But chat is such a pain D: And I'm not so great at thinking on my feet, either; I enjoy having time to think out my responses.
Anyway!
Gale said:
I don't want to make this entire discussion about Skyward Sword, but instead let me shift it to motion controls in general
No, we’re making this discussion about Skyward Sword. I’ve already agreed with you that motion controls in most of what’s out there is pretty gimmicky and probably could be done without in most cases. But I’m arguing that Skyward Sword is different.
Gale said:
I'm not saying my opinion is right, but there are people that agree with me when I say motion controls are unnecessary and are not what gaming is meant to be. People say that motion controls are the future of gaming. No.
And I've agreed with you there, in terms of gaming as a whole. I just think that for some specific games/franchises, motion control is the next logical step forward.
Gale said:
eSports is the future of gaming, and that's the direction it will go.
I desperately hope you don't advocate this. Ugh, what a hideously bleak concept; e-sports being the future of gaming. Unfortunately, this is the direction it's moving, which is really stupid, as far as I'm concerned. I see video games as first and foremost for fun (which e-sports can be), but also as unique literary mediums (look at certain Zelda games (MM and WW in particular), the Mother series, etc). At least there are some developers out there who look at games this way, like Shigeru Miyamoto and Shigesato Itoi (even though he doesn't make any more).
Gale said:
Nintendo will never be caught up with eSports because they have no way of becoming competitive with video games
What fantasy world are you living in Gale? Nintendo is obviously competitive with video games. Last time I checked, Nintendo was making waaay more money from video games than the other companies. Why do you think they make so much money? Is it because you think their games are rubbish? Why do you think their games (certain ones, anyway) are very often ridiculously great sellers? It is because you think they're uninteresting and made of hassling gimmick? Maybe it's because certain people involved know how to make a quality, fun game that everyone can enjoy!
Or are you one of those elitists who thinks that the majority public are mindless shrubs who don't know what a 'good' video game is. I used to be one of those, regarding shooter fans. As far as I was concerned, shooters were pretty stupid, and I couldn't see why anyone would want them. Then I realized - 'You know what? A whole lotta people really, truly enjoy those games. Who cares if I don't particularly like them? Gaming is about having fun, and if they like them and have fun with them, more power to them!' And now I don't bash Microsoft fans, Sony fans, shooter fans, anything fans, because everyone can enjoy what they like and it’s not my place to be condescending over something so silly.
Gale said:
so they have to stick to their old classics like Zelda, Kirby, Mario, etc.
Because new Mario games are worse and less fun than the old ones, right? They stick to their old classics, yes, but at least they do something new with them most of the time. Like New Super Mario Bros Wii - what a quality game! I bet you've never played it though; at least you certainly don't own it. You probably think, 'oh they just slapped 'new' and 'wii' on an old game and are basically releasing something old and pointless because people will buy it.' Honestly, that’s what I thought when I first heard of it, but I've had a chance to play a good chunk of it, and I can't say enough good about it. It feels completely fresh and new, but more than that, it's a ridiculous amount of pure fun (particularly with more than one person).
And for more. Super Mario Galaxy - innovative to the max. Super Mario Galaxy 2 - less innovative, but only because they had so many ideas that couldn't fit well into the first innovative game that they decided to make a different, surprisingly fresh feeling game (which I doubt you've played either). Galaxy 2 is, as far as I'm concerned, one of the purest, most unhindered gaming experiences out there.
And Kirby. Kirby's Epic Yarn - completely innovated. Not only is gameplay for the most part innovated, now so is the art style and way you interact with the environment.
And Zelda. Skyward Sword - after TP's lack of innovation, innovation to the maaaax. Spirit Tracks - like or hate the train, there’s no denying the innovation (even if it was based on things before it, the concept at least was new). And there's Zelda being (sorta) playable, adding new puzzle elements via Phantom.
So you can say Nintendo sticks with their old franchises. But you
can't say that's a bad, money-gouging thing, when they put the effort into innovation like this. Specifically Nintendo-developed first parties have always been about innovation.
Gale said:
Motion controls themselves are a gimmick. Some games use them in a creative way that makes them less gimmicky, but for the most part, motion controls is not where gaming will be in the years to come.
So lemme get this straight. Motion controls are a gimmick because most of the games using them use them as a gimmick. And that means games that don't use them as a gimmick are now still considered gimmicky because other games used motion as a gimmick. That about right?
Gale said:
Games that were already popular before motion controls don't need them because they were already popular. A stand-alone game like Epic Mickey or The Conduit needs motion controls because they're built for that. When OoT came out they didn't have motion controls in mind. Skyward Sword could be a great Zelda game without motion controls, and I think adding motion controls takes away from the gameplay that we're used to. Change isn't always a good thing.
But Zelda has always been about innovation, Gale, whether it be big or small! Even from day two! Look back to the original. It was a hit game, for sure. Then, instead of just milking it and making a similar game in Zelda 2, they hugely innovated! And after OoT's success, instead just making a similar game in concept to milk it, they made MM, probably the most creative game in the series. And after those two, instead of just making updated-graphics OoT, they completely innovated the concept of the series in WW. Only TP was an updated-graphics, steroid version of OoT, and as awesome as it is, it's one of the games in the series that innovated the least.
And now Skyward Sword is completely innovating the way the Zelda is played. You complain that Nintendo 'sticks to their old franchises,' but when they try to innovate you gripe more? Well, I know your gripe isn't at innovation so much as motion control, but what I've been trying to say is that
this isn't gimmick.
You cannot validly call Skyward Sword's motion control gimmick.
Gale said:
You're right! Instead of mashing B, now I can continually swing my arm in a vertical/horizontal motion endlessly until the enemy is killed.
Wrong. You missed my entire point. You said motion control doesn't add any new challenge to a game, and I gave evidence that it is indeed now adding a genuinely new challenge and mechanic gaming, at least for one series. And the evidence still stands. Swinging with thought, precision, and puzzle-solving in mind is hardly the same as mashing B.
Gale said:
I'm fine with a fresh take with the series. I'm not fine with yarn.
Well alrighty, but it's not your place to judge the game based on the yarn direction rubbing you the wrong way. I'm not saying you were doing this exactly, but I'm just saying ;o