gen console so it could be a launch title. That's not the same ballpark. I don't even think you could consider it the same ****ing sport, to paraphrase Samuel L. Jackson. [/quote] [font=arial]You're implying that the addition of "a few new levels" is somehow not on the same level, when in fact, it's a much more difficult and time-consuming process than modifying a game's controls. So in actual fact, Twilight Princess's changes are far less intensive on the development staff than some of the other examples in this thread. On the surface these changes are all very different and of course, the end results are different. But again, that is missing the point - the point is that most games go through fundamental changes late in the development cycle. These changes are always different, but they regularly happen. If you want to talk about how TP's changes are different from another specific game, that's fine, I'm happy to do that...but that's a different discussion. That doesn't get back to the point of how late something is added in a development cycle and what this means.[/font] [quote]Don't know why Pulp Fiction is again popping in here (probably just the mood I'm in right now, lol), but you've got to have an opinion! I think it was a stupid move to do a Starfox (Missile) Command on a system that absolutely could support a Starfox game of N64 caliber and depth. The Starfox franchise had been dropped on its head twice out of two different games on a single system. Starfox Adventures and Starfox Assault. Missile Command should have been the last thing on anyone's mind when it came to making a Starfox game. [/quote] [font=arial]I agree with you basically. This is a different discussion to the one we're having now, but yeah, I agree with you. The Starfox franchise has pretty much been bastardised on more than one occasion now and I don't think any fans are especially happy about that.[/font] [quote]I read it. I watched the same trailer. Much of the article you wrote deals with hypotheticals and theories that don't have much support in the video itself. We're given very quick jump cuts throughout the trailer, but nowhere does it imply Mario's health would be based on the power of the FLUDD device, nor would wiping the sweat from his brow be any more significant than the obviously purely cosmetic aesthetic touch it was. Mario standing in the shade of the tree with the FLUDD device being empty is completely coincidental and doesn't have any relationship, even within the limited vacuum context of the trailer. Any changes that occurred were largely because the article was conjecture without any real, concrete details. And anyway, that trailer was a demo level with demo enemies. It was going to be changed.[/quote] [font=arial]You're again picking up on the wrong point here. My article itself was speculative and it had nothing to do with what the actual game included. My point wasn't about the content of the article, it was about the actual demo footage - sorry if I didn't make that clear enough. The game's design changed massively from that first demonstration. It also changed again after E3 (where a playable build was shown). Again, this is normal.[/font] [quote]Yes. So let's talk about it. Did the FLUDD in SMS have any profound impact on later Mario games? Did it upend the tea table of the Mario franchise? Mario 64 certainly upended the tea table (still one of the best platformers today). [/quote] [font=arial]This is not what's meant by "upending the tea table". The phrase relates to what I have been discussing here - specifically, the idea that even mid-way through a single game's development, it is sometimes necessary to actually start all over again...or at least, to change the game's direction or make significant modifications to fundamental aspects of a game.[/font] [quote]It absolutely was a bone-head play. lol. Nintendo is a company that prides itself on customer confidence and making sure its customers know that Nintendo isn't going to ditch them. That's been their message for a while now. That's the message Iwata and Miyamoto have been conveying for as long as I can remember, and that was sure as hell the message when they promised GCN owners that Wii wouldn't get preferential treatment when it came to Twilight Princess. That Twilight Princess wasn't going to jump ship to Wii and leave GCN owners with nothing. Granted, GCN is still getting Twilight Princess, but that's almost an entire month after Wii, and the damage has already been done. [/quote] [font=arial]I agree with this sentiment, but I am not arguing in Nintendo's favor on this point. I am just saying that both platforms are getting the game and that TP on Wii is a good thing rather than a bad thing - that's all I'm pointing out. If I were not going to buy a Wii on launch, I'd be pissed off that I have to wait a month, because I'm a big Zelda fan. So that's a fair point.[/font] [quote]Whether or not WiiTP would have been cutting into development of Wii Zelda was never my point anyway. I wasn't implying that focusing on one detracted from the other in terms of development time. What I was getting at was the decision made was annoying, stupid and wholly misguided...because it was. [/quote] [font=arial]You can't really say that it was a good business decision and then say it was misguided; it [i]was[/i] a clever and a good decision. Sure, the GCN delay is annoying. I grant you that and I agree with that. But I'm getting Wii and I want the Wii version of the game. I'm sure many potential Wii owners will feel the same way. So, you know, Nintendo isn't going to please everyone with this, but they're probably improving their chances if anything. I'm getting Wii and I'm happy to be getting TP - that's the way I view it. I understand why GCN owners might be unhappy about the delay, but that's the only real negative of the whole issue I think.