Arkage
Banned
This interview is like 90% of the interviewer praising and agreeing "100%" with everything Duncan has said in the past, and 10% of Craig Duncan going "hah yea my critics are dumb."
This made me lol. Is truth.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Rare boss reiterates no old IP revival unless completely paradigm shifting idea
- Thread starter Salty Hippo
- Start date
This interview is like 90% of the interviewer praising and agreeing "100%" with everything Duncan has said in the past, and 10% of Craig Duncan going "hah yea my critics are dumb."
This made me lol. Is truth.
MrCunningham
Member
I still want a Perfect Dark reboot, damnit.
Also, I'm still waiting for Battle Toads.
Also, I'm still waiting for Battle Toads.
Yeah, I don't care about Rare the studio anymore.
That is a different thing then me hoping people lose their jobs.
Worth noting that Rare was already a 200+ employee studio back in the 64 era. For comparison the current Playtonic is like a 20-30 man team, which was basically the size of Rare during the development of DKC.
daTRUballin
Member
Honestly, this always annoys me when people say this. If you don't believe that the old Rare could've made a better fighter because you didn't like the old KI games, that's fine I guess. But how do we know today's Rare couldn't have made a competent fighter considering almost nobody from the old KI team is there now anyway? What's the difference between giving the KI IP to DH/IG which consists of nobody from the old KI team, versus giving it to Rare which also consists of nobody from the old KI team?
Whenever people ask for outside developers to work on Rare IPs because "nobody is left from the old days", it doesn't make any sense to me. Those outside developers don't have any of the old people either! It's funny how nobody sees the irony when making claims like this.
My whole point is that we shouldn't dismiss today's Rare just because they haven't made the new KI game. We don't know if the new people at Rare today would've made a good KI game or not, and let's not act like they wouldn't for sure, which a lot of people seem to do.
Randomizer
Member
Crash 'N' Sane Trilogy and Mario Odyssey prove that not only are 3D platformers still relevenat but that they can also sell well. Yooka Laylee was just a bad game, the genre is perfectly fine.
Hating Mario games should be a crime. Possibly the greatest series in gaming and undoubtedly the best and most influential platforming series no questions asked.
Exactly. As someone who generally doesn't buy Mario games ever and has an irrational dislike for the IP, I'm actually interested in Odyssey despite myself, just because all the footage of it looks exactly like what I'd expect out of a BK game in 2017, but with the Mario IP substituted in. And people are off in other threads predicting it'll be their GOTY already.
Seems weird to me all these people saying that YL is proof that 3D platformers should stay in the 90s. I guess nobody told Nintendo. ¯_(ツ_/¯
Hating Mario games should be a crime. Possibly the greatest series in gaming and undoubtedly the best and most influential platforming series no questions asked.
Renna Hazel
Member
I think people ask for other companies to use Rare IP because Rare wont do it. I'd rather Rare make a Banjo platformer, but they kind of refuse to. Now the IP just goes to waste.
daTRUballin
Member
Well, not caring about a studio being shut down kinda means not caring about the employees of said studio losing their jobs, no?
Not saying you're hoping people lose their jobs, but not caring doesn't make you look any better......
Just sayin'.
Yearsoflurking
Member
The interview literally said they'd have to do something totally different with gameplay like how Odyssey is doing.Exactly. As someone who generally doesn't buy Mario games ever and has an irrational dislike for the IP, I'm actually interested in Odyssey despite myself, just because all the footage of it looks exactly like what I'd expect out of a BK game in 2017, but with the Mario IP substituted in. And people are off in other threads predicting it'll be their GOTY already.
Seems weird to me all these people saying that YL is proof that 3D platformers should stay in the 90s. I guess nobody told Nintendo. ¯_(ツ
daTRUballin
Member
If that's the case, fair enough. But I've definitely seen others say they want Rare's IPs outsourced because of the old people not being at the studio anymore which doesn't make any sense to me.
Renna Hazel
Member
It would make sense if they're saying the talent has left the studio and that the people there now don't have what it takes. Plenty of other studios have proven themselves. Current era Rare really hasn't.
ElBoxyBrown
Banned
Nintendo innovates. They don't do the same shit over and over again. Like, what? lolExactly. As someone who generally doesn't buy Mario games ever and has an irrational dislike for the IP, I'm actually interested in Odyssey despite myself, just because all the footage of it looks exactly like what I'd expect out of a BK game in 2017, but with the Mario IP substituted in. And people are off in other threads predicting it'll be their GOTY already.
Seems weird to me all these people saying that YL is proof that 3D platformers should stay in the 90s. I guess nobody told Nintendo. ¯_(ツ
daTRUballin
Member
You're right. That would make sense. Except in Rare's case, it doesn't.
They're unproven, but that doesn't mean we can't give them a chance with their own IPs. If Rare would've been releasing shitty Banjo and Perfect Dark sequels left and right, you'd have a point. But they haven't made a PD game in 12 years and they haven't made a 3D platformer in 16 or 17 years. Let's wait and see if they can actually deliver before asking for other companies to handle their IPs.
