Actually, it does. He directly changed the gameplay format of Zelda games to suit his own needs. The previous Zelda games had a focus on combat and exploration. The latest Zelda games do not. Because in his opinion, he doesn't know how people could enjoy a game like Zelda 1 or even 2. And if Aonuma's Zelda titles were actually good, they would not end up in the bargain bin of all places.
When did Aonuma suggest he doesn't think people could enjoy those Zelda titles? More importantly, how can you say for certain that you're even right on any of this? The big difference as I said between him and Tameem is that people vigorously fought against DmC because that's how much they didn't believe in it quality-wise. Where is this large crowd for Zelda? Even larger franchises that have too many fans to fail like Call of Duty have evidence in their hatebase from things like metacritic, youtube videos, general message boards, etc. How is Zelda the same when it doesn't have any of this?
Keep in mind, I actually don't have anything against the older Zelda games myself. Hell, I think I actually enjoy Zelda II a bit more than some other folks seem to. I wouldn't say that they should take priority over later titles as I've almost always seen ALttP as being labeled the "definitive" title for 2D Zelda.
I stopped reading at "casual". That's damage control. More people will BUY a Wii for NSMB than a standard 3D Mario title. Hell, the 3DS was salvaged thanks to NSMB2 and not 3D Land.
But that's not f***ing damage control. Damage control is when you have a failure and you try to justify it with stretched reasoning and ignoring big issues. SMG2 was a major success when you actually consider everything about it. How often do 3D platformers sell that much? Almost never.
And you're completely missing the big part to NSMB. It's a sequel to the 2D style of Mario that most people are familiar with. It was bound to sell more than the average game and other franchises have proved this. Mega Man 9 and 10 were considered big successes by the guys at Capcom. According to Sega, Sonic 4 Ep 1 sold well upon release and still sells well even during 2012, 2 years after it came out. Also, the 3DS sold major units when Animal Crossing came out in Japan alone, not NSMB2. Animal Crossing reached 2 million sales way before NSMB2 or any other title could reach that level, but that's besides the point.
But tell me, how is the word "casual" indicative of damage control? How am I wrong in saying that? Are you saying people just aren't incredibly more familiar with 2D Mario? When people hum a video game theme, would it be the Super Mario Bros theme you hear, or is it a theme from SM64/Sunshine/Galaxy?
The only time he didn't balance the Smash games was with Brawl. 64 and Melee were not cluster****s due to a few characters being ProGodBeastMode. People had to push hard to make Fox, Marth, and Sheik as more powerful characters than before. That wasn't Sakurai's fault. His intent was to deliberately limit a certain group of players from being able to "break the game". What happens is the game is less enjoyable than not.
You could very well argue that it was thanks to there being fewer characters in general. Which characters are deemed as the broken ones in Brawl again? Snake and Meta Knight? I definitely know the latter is there, but anyways, you're making another two mistakes here.
1. The enjoyability of the game relies on what people play it for. True, Melee has a competitive environment that is still very active. However, how many people went to buy Smash 64 for such a thing? Most likely, there were a number of factors that seemed attractive for it. The idea of being able to pit Nintendo characters in a fight against each other, the general chaos of a regular free for all with items on whilst playing on a hazard filled stage, etc.
2. Can we say for certain that Sakurai was wrong on thinking that's what people wanted? The Melee fans aren't a big enough factor to detract the still high opinions of the game (maybe enough to knock Brawl lower on the user score, but not so much that it's like comparing DmC to DMC3).
But again, how does this make Sakurai as bad as Tameem? This is the most recent incident and it's the only one of its kind thus far. You have no way of saying one event speaks entirely for Sakurai, especially when his very next creation afterwards, Kid Icarus Uprising, is considered one of the best titles on the 3DS and gives what most players wanted in the form of an enjoyable video game. Hell, many will say Brawl succeeds on the same level of being an enjoyable video game.
Absolutely nothing like Tameem. I know your point was that they think they know better than what the fans want, but at the end of the day, one side definitely listens to criticism more than the other. Tameem obviously didn't listen as the pics in this thread suggest, but Sakurai shows that he wants to put more emphasis on balance the next time around.
End of discussion.
Don't be dense. The reaction is what matters most. Stop thinking the only problem with Tameem was how he didn't listen to complaints. His problem was how he acted pre-release, how he acted post-release, and how much disregard he had for DMC as a whole. Sakurai is nothing like this.
He's been the producer of the series since REmake (though he's not credited for RE5 if my memory serves me). Producer's usually have more control over products.
I won't say anything because I haven't given his work on RE much attention, so I won't say you're wrong. Still, I'll need to look this up before I can debate this any further at the risk of this being another case like Aonuma. Have any links to show his specific words on the matter?
Why does this come off as Malstrom making a new identity to spread his views as a different person? There are a lot of little complaints here and there exaggerated to make... I don't even know what. Alright, he has a problem with the puzzle segments in Sonic games? But then says that all Japanese games have this problem? Why bring this up exclusively with Iizuka? But then he says that's not what bothers him? Then why mention it at all? Wait, he's still mentioning them? What? And he's getting awfully angry in his own blog at the readers for no reason.
Can you not link me to any more of these awful blogs? I didn't get a single thing out of that except a hatred for puzzles. I THOUGHT Iizuka was going to be attributed to all the glitchiness of earlier titles, but apparently that wasn't the case. I mean, the guy makes a point against Sonic Adventure and its branching paths not having consistency, which is true and it was a problem. However, the reception to both Adventure games at the time was largely positive, so how can you expect Sega to change it when the fans seem to be okay with it? Even classic fans have held Adventure up in high regard for god knows why. His Nintendo hateboner is just more of a sign that he's fueled by rage in his rant than actual logic. Even if it's a blog, the lack of professionalism is pretty damn indicative of how little he has to say. More over, I'd suggest you not rely on these guys' opinions. Make your own without them. They're not doing you any favors, I'll say that much.
Anyways, he REALLY missed the point of what Iizuka was saying at the end. What Iizuka was basically saying was "Hey, we actually have something that people really like going here. Maybe we can keep doing that to please the fans and still try to experiment a bit to see what else they might like. After all, this is what gave us the daytime gameplay in Unleashed that people wanted to later on!"
Not to mention, he says Colors isn't bad for the lack of puzzles interrupting actions, but that actually DID happen in Colors, and it happened a lot. You'd have to use the block power to know when you wanted to turn blue coins into platforms, keep track of whenever you remove a platform, etc. You'd have to use hover to make sure you could keep with a trail of rings to stay on a path. Hell, a lot of later acts in Colors were built entirely around the concept of incorporating puzzles into the platforming. The reason people didn't complain was because here they actually worked where in some earlier games they worked against you.
And yeah, guns in Shadow were dumb. Shouldn't have happened. Gameplay-wise they didn't really change much though. Still far from Tameem though. Iizuka didn't pass off Shadow as superb story-telling that should take priority over the way they handled older titles.
From: No_one_special | Posted: 4/5/2013 2:11:52 PM
The dude's stupidity and ridiculous gender politics has probably killed off the Metroid series as we know it.
Like I said, this guy definitely did some bad s*** and that's why I'm not going to argue in his favor. Other M is arguably as bad as DmC in many of the same regards, maybe worse in others (though better in some others as well). Still, if only because I haven't heard Sakamoto talk outright s*** towards the people who criticize Other M, I'm not going to say he shares Tameem's inability to learn.
I'd also say that Nintendo just has a fear of handling Metroid now because the next title just might be do-or-die for the franchise.
Add user to Ignore List after reporting