[/font] [quote]So let's make it perfectly clear then. I think they shot themselves in the foot here from a consumer standpoint. Of course people are still going to buy the game no matter if it's GCN or Wii. But they'll certainly remember what happened. And we both know that consumers remember lousy experiences. [/quote] [font=arial]Yep, I grant you that. But it's a month-long delay, which will only affect the most hardcore users. Wii owners won't care and Nintendo fans in general are used to delays that are far more lenthy. The [i]reason[/i] for the delay is annoying, but I doubt this will have any longterm impact. It's not on the same level as, say, Sony's PS3 price annoucement, haha.[/font] [quote] The hands-on previews and experiences I've been reading with total skepticism for the past few months, right? [/quote] [font=arial]Skepticism? What have you been reading? lol. We must not be reading the same impressions. I can produce quotes if you really want me to, but I don't think it's really something that's necessary.[/font] [quote]Nor am I expecting items themselves to change. I'm expecting new ways to use them that don't involve pre-canned swings...[/quote] [font=arial]Right, exactly. You've got an expectation that isn't being met, because it can't actually be met in this particular game. Perhaps it will be met next time 'round. We hope so anyway.[/font] [quote]...or targeting reticles. Still calling it "aiming an arrow" is not as short-sighted an analysis as you think, James, especially when there are some incredible possibilities to make the Wiimote act like a real bow. In the gameplay demonstration, we both saw how the player was naturally drawing his arm back a bit, right? He's already using it like a real bow. But a real bow doesn't simply require you to point and shoot like we're still seeing in WiiTP. With a real bow, you need to hold the arrow in place while you draw that string back and keep your target in the sights placed along the bow grip. The velocity and distance of your arrow are going to depend on how far you draw the string back. [/quote] [font=arial]Okay, your first paragraph basically answers your own question. I'm not going to get into how it should be to make it 100% realistic...that is, again, a different discussion. What I will do is reiterate my original point, which you have further confirmed in your first paragraph; using the bow and arrow with the Wii remote [i]feels quite different[/i] than simply moving an analog stick - the accuracy and the feel of the motion is a radically different experience. That's my point. In terms of what it [i]should[/i] or [i]could[/i] be, well, we can have that discussion and share ideas...that's fine. But that's not actually what we were discussing earlier. I'm happy to discuss that part of it though, if you want. lol[/font] [quote]Simply transferring control of the targeting reticle from a joystick to the Wiimote is not a fundamental change to play control. [/quote] [font=arial]Yes, it is, because with the stick you only have to move your thumb. With the remote you have to draw the bow, hold it, then release it. You also have to aim with your whole arm and hand, not just your thumb. It's very different. If the concept doesn't make that point in an obvious way, playing it will.[/font] [quote]And as I said, they aren't giving the first Zelda on Wii the proper amount of dev time because essentially, the first Zelda on Wii is a port of a GCN game that is not built around Wii at all...and what makes it Wii-related at all has very recently been added circa E3 2006. So really, considering the bizarre process we've been seeing regarding release dates, system debuts, game changes and all? [/quote] [font=arial]I don't really know what to say here, except that yes, TP on Wii is a port. It's a damn good port for what it is, too. But at the end of the day, it's a port. This is not a point I've ever debated. If you want a Zelda that is built around Wii from the ground up, you'll have to wait. You would have had to wait regardless - so that's just the way it is. *shrug*[/font] [quote]They're not giving Zelda on Wii anywhere near enough time here. The motion sensor features in WiiTP are nowhere near as developed as WiiTP, the "flagship" Wii Zelda title apparently, need to be. The only reason, I see, that people are being so forgiving is that they're happy to get table scraps, essentially. I've consistently heard "We're lucky to get this" in the apparent defenses of Nintendo. And I'm sorry, but that's a load of crap. [/quote] [font=arial]But as I keep pointing out, you would have to wait for an entirely new Zelda anyway. So whether or not WiiTP arrives is neither here nor there. The fact that it's coming out on Wii [i]at all[/i] and with [i]any[/i] changes is better than nothing. It would only be a bad thing if the changes and additions sucked. They don't. So it doesn't matter. lol [/font] [quote]If I sound overly cynical, thank you. I'd rather sound overly cynical than being content with what amounts to half of a Wii game.[/quote] [font=arial]I just think you're making a major issue out of nothing, really. If you don't want "half a Wii game", then simply don't buy it. Either way, as I said, this has nothing to do with getting a Zelda game built for Wii from the ground up - that game is still coming and it would be coming later regardless of TP and its changes. [/font]

