aaaaand I'm done...

[DekaThunder Rider]

Anytime I hear about someone wanting to change a game franchise,I think of that god-awful Bomberman:Act Zero game that came out on the X-Box 360*




*-That is not a shot at the X-Box 360 by the way...I would have been against that Bomberman game just as much if it had come out on a Nintendo or Sony system as well.

 

[KingRanger]

And Team Ninja blames Nintendo right back.

My point is more "change just for the sake of change is not inherently good".

Hell, there are still people who look down on Zelda 2 just because of how radically different it is than the other entries in the series and it's not even that bad of a game.

I think it was the AVGN that said about zelda 2: At the time there was only 1 other zelda game, so how can people say it's so awful for being different?

Zelda 2 was a great game IMO. It was much better than Skyward Sword. It was nintendo doing something different. I think it was the LAST time they did something different with their core franchises.

 

[Algo Fonix]

Zelda 2 is a solid game, for sure. The difficulty bumps it down a few notches for me, but it's one of my more favorite 8-bit console games.

 

[FlashNeko]

I think it was the AVGN that said about zelda 2: At the time there was only 1 other zelda game, so how can people say it's so awful for being different?

Because it is arguably different in a way that many did not find fun?

Even at its best it's pretty grindy in a way that gets tedious. Its difficulty is also such that it can be hard in a frustrating way instead of a challenging one.

Even back in the day when it was still a new game there were a large number of people who disliked it for being different in ways that were worse rather than better.

 

[KingRanger]

Because it is arguably different in a way that many did not find fun?

Even at its best it's pretty grindy in a way that gets tedious. Its difficulty is also such that it can be hard in a frustrating way instead of a challenging one.

Even back in the day when it was still a new game there were a large number of people who disliked it for being different in ways that were worse rather than better.

Point being people will ***** about anything. Zelda 2 was fun. I would welcome another zelda like it. I also don't get this ZELDA 2 IS HARRRRDDDD stuff.

 

[Wheatley]

These are just my totally unscientific and gut feeling-based ramblings, but...

I think it's the crown of "ubiquity."

You know, like how a lot of people will refer to any sort of tissue as Kleenex, or a frozen ice pop as a Popsicle, or a copy as a Xerox, or a soda as a Coke, or a tablet as an iPad, whether or not the product is actually made by that company.

When I was little, if a game system was to be referenced in fiction, it would be a Nintendo. If you went over to another kid's house to play video games, you were going over to "play Nintendo." Didn't matter if you were actually playing on a Genesis or a Jaguar or an Intellivision. Unless you were really brand-conscious or a fanboy, "Nintendo" was the generic name we used to describe a game system.

It was a shock to me to realize that things had changed in the mid-2000s when suddenly little kids weren't talking about "playing Nintendo" anymore; they were talking about "playing PlayStation." Nowadays I think you see all three consoles referenced about equally but to represent different sorts of things.

So my impression is that that's the "crown" that fanboys want to see their company of choice take. More than sales or quality of games, they want to feel like their system is synonymous with gaming.

Well that's what happens when things are a lot more competitive than ever before, along with the gaming industry being more mainstream than it was in the past.

Stiff competition is always a good thing. It helps push companies. Last generation, it was all about the PS2 while the GameCube and Dreamcast (I didn't care much for the original Xbox) got little-to-no love. I found that really annoying. And IMHO, the Dreamcast had the best games of the 6th generation consoles. I love the PS2 and GameCube as well. It's just that I hated that so many people were dickriding the PS2 at the time.

 

[FlashNeko]

Point being people will ***** about anything.

More "if you do something radically different for a franchise, make sure you have a point behind it beyond just wanting to make it different than the previous game".

To use another example: Is ANYONE happy that the new X-Com game is an FPS? That's certainly a change from the previous games.

 

[Loghorn]

Point being people will ***** about anything. Zelda 2 was fun. I would welcome another zelda like it. I also don't get this ZELDA 2 IS HARRRRDDDD stuff.

Personally, I'm glad that Nintendo didn't make any more Zelda games similar to Zelda 2 (except for probably those 3 very horrible Zelda games on the Phillips CD-I in which Nintendo didn't create). As a matter of fact, I never even played Zelda 2 until the re-release for it on GBA.

IMO, it was downright hard & ridiculous. Plus it didn't even feel like Zelda at all. Once I finally beaten it, I sold it. Even Majora's Mask was better than Zelda 2.

 

[KingRanger]

Personally, I'm glad that Nintendo didn't make any more Zelda games similar to Zelda 2 (except for probably those 3 very horrible Zelda games on the Phillips CD-I in which Nintendo didn't create). As a matter of fact, I never even played Zelda 2 until the re-release for it on GBA.

IMO, it was downright hard & ridiculous. Plus it didn't even feel like Zelda at all. Once I finally beaten it, I sold it. Even Majora's Mask was better than Zelda 2.

Again, at the time of it's release you only had zelda 1 to go by. Zelda had to real concrete feel to it. It does now yes, but back then it didn't. So let me get this right, because it was OMG HARD, it wasn't any good? Was that the only thing you didn't like about it? Because if being hard makes a game bad, you probably don't play much?

Zelda 2 was NOTHING like those CD-i games. To even suggest it is stupid.:redface2:

 

[Loghorn]

Again, at the time of it's release you only had zelda 1 to go by. Zelda had to real concrete feel to it. It does now yes, but back then it didn't. So let me get this right, because it was OMG HARD, it wasn't any good? Was that the only thing you didn't like about it? Because if being hard makes a game bad, you probably don't play much?

Zelda 2 was NOTHING like those CD-i games. To even suggest it is stupid.:redface2:

I did also mention that it doesn't feel like Zelda at all (not like the original Zelda, A Link to the Past, etc.). It feels more like an RPG, getting experience points, etc. I do play games very much to answer your question.