23rd February 2003, 7:08 AM
I swear I posted my argument, but it got deleted. And OB1's reaction to my first post stated that I had taken Miyamoto out of context. Some moderators are doing funky things behind my back. :cuss:
We must remember when we say words like "innovation," "new," and, "original," these words are defined relative to the audience. Nothing is objectively "new." For example: the lightbulb. You show a lightbulb to a man in Europe in the year 1700 and he is going to flip his lid. You show the same lightbulb to the equivalent of this man in the year 2003 and you'd get a completely different response. The same applies for "The Matrix" for the years 1999 and 2003.
Thus, innovation largely has to do with the existing, in that innovation looks at what the current trends are, the current marketplace is, and does something that is accurately beyond the horizon of these trends. This "accurately" is what differentiates the "innovative" from the "different." Perhaps WW is innovative, but in the wrong direction for the audience. The intent of innovation is to get a big "WOW" out of the audience, and the sales numbers for Zelda in Japan indicate that this "WOW" does not exist. Thus, relative to the perception audience, Zelda:WW is not innovative...and the perception of the audience is really what matters.
I have to agree with OB1 in that Nintendo should continue to innovate, but it should do so knowing that it must innovate relative to the audience. Not OB1.
I must also disagree with the statement that if Nintendo followed my advice that there would only be derivative knockoffs. Knockoffs are what I clearly rejected when I stated that Nintendo must not pander to the audience. I just find it hard to believe that you can't innovate without being inconsiderate of your audience. Surely, the lightbulb was innovative?
...WW is a completely different game? I doubt that. Have you played it? Peer Schneider of IGN states in his video preview, "...It's vintage Zelda. The gameplay is just like it used to be...yes it has cartoon elements,...but it won't get on your nerves." I have a hard time believing that a SW20002 Zelda game would stray any more from the Zelda gameplay. In addition, why must Nintendo innovate in a direction that disagrees with the audience when it could innovate the Zelda gameplay in a direction that agrees with the audience? Is "The Matrix" innovative? Is the lightbulb innovative? The consideration of the audience is what differentiates lightbulbe from Wind Waker.
We must remember when we say words like "innovation," "new," and, "original," these words are defined relative to the audience. Nothing is objectively "new." For example: the lightbulb. You show a lightbulb to a man in Europe in the year 1700 and he is going to flip his lid. You show the same lightbulb to the equivalent of this man in the year 2003 and you'd get a completely different response. The same applies for "The Matrix" for the years 1999 and 2003.
Thus, innovation largely has to do with the existing, in that innovation looks at what the current trends are, the current marketplace is, and does something that is accurately beyond the horizon of these trends. This "accurately" is what differentiates the "innovative" from the "different." Perhaps WW is innovative, but in the wrong direction for the audience. The intent of innovation is to get a big "WOW" out of the audience, and the sales numbers for Zelda in Japan indicate that this "WOW" does not exist. Thus, relative to the perception audience, Zelda:WW is not innovative...and the perception of the audience is really what matters.
I have to agree with OB1 in that Nintendo should continue to innovate, but it should do so knowing that it must innovate relative to the audience. Not OB1.
I must also disagree with the statement that if Nintendo followed my advice that there would only be derivative knockoffs. Knockoffs are what I clearly rejected when I stated that Nintendo must not pander to the audience. I just find it hard to believe that you can't innovate without being inconsiderate of your audience. Surely, the lightbulb was innovative?
...WW is a completely different game? I doubt that. Have you played it? Peer Schneider of IGN states in his video preview, "...It's vintage Zelda. The gameplay is just like it used to be...yes it has cartoon elements,...but it won't get on your nerves." I have a hard time believing that a SW20002 Zelda game would stray any more from the Zelda gameplay. In addition, why must Nintendo innovate in a direction that disagrees with the audience when it could innovate the Zelda gameplay in a direction that agrees with the audience? Is "The Matrix" innovative? Is the lightbulb innovative? The consideration of the audience is what differentiates lightbulbe from Wind Waker.