[quote]Saber Interactive is still the dev team. The publisher was changed. And the core controls and gameplay has remained intact. The changes that took place were largely plot-related, as well. [/quote] [font=arial]Oh, sorry, I had the wrong game title. The game I meant was [i]Prey[/i].[/font] [quote]Levels and visuals. Not re-doing portions of the control scheme. lol[/quote] [font=arial]Semantics. The point is that games undergo major revisions within their final months of development on a frequent basis. Levels and visuals are generally more difficult to change than a control scheme, too.[/font] [quote]Changes, yes. But not the kinds of changes we see in WiiTP. This WiiTP overhaul is still very unusual.[/quote] [font=arial]Not really. Again, it's semantics and for what point really? The overhaul that TP is going through is really no different to what many other games have been through (though not specifically related to Wii). But even if you only include Wii, there are a few games that are now being moved over to the platform and are undergoing significant control changes. So there's not much to say here really.[/font] [quote]Starfox DS didn't change. lol. We still got the same short and Advance Wars-knock-off-in-space pale-imitation-of-classic-Starfox we saw at E3. And the game suffered terribly for it, because it didn't feel like Starfox at all; it felt like a half-baked version of Missile Command with free-roaming kill count missions thrown in. We know the DS is very capable of re-producing N64 games (even though Mario 64DS was kind of a dud in terms of control), so while the goal of Starfox DS was admirable, it was still a bone-head decision, because there was this great template of a game called Starfox 64 but the only flight missions we got in Starfox DS were direct rips of Katina in Starfox 64...but nowhere near as thrilling or exciting. [/quote] [font=arial]Actually, Star Fox DS changed a whole lot from what we first saw at E3. Entire levels were changed/added, the visuals were significantly overhauled and the controls were modified and tweaked. As for the wisdom of making the game as they did...I really have no comment on that. That will generally just come down to one's own opinion.[/font] [quote]And those changes might be? When I picked up the game at release, it didn't look or feel terribly different from the very first previews back in 2001/2002.[/quote] [font=arial]Go and take a look at N-Sider's "Mario is Melting" article from 2001 and you will have a strong idea as to how significantly the game changed. For one, the [i]entire[/i] visual design changed. For another, most of the enemies were changed and replaced...and the levels shown in the first build were pretty much entirely scrapped and redeveloped. Ever heard of Miyamoto's famous "upending of the tea table"?[/font] [quote]It would have taken longer development time, yes. And here's the solution: ignore porting an existing GCN game and focus on bringing the real Wii Zelda to gamers. That would have been the smart decision there. Instead, Nintendo made a straight-up bone-head play. [/quote] [font=arial]It's not a bone-head play in any respect. WiiZelda is being developed parallel to Twilight Princess, lol. I guarantee you, this port hasn't had any significant impact on the development schedule of the next Zelda.[/font] [quote]Sloppiness? No. It's an implication of "Why the hell do we get this paltry game when these changes should have been introduced in the first real Wii Zelda game?" I'm not dissatisfied. I'm just no longer excited about it because I took a step back to really ask myself what is there to be excited about. [/quote] [font=arial]Well, we keep kind of going back and forth here...the point is, you aren't happy with their decision and you don't think it's worth having TP on Wii. That's fine and you don't need to buy the game. That's another issue entirely.[/font] [quote]That's coming from hands-on experience?[/quote] [font=arial]That's coming from hands-on experience from colleagues who have actually played the game. Moreover, you only need to read any published article about the hands-on experience. There's plenty of evidence out there, you just have to read it.[/font] [quote]Fundamental changes? Substantial changes? Complete change to game control? That's describing pre-canned sword swings, bow targeting, and jiggling the nunchuck for a shield bash, right? And those phrases aren't discussing new ways to use the Hookshot, grappling hook, bombs, magic spells, hammers, lassos, boomerang and so on? I'm sorry, James, but it doesn't sound like fundamental or substantial changes here. Because there's nothing fundamental changing. The game is still the same. Oh, wait, you can use the Wiimote to activate pre-canned attack sequences and aim the bow. Pardon the sarcasm, but that's such a dramatic change. lol. [/quote] [font=arial]You're missing the point, Alex. I'm not saying that any of the items themselves have changed. I'm saying that the [i]way you use them has changed[/i]. This is a fundamental change and it has fundamental effects on gameplay - aiming with a freehand system is radically different from aiming with an analog stick. Yes, in both cases you are "aiming an arrow", but that's a shortsighted analysis - the feel is completely different in each case (and your own accuracy and game experience will also change as a result). So, yes, these are fundamental changes to [i]play control[/i].[/font] [quote]Again, the game could play extremely well. I don't care about that. Nowhere here have I been even implying the game is going to be sloppy. But I AM saying it sounds incredibly rushed and half-assed. They introduced these changes with 6 months left out of the dev process. They obviously felt that including some paltry little pre-canned sword swings was more important than resisting the allure of a Zelda launch title, and giving the first Wii Zelda the proper length of dev time? Then I feel their priorities are completely screwed-up and that WiiTP's motion sensor features are most certainly rush-jobs. [/quote] [font=arial]As I said, we are still getting the Wii-based Zelda. So that's not an issue and it never has been. In terms of Twilight Princess for Wii, I can only reiterate...you really need to have an understanding of the game's development in order to determine that it's a "rush job". If Twilight Princess's control changes are a rush job, then just about every game Nintendo (or any other developer) makes can be considered the same. These sorts of changes (and often even larger ones) are frequently made to games within those final few months of development - this is the time when the game is being tightened up and when final additions are being included. That doesn't mean they are being "rushed in", because such additions still go through extensive testing and development. Nintendo is one company who always works to the wire, but this has nothing to do with rushing and more to do with being particular certain about quality.[/font]

