What are you playing?

[cule]

And Skyrim holds absolutely no fascination for me after the turgid borefest that was Oblivion... and yes, I know I am in the minority of one.

Don't worry, you are not alone.

Skyward Sword is amazing, yeah. I'd still put it behind OoT/Majora/WW, but it's definitely one of the best I've played. There was a bit too much hand holding at times and Link had a tendency to autojump into lava/off the cliff, but those are the only complaints I have. Loved the combat (glad to see a stamina bar) and really loved the timeshift stones.

Speaking of Ico/SotC, I'm kinda losing hope in The Last Guardian. It's been my most anticipated game for years, but it seems like it's been in development forever and with the recent problems at Team Ico...*sigh*

E:Nintendo revealed the official timeline for Zelda. Three separate timelines, that's crazier than anyone predicted I think.

[Loerwyn]

So, I'm working through Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine (I got the Collector's Edition, too!), and it's really fun. Takes a little while to get used to the controls for some bizarre reason, but once you get into it and get going, it flows really well. It actually feels like you're controlling a Space Marine too, with the way he thunders around and stuff.

It's not perfect, the voice acting is a little laughable at times, but it is really good fun so far, and the engine is absolutely stunning.

[saintjon]

Cheers we should play Exterminatus sometime, Loerwyn.

[Loerwyn]

Which platform have you got it on, jon?

[PeterWilliam]

I had been considering Skyward Sword, then saw cule's comments upwards a bit. Trying to find ways to convince myself that it'd be ok to go ahead with it (i.e. find room in 'the budget').

[Erfael]

Did you see my comment even farther upthread?

[PeterWilliam]

Did you see my comment even farther upthread?

Just re-read it, but in doing so I remember having read it. I have to admit, I have not played a Zelda game since OoT. As each successive game came out, I was convinced that they were getting weaker and didn't want to play games from a cherished childhood gaming experience, just because Nintendo was using the franchise as an ATM. Now, however, I am considering playing a Zelda game for the first time in a rather long time.

[Erfael]

Actually, I finished it last night. It's the most fun I've had playing a Zelda game in years and right up there with some others on my most fun list. I can honestly say for the first time in quite a while that I liked a whole game from front to back. There were none of those tedious bits of padding or such. Even stuff that I thought was going to be aggravating ended up not being so (get to something and groan because it just can't be an entertaining hour of gaming coming up for whatever reason) ended up being fun. The SO (cheerleader and extra set of eyes) will usually tell me to go ahead and play when she's not around. With this one, that wasn't allowed. She wanted to stick around for the whole thing, which I don't think has ever happened with a game.

[Loerwyn]

Nintendo was using the franchise as an ATM.

Well, that is pretty much standard business practice for Nintendo. Rehash the same ol' stuff every year and - as the jovial saying goes - it prints money. Just look at Mario, it's insane how much they're really milking it without innovating all that much. Seems like even SEGA are doing more innovation with Sonic, which is rather shocking.

Last Zelda game I played was Twilight Princess on Gamecube (i.e. the proper version of TP), and I did enjoy it but it did really just seem like a repainted Ocarina of Time. I enjoyed Wind Waker a lot, though, that was something a little different, although in truth it really just shook things up a little.

[cule]

Well, that is pretty much standard business practice for Nintendo. Rehash the same ol' stuff every year and - as the jovial saying goes - it prints money.

Aside from indie developers, that's pretty much standard business practice for everyone in the game industry.

[Loerwyn]

Aside from indie developers, that's pretty much standard business practice for everyone in the game industry.

Perhaps (although it even happens with indies, albeit on a lesser scale) - but Nintendo are far and away the worst for it. The Gamecube had four iterations of Mario Party, N64 had three - and that's just one series within the Mario-verse. Looking at this Wiki page of Mario games, it becomes painfully obvious just how much Nintendo milk that franchise.

I'm surprised they're doing as well as they are, considering their small number of franchises. Mind you, Activision are doing well on even fewer, so I suppose something has to be working.

[saintjon]

Mario Party is done by a third party though (which aggravates me, because I would be much better at the wii one if they could work with the wiimote worth a damn)

I'm with Cule on this one Loerwyn I don't see how you can single out Nintendo. Look at Capcom. Look at EA. The internet's gone bugeyed over Skyrim and it's a fifth installment. Also you say Twilight Princess was just a repaint when it had all kinds of new mechanics going on that had never been in Zelda before but meanwhile so many of these developers churning out sequels are really just stepping up their graphics a bit and bringing nothing new to the table (and they're all milking us dry on dlc now to boot)

[cule]

How is Nintendo the worst? Look at Battlefield, Call of Duty, EAs sports franchises,... Those are all (at least) yearly releases and it's pretty much the same game every time. CoD and BF are the most ridiculous, people pay full price for a couple of new MP maps and watching NPCs play the 4 hour single player campaign for them. Nintendo at least put some serious effort into their major releases and there's always something fresh about them, even if the core game stays the same.

[Loerwyn]

I'm not singling out Nintendo - I don't mean to appear that way - but they are one of the worst. You can't use Skyrim as an example because it's the fifth game in a series, but in a span of almost 20 years (there were two in-house spin-offs and some mobile games, however), which isn't exactly milking, is it? That's a fairly natural cycle. Same goes for a lot of EA's properties that aren't The Sims or a sports franchise (and even that seems to have calmed down somewhat).

What I'm saying is that no firm reuses the same few franchises with the regularity and the lack of imagination that Nintendo do. You have Mario Kart, Super Mario Bros, the Mario 64-esque platformers (Galaxy now, isn't it?) and so on. Each year brings a handful of Mario games, none of which really are all that different to the one before bar the addition of some sort of defining feature. They do put out fairly high quality releases, and they do put their time, money and effort into them, but it doesn't stop them from really being just Version n+1 of the game that came before it. A few minor changes here, maybe a feature there, bam, Nintendo have a new game to sell at full price for a number of years.

As for Twilight Princess - I perhaps wasn't clear. Yeah, they added new features and stuff, but it really was like a new version of Ocarina of Time. The map was largely the same (albeit moved around a bit, updated and so on), the whole Link-has-two-forms thing (Young & Adult in OoT, Human & Wolf in TP) - I did thoroughly enjoy it, as I have many of the 3D Zelda games I've played, but it still... felt like OoT in a way.

How is Nintendo the worst? Look at Battlefield, Call of Duty, EAs sports franchises,... Those are all (at least) yearly releases and it's pretty much the same game every time. CoD and BF are the most ridiculous, people pay full price for a couple of new MP maps and watching NPCs play the 4 hour single player campaign for them. Nintendo at least put some serious effort into their major releases and there's always something fresh about them, even if the core game stays the same.

Battlefield has two franchises - Bad Company and Battlefield itself. Bad Company has had two versions - one in 2008 and one in 2010. Battlefield 2 came out in 2005, Battlefield 3 in 2011. So no, not being milked. Call of Duty is being milked. Yearly releases with additional content, and the game is sold at a higher-than-average price. Either way, they're games made for a multiplayer audience (hence the short SP campaigns). I'm not saying the DLC isn't overpriced - it is, more so for CoD than BF - but it's really not as bad as you're suggesting.

[saintjon]

I get what you are saying but I have never felt robbed by a Zelda game, not even close (although I did skip Majora's Mask, but I heard that one was pretty awesome all the same from people who did play it). I don't mind them churning out games as long as they are good. I'm a couple hours into Skyward Sword and so far it's pretty good, I'm deliberately avoiding anything that might say something about what the game entails so everything will be a surprise and it's very enjoyable so far. The sword feels REALLY good.