[quote]"Controller adjustments" James? They're not just "controller adjustments." lol. It's an overhaul of what has been a perfectly suitable control scheme that has worked extremely well for multiple generations now, and for what would have still been a perfectly suitable control scheme for a current-gen Zelda game...which is precisely what TP is, no matter which system it appears on. And I think that type of overhaul is entirely unusual, as I can't think of any game in recent memory that saw the type of radical change we saw in WiiTP, and in such a timeframe. I try to come up with other games and platforms to provide your point with some references and there's nothing I can recall. If you have a few games in mind, do tell. [/quote] [font=arial]There are plenty of games that go through these types of changes within their last few months of development. A great example would be TimeShift. This game went to another developer before it was released and it was completely retooled. Other games go through similar shifts within the final year of development - even with a game like Super Mario 64, the bulk of the game's levels and visuals were added within the final year of development. As I said, this is not unusual. [i]Most[/i] Nintendo games are undergoing fundamental changes within the final six months of the cycle. Games that don't are the exception, not the rule.[/font] [quote]I never expected 1:1. I don't want to control every single slice, the pitch, the yaw, the angle, etc. But I DO want some type of influence more than what we're hearing about in WiiTP. If what we've heard is accurate, we're getting pre-canned attacks that are no different than smashing on the A button. Wanting something better than that--an motion sensing attack system with some more precision--is hardly looking for 1:1. Red Steel doesn't even have 1:1, and that's a game that entirely depends on a much, much more complicated swordplay than WiiTP ever will. But then again, Red Steel sounds a hell of a lot more advanced in terms of combat, and it appears it's pulling it off remarkably well, which begs the question: why are we given these paltry offerings in WiiTP?[/quote] [font=arial]What you're asking for is still more difficult to deliver than you understand. The bulk of Red Steel's development was concerned with remote sensitivity and movements - Nintendo do not have time to introduce such a system with Twilight Princess at this stage. The game would have to be delayed further to include the elements you are asking for. That's just the reality of it. Red Steel's sword movements are no different to those in Twilight Princess, except that you have to perform certain actions to trigger canned animation. There's slightly more interaction and control, but not much. I think this will become more obvious when you actually play the game and compare the two. The reason why you're being given movement-based swordfighting in TP is because the fans were asking for it and Nintendo took the time to include it. However, as mentioned, including a more interactive swordplay system just isn't possible at this stage of development - it's about making choices as to what you can comfortably include and what you can't.[/font] [quote]Wait and see is exactly what I'm doing. I'm waiting to see when the real Wii Zelda game is released. ~_^[/quote] [font=arial]I just think it's unnecessary to complain about inclusions in Twilight Princess at this stage. As I said, the fact that we're getting anything more than the regular GCN game is good - if the controls in the Wii version end up not interesting you, simply stick with the GCN version and wait it out.[/font] [quote]I know a few people who took my comments to mean "sloppy." Perhaps the "general impression" here was coming from blatant misinterpretations on their part.[/quote] [font=arial]No, I don't think so. You're clearly dissatisfied with these inclusions and the way they've been done - you are saying that we're getting something that is essentially a watered-down version of what we should be getting. That would indicate an implication of sloppiness on Nintendo's part. I wouldn't say it's a misinterpretation at all, lol. [/font] [quote]The type of changes is important, though. Adding more dungeons is awesome. Wind Waker was lacking in dungeons. Visual style being changed in the first year of the dev cycle? If the style makes sense, sure. But more content or a different visual style is a pretty different "change" than what we're seeing here, and in the timeframe. Again, if you can think of some games that went through such a dramatic change in 4 months, after the dev team demonstrated said game to the public like we saw in WiiTP, please share.[/quote] [font=arial]I just don't think you really understand what's involved when it comes to the development process. As I said above, many games - particularly Nintendo games - go through radical changes within the last half of a development period. The changes in TP are significant, but you have to understand that by this stage, all of the fundamentals were in place. The game was [i]already[/i] using freestyle control that was attached to certain functions (ie: the bow and arrow). Implementing this into swordfighting was not particularly complex, but it did require significant testing. Making something closer to Red Steel or a 1:1 movement [i]would[/i] have been sufficiently difficult so as to warrant an extension of the development cycle. Many games have changed dramatically after being shown to the public. Star Fox DS is one example, another example would be Super Mario Sunshine - that game was massively changed after it was first shown to the public (and when it was shown, it was well into development). As I said, games change radically after being shown to the public all the time - this is not uncommon.[/font] [quote]More than a standard port? Visual improvements? I don't give two shats about visual improvements. The game was looking great on GCN itself. A graphical improvement was as unnecessary as porting TP over to the Wii was in the first place. Largely, I don't care how good or bad a game's graphics are. If I cared about visual quality, you wouldn't see me popping in classic N64 games or stuff like Smash TV each Friday night. I think it's tragic that so much of the gaming populace these days sees pretty visuals in remakes then starts drooling or whatever. Though I can't deny I wouldn't be opposed to a game like Starfox 64 or GoldenEye getting spruced up a bit for a re-release on one of the next-gen consoles, my interest in those re-releases would be for the gameplay, just like my lack of interest in WiiTP is because they aren't giving us anything truly new or Wii-exclusive when it comes to the gameplay. TP is still a traditional Zelda game. [/quote] [font=arial]That's all fine and I basically agree with you. I am not saying that visual improvements really matter to me, lol. I'm just pointing out that the Wii version does include a widescreen mode and so on and that these improvements, while not fundamentally important to you or I, will certainly matter to plenty of people. TP is definitely still a traditional Zelda game. It's the last traditional Zelda game. So enjoy it while it's there.[/font] [quote]There are zero major changes to the way the game plays, though (TP, whether on GCN or Wii, is still a traditional Zelda game as per Iwata/Miyamoto). The changes are how we interact with the game. But fundamentally, nothing in WiiTP gameplay couldn't be done with traditional controllers, and that's because TP was designed for traditional controllers from the ground-up. [/quote] [font=arial]Yes, it's still a traditional Zelda game. But the game feels remarkably different on Wii, trust me. It's quite a different experience with its completely revamped controls. This is what I would call a fundamental change. It will make a big difference to the way you play, particularly when it comes to puzzle solving and combat. Control is how we interact with the game environment...it's one of the most fundamental aspects of any game. So believe me, these changes make quite a difference. TP was designed for traditional controllers...on GameCube. Substantial changes were made to the Wii version so that the new controls would gel with the game's design.[/font] [quote]I'm asking for way too much when I want more control in a Zelda game where the controller itself basically functions as an extension of whatever weapon Link is currently holding? lol. That's not asking for too much at all; on the contrary, that's asking for what should have been done in the first place. And if that means we don't get a Zelda title anywhere near the console's launch (not like N64 and GCN really launched with a Zelda title anyway)? I'm totally eager to wait, because it also means that GCN owners won't get snubbed since Nintendo would have made good on their word that Wii wouldn't get preferential treatment when it came to Twilight Princess (but we see that turned out to be a load of bull anyway with the GCN TP delayed until December). I'm totally eager to wait because it means that we'll be getting a true Wii Zelda as opposed to a port-job. I'm totally eager to wait because it means we'll be getting a better product. [/quote] [font=arial]Yes, that's asking too much [i]for Twilight Princess[/i]. You can not expect Nintendo to make that kind of inclusion at this stage. Is that a realistic expectation for a [i]new[/i] Zelda game? Sure. But that's not what we're discussing here - we are discussing what Nintendo is doing with TP. If you want to wait and ignore TP, that's totally fine. What I'm trying to say is that there's nothing sloppy or rushed or slap-job about Twilight Princess on Wii. That is the only point I am debating, because I don't think it's a reasonable point.[/font] [quote]It's certainly the wrong question because the question I'm asking is the complete opposite: Given what could be done with a true Wii Zelda game, why is it even worth porting a current-gen Zelda game and adding in a few pretty sparse features that don't really utilize the Wiimote to as full an extent as a true Wii Zelda game would? The answer is fairly obvious: launch sales. [/quote] [font=arial]I don't think that a complete change to game control would classify as "sparse features" and I think if you actually try both versions when they release, this will become somewhat clearer. As to why Nintendo made the choice, I agree with you. But gamers are getting a good deal, lol. The GCN version is still arriving regardless, but we're also getting a Wii version with some pretty significant enhancements. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. Even if you don't want the Wii version, you're still getting the GameCube version. If you have Wii, you can get the Wii version if you want. It's basically win-win. lol[/font]

[quote]James, I see what you're trying to get at, but considering players were still hitting B to swing the sword at E3 2006 and now just recently we've been informed the sword control has been changed to the Wiimote motion sensor (if you can provide a source that dates those changes to long before E3, I'd appreciate it)...I don't think anyone can say these control scheme changes weren't last minute decisions--especially when it comes to the development cycle of Twilight Princess. [/quote] [font=arial]Control changes were made within the last five months. The game releases in November...so Nintendo have been making controller adjustments through the last few months of development. That is not unsual, regardless of the game and the platform. More importantly, those changes have actually been implemented and completed within those last couple of months...so Nintendo have had more than enough time for testing and so on. You have to remember that Nintendo always works to the wire with every single game they develop. Twilight Princess is no different. Quality doesn't suffer - this process actually benefits a game's quality.[/font] [quote]If what we're hearing regarding the sword attack execution with the Wiimote is true (no distinction made between left/right swipes, pre-canned attacks, etc), then this is entirely a last minute type of change; the Wiimote control options we have are almost insulting because they're so basic and stripped-down compared to what the first Wii Zelda game should be.[/quote] [font=arial]I think it comes down to unrealistic expectations though. If you actually consider how difficult it would be to have 1:1 motions for that type of game, it starts to make sense why Nintendo have chosen the existing method. This is especially true for a game that requires fast motions. You have to really consider the difference in the way different players are going to actually be using the remote (and being right or left-handed plays a part in this too). I think 1:1 motions would be great, but they are an unrealistic expectation at this stage, especially for Twilight Princess. We can probably better determine whether or not the game will be negatively affected by the time it's released though - my advice would be to wait and see.[/font] [quote]But I'm not about to call WiiTP a "last minute" game because it's a port...and I don't believe I've said or implied anything regarding that in my posts here. [/quote] [font=arial]This was the general impression I'd been getting from the thread, not from your specific comments. But that's irrelevant anyway - the Wii controls are not what I'd call "last minute changes" as such. They occurred toward the end of the development cycle but I think that "last minute" in this context is being used to mean "sloppy". And I don't think that's a correlation we can make at this stage.[/font] [quote]What I do believe I've been saying (and rather clearly) is that it's obvious these recent changes (sword-Wiimote functions, Link's hand change, etc) are totally last minute decisions because they've only appeared within the past four or five months. And maybe it's just me, but four or five months in a game whose development cycle has been going on pretty much since Wind Waker was released is entirely "last minute." [/quote] [font=arial]Honestly, it's just you. lol Four or five months is a [i]long[/i] time in a game development period. Twilight Princess has been through multiple changes since it began development - about a year into development, the [i]entire[/i] game was completely changed in terms of visual design. Since then more entire dungeons have been added, even. So Nintendo is always making major changes even within the last six months of development; this is not unusual, it occurs with pretty much any game you can think of.[/font] [quote]And honestly, I don't think WiiTP is even "darn close" when we're talking about being designed for the Wii...because it wasn't designed for the Wii at all. It's a GCN game. If we had bomb control, a boomerang control that involved more than just a re-iteration of the targeting system from previous Zeldas, new types of spell activations, grappling hook innovations, and so on...then I'd be more inclined to describe it as "darn close." But at that point, I'd rather just have a true Wii Zelda game. [/quote] [font=arial]I agree that TP is a port. But it's unquestionably more than your standard port. It features visual improvements and fundamental gameplay enhancements. We aren't just talking a few new modes; we're talking about major changes to the way the game plays. I think you're just asking for way too much, honestly. You (and the rest of us) are lucky to be getting a Zelda anywhere near the console's launch. Some may ask whether or not it's even worth making a Wii-specific version of Zelda...but I think that's the wrong question. The fact that we're getting an enhanced version of the game at all is a pretty good thing - Nintendo could certainly say that it's cheaper and wiser to just keep a GCN version and not worry about Wii. Having said that, a specific version of Zelda is actually being developed for Wii as we speak. I don't know when we'll hear about it, but it's definitely being worked on...and it's being developed from the ground-up as a Wii title.[/font]

[font=arial]Nintendo have been working on the Wii-specific version of TP for quite a while now...I don't know where anyone is getting the impression that this is some kind of last minute decision. I mean, they chose to bring it to Wii late in the GCN game's development cycle, but the Wii version is far from a "tacked on" version - quite a lot has been changed and the control scheme has become significantly different. Also, the Wii version will have a bigger variety of higher-quality display modes...so depending on your setup, it will actually be a nicer-looking game on Wii. So while TP isn't going to be as "Wii-centric" as a Zelda that was specifically designed for the system from the ground up, it's still darn close.[/font]

[font=arial]I honestly don't really care. I think Nintendo has reason enough to do it...and it's not a huge delay. I'll be buying the Wii version anyway I think, so I suppose that's the main reason why I'm not worried about it. Although I suppose Zelda purists will be buying both versions - I know I'm going to be curious as to how well the GameCube version plays.[/font]

[font=arial]I agree with ratings, because they are a quick indicator of what kind of content you are likely to see in a movie. This may not always have to do with physically restricting a child's access - most of the time it's sheer convenience (some adults don't want to see excessive gore or sex in a movie, which is fair enough). On the other hand, I do not think that artists should be censored at all. I don't believe that violent cinema has a direct correlation with violent behavior in children or anyone. Rather, I think it works the opposite way - I think that those with a predisposition to violence will seek out violent material to satisfy their feelings. Whether this is a movie, or a game or a song...it doesn't matter. Censoring artists because a minority of people react badly to violent media is asenine. It's even more ridiculous when you consider the idea that these people have a pre-existing disorder anyway - if you're someone who is going to shoot your classmates, I think it's fair to say that you have a pre-existing mental disorder well before you seek out any violent media. And if the media [i]does[/i] cause you to "snap", it's still clear that you have a predisposition to do so - this is not the fault of the media or the artist. This is kind of why we have ratings on our RPGs here, yet The Arena has no language filter. The idea is that you can be as creative as you want and generally go as far as you want...as long as you rate the thread appropriately. This way anyone who reads the content has elected to do so and cannot claim that they were "surprised" or whatever.[/font]

[font=arial]Very weird. Who'd have thought Apples could be so politically-charged![/font]

[font=arial]Currently I'm working in an Office Manager position in Brisbane...but I'm being relocated to a new job in my company's head office. It'll be an even tougher job, but at least the pay is better. I enjoy my job but it definitely leaves me very little time. And in Melbourne it will be even worse; all staff there arrive at about 8:30am and [i]nobody[/i] leaves before 6:30pm at the earliest. Most staff - particularly management - stay back until around 7:30 - 8:00pm...and I know for a fact that the CEO and State Manager often stay back 'till as late as 9pm. So it's going to be very tough, but I think I will enjoy it nevertheless.[/font]

[font=arial]Yeah, the comma there actually isn't right. It should be a period or perhaps even a semi-colon I'd say. A comma is used mid-sentence, but in this context I think we're really talking about two sentences pretty much. Anyway, I agree with Lady Asphy...these things only work when they are very inclusive and involve more than just someone's direct group of friends. So Enter the Net should is really the benchmark...and I don't think I've seen a single OB parody that comes anywhere close to it in terms of being as effective or as interesting to read. It's just going to take practice and an understanding of why EtN worked so well - the inclusiveness is particularly important.[/font]

[font=arial]There's been a big debate over this at the N-Sider Forums...but honestly, it's just a couple of "hardcore Zelda fans" who think that changing the arm that Link uses is the same as changing his outfit or something. And clearly, it's not quite on the same level. lol I'm a big Zelda fan but I don't care - Link changes fairly often anyway. So as long as the game is great (and I'm sure it will be), I will be happy.[/font]

[quote name='Ikillion][COLOR=#99121c][SIZE=1][FONT=Comic Sans MS]Do you mean This one? I am not to sure if [URL=http://tcruiseko.ytmnd.com/]that[/URL] is it. Yet I just don't know where the entire video is >.>;[/FONT][/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote] [font=arial]Oh yes, that's the one! Haha. I love it. Tom Cruise will never live that down. I saw the end of Scary Movie 4 yesterday as well...that's what reminded me of this animation. This is why I like Charles's stuff. It keeps the mood lighthearted. :catgirl: [/font]

[font=arial]I love it, Charles. I always like your animations though...I never find them offensive. The second one is brilliant I think...you matched the characters with the dialogue perfectly. I know how long these can take to make, so I also appreciate that you put quite a lot of effort into them. Also...I love that Tyra Banks animation. I remember seeing an animation a while ago where Tom Cruise was hand-to-hand with Oprah...but he had lightning coming out of his hands at her. You know, it's from that famous episode where he declared he was in love. lol Does anyone have that one?[/font]

[font=arial]I think Nintendo has tried to make a modest profit on all hardware while simultaneously delivering something that is relatively inexpensive - certainly inexpensive compared to the competition. I don't like the price of the controller, but it's what I expect...afterall, these things aren't cheap to manufacture. The price may come down in time though, as a result of mass production. Overall I'm happy with what I've heard, although I am not looking forward to waiting for Mario. Also, I don't want Wii to launch late in Australia. That'd suck.[/font]

[font=arial]Without re-opening a can of worms, there's a reason why "oral sex" has the word "sex" in it. It is a [i]type[/i] of sex. So, I would say that there are many types of sex...and if you have a type of sex you're no longer a virgin. That's the way I look at it, anyway. This is especially true for a male, where there's no hymen to break and so on...it's really not quite so black and white, I'd say. But that's just my view - I understand that other people interpret this aspect differently.[/font]

[quote]I do have a way I wish sex could be perceived, ideally, but you know as well as I do that I can't make anyone see it my way. I made the observation that someone reading our sex thread could walk away from it with very little knowledge about sex itself. In essence, this thread is a reflection of all those terrble movies that give us only vague or incorrect information about sex. Mind you, I like this thread, and while I view it as a reflection, I find it interesting and informative at the same time. The reflection I see is only visible if you read between the lines. [/quote] [font=arial]I think the key point is that the thread was never designed to be a source of education for readers. It is more about personal reflections. Personal reflections will probably always include some "incorrect" information about sex, I think. Afterall, we aren't really talking about the raw clinical aspects of it...we are really talking about personal experience and reflections.[/font] [quote]As for insinuating that people don't see sex as clean and natural, I'll admit that I made an assumption. An honest mistake, but certainly without dire consequences. So, I'll pose a question. Do you feel the same way about writing or talking about sex as I do? That it is somehow dirty and bad to spell it out? Must we cover it up with spoiler tags to hide our shame, or to protect the young from something bad? [/quote] [font=arial]Your assumption is a reasonable one in some cases - I can certainly say, from certain experiences with members on OB, that there are people here who certainly don't view sex as "clean and natural". I don't think I can seek to change that view (especially on an Internet message board); all I can do is talk about my perspective and hope that it is at least thought-provoking. I personally have no issues discussing sex, but I'm an adult and I recognise that not everyone is the same; some are more easily offended than others. Of course, those people can simply avoid reading or posting in this thread...but we do have a basic responsibility, I think. Moreover, even as adults, I don't think we need to reach pornographic levels of detail in what we discuss. Discussing sex in an adult way doesn't necessarily mean that we need to be explicit about it - I think there can still be a sense of maturity about the subject.[/font] [quote]If so, we can try to identify where in our learning about sex we developed this paradigm. If you do feel that sex is clean, natural, and appropriate, perhaps you could share how you learned about it, so we can better understand what the difference is between us? [/quote] [font=arial]I think that is a good question to ask, because we do seem to have a division between both groups - those who view sex as clean and natural and those who have a sense of shame about it.[/font] [quote]EDIT: I see the reason for your spoiler tags, and why they are appropriate. We don't want any of our young friends being kept away from this forum on our account. Ideally, though, I wish we didn't have to.[/quote] [font=arial]I agree with you, but that's the balance we strike I guess. We do have some responsibility to parents in that regard.[/font]

[quote name='Papa Smurf']Because then there couldn't be motherf-cking snakes on the motherf-cking plane? They'd be nothing more than slightly chilled jump ropes, which doesn't make for a very entertaining movie if you ask me. ~_^[/quote] [font=arial]Oh yeah, of course. I'm just surprised it never came up...I mean, the [spoiler]air-conditioners broke[/spoiler], so there was certainly a way around it for the snakes. ~_^[/font]

[font=arial]I saw this yesterday. It was a good laugh, mostly because of its overall terribleness; poor acting, ridiculous story...you name it, Snakes on a Plane had it. lol I only have one question about this movie. Snakes hybernate when it gets cold - why didn't they simply turn the A/C up so high that the snakes either stopped moving or slowed down? I would have thought that'd be an obvious solution and I'm kinda surprised nobody in the film thought of it. As far as whether it was actually worth seeing...well, as I said, it's funny because of how obviously bad it is. But I doubt I'd want to watch it again.[/font]

[quote name='John']And thus, warranty will be an unusually pressing factor for anyone wanting to buy a $600 PS3. :P[/quote] [font=arial]Definitely. And let's not forget that this is the first Sony device to utilise a Blu-ray drive - a new technology that Sony is already having difficulty with upon mass-production. It will not shock me if those who buy the first batch of PS3 systems start complaining about read errors and stuff. The only question is whether or not these errors occur sooner rather than later - but I have little doubt that there will be issues. That's one of the many reasons why I won't be buying a system for another year or two. As for Nintendo systems...I think there are always going to be some faults. The cracks that show up on some DS Lites is one problem, for example. Nevertheless, it's a sturdy machine; I remember reading one report where someone had slammed a car door on their DS...the entire casing was cracked and damaged (pretty severely damaged actually), yet the screens were fine and the system still ran perfectly. So, you know, these systems are actually designed to take a beating to some extent. Nintendo knows that kids will be using them and they know that accidents happen in the home. One thing I have never liked about PlayStation systems (despite the fact that I've owned several of them), is that they always seem to be incredibly fragile. This is also something I don't like about Xbox 360 - with the disc scratching and stuff. It also just "feels" like a fragile piece of hardware.[/font]

[font=arial]Early Nintendo 64 control sticks had problems because the plastic housing Nintendo used was lower-quality. You might remember seeing early controllers with "shredded plastic" around the base of the stick. This degraded the stick's accuracy and tightness over time. Later controllerrs didn't suffer from that problem, due to manufacturing changes. In terms of overall defects...I think that you'll find they are very low. GameCube had more problems than previous systems due to the number of moving parts, but the problems were still significantly low. The amount of people who have technical problems with the systems out of the box are less than half of a per cent - usually people are actually doing something wrong (ie: not hooking something up properly, not putting the disc in correctly or something else - they often mistake this for a real problem with the system). So, I don't think you'll have anything to worry about. Nintendo's quality testing is very rigorous. ~_^ The fact that I've been through [b]three[/b] PS2s, as a result of low-quality parts and overall problematic design, just demonstrates that there isn't any competition in this area. I'm one of many who have had this problem, too.[/font]

[quote]Again, you may ignore my earlier statement, but the first step to making people see sex as something clean and natural is to treat it as such yourself. [/quote] [font=arial]I wasn't particularly aware that anyone wasn't doing that. Moreover, the point of this thread has nothing to do with making people see sex in a certain way...it has to do with their own personal experiences with learning about it. There's a difference. If you just want to see the explicit detail, that's fine...but that doesn't have much to do with the thread. lol[/font]

[font=arial]A hypothetical candy bar to the first person who writes down the details? As far as I know, we are being asked about how we first learned about sex and that has kind of evolved into talking about our experiences with sex/relationships. I don't think the point of the thread is to "write down the details", unless I'm missing something. lol In terms of abstinence...well, it's a nice idea when it comes to education, but it doesn't work as an educational tool. Telling someone to be abstinent is fine and perhaps they will listen to you, but what if they don't? Refusing to arm them with any knowledge about sex is short-sighted at best. I think it's a question of saying "ideally, you won't be having sex until you're ready"...but then also acknowledging that plenty do and as a result, it's better to arm them with the relevant information than not. At the very least, you might be preventing an unwanted pregnancy or a sexually transmitted disease.[/font]

[QUOTE=Bombu][color=#8B0000]When the PS2 first came out, I decided to have mine set up vertically with the stand, as opposed to the horizontal set up. Little did I know at the time that the vertical set up caused some nasty scratching to my game discs, due to the positioning of the PS2. Even though there isn't much of a difference between the Wii's slanted set up and its horizontal set up, I'm still hoping that it doesn't cause the same thing to happen again.[/color][/QUOTE] [font=arial]Sony fixed this problem with later PS2 models and given Nintendo's emphasis on quality (in terms of manufacturing), I don't think it'll be an issue. I actually really like the way Wii sits at an angle when it's vertical. I think it's a very cool effect.[/font]