The "ear rape chit chat speaking" wasn't nearly as bad in the Banjo games as it was in Yooka.
Vital Tundra
Member
Yo but where is Viva Piñata 3???
and nintendo will buy back for pennies and use their IP catalog. im ok with this
Renna Hazel
Member
9 years is a long time, and in that time frame we've gotten 3 Kinect games and ports of old games. Certainly a cause for concern quality wise. I hope SoT puts them on the right path critically.
Salty Hippo
Member
No, it didn't literally say "new like Odyssey". That's your own interpretation. There was no mention of Odyssey and if that's what Craig Duncan meant, he would probably have brought it up. Or the interviewer would. Odyssey's design approach (IP first, idea later) is the complete opposite of what Duncan qualifies as "correct way of making a game" (let's have an idea that sells first and then we'll see where we put it). It also goes against his selective obssession for "trends" in the market. That Mario game's existence disproves almost everything he said in this interview. You don't need a "COMPLETELY NEW PARADIGM MINDBLOWING IDEA" for a new Banjo. If you want inspiration for it look no further than Odyssey, a game that is taking inspiration on elements of your own IP in the first place FFS.
OP you're totally wrong. For Rare to not just survive but to flourish, they have to do something new, not just remake the old one. I know most people are waxing nostalgic and want that feeling they had when they played those games.
Those old games are out there. Go play them. Just doing what they did before, trying to capture the old glory is a dead end in every creative endeavour.
Those old games are out there. Go play them. Just doing what they did before, trying to capture the old glory is a dead end in every creative endeavour.
Yearsoflurking
Member
What are you talking about odyssey is a completely new gameplay paradigm shift for Mario as is the new Zelda for Zelda . You have obvious built in frustration from rare and jumping to ridiculous bias conclusions
Yeah, new Perfect Park should be a third person action adventure corporate espionage cyberpunk, futuristic splinter cell.
But we wouldn't be talking about Rare's entire studio, but rather a single team in that studio putting out games in a rather rapid manner. And that's without having the development advancements of stuff like Unity, and having a direct example of the game you're trying to make.
I don't want other studios making Rare stuff "because nobody is still there". I explicitly said at any point in time because of the existence of the first two Killer instinct games, which despite the popularity they had for the time, are pretty bad fighters when compared to stuff like Street Fighter or King of Fighters of the same time periods. It's not about just bringing a new team to do something... it's about being able to bring in a team that specialises in that type of game. Modern Killer Instinct was created by people that deeply understand 2D fighters, whereas the original game was not. Rare of old was a jack of all trades, but master of few (basically platformers). The best games in each genre today are generally made by teams that have specialised knowledge and experience of the genre. Capcom and SNK had that, even back then... Rare did not, and it shows. This isn't a knock on modern Rare.. this is me saying KI2013 is a better fighter than I believe we should expect from any Rare. I'd have plenty of confidence that modern Rare could make a good/great action game of platformer. I'd expect 343i could make a far better FPS Perfect Dark than them if push came to shove though.
You do need a new paradigm and a mind blowing idea. You do something big and different. Otherwise you get Yooka-Laylee. People think they want that.. but they really didn't, because it wasn't very good.
Nintendo also very much does operate off an "idea first" approach, with gameplay systems often being iterated on before the IP it will be attached to being selected. Splatoon was potentially a Mario game at one point... to say nothing of Super Mario Bros 2.
I can see where he is coming from. Most people that loved Banjo generally stayed on Nintendo platforms. They probably even have data on this based on how the XBOX LIVE ports sold and Conker Live and Reloaded as well as Rare Replay. On the plus side i can see Yooka Laylee getting a sequel that is a dramatic improvement over the first game so there is that. Mario Odyssey is going back to Sunshine and 64 type structure which were games that resembled Banjo Kazooie the most out of the 3D Mario games. So its not all doom and gloom.
daTRUballin
Member
I think a lot of people aren't considering the fact that just because he says they won't return to old IPs without a new idea doesn't mean they're not currently working on old IPs with new ideas. He didn't outright say they're not working on old IPs at the moment (at least I don't think he did. I didn't watch the video). And with all the rumors about other projects being in the pipeline after SoT......Maybe there's still hope.
Right guys?
lifes a lot easier when you stop pretending opinions you disagree with are memes. some people like a different talking bear game than you do. let it go.
Salty Hippo
Member
"Craig Duncan literally said like Odyssey" is what you posted. But I'm the one jumping to conclusions.
You just need to look at Microsoft's current GaaS focus (which has been confirmed by Phil Spencer himself) and add that to the millions of times Craig Duncan has talked about "trends" and "look at where the industry is going" to realize a new Banjo would not have been made even if Rare had Odyssey's hat idea first. When he talks paradigm shifting, he means taking a genre that is considered dead in today's market and applying an entirely new gameplay premise and completely new elements that are appealling to today's mass market and have huge return potential. Right now those elements are service-based content, continuous development, online multiplayer, shared worlds, microtransactions, etc. If you think Rare will even consider making a new Banjo if they come up with some great Nintendo-like idea such as Odyssey (that is daring in terms of pure gameplay but conservative in terms of market trends) then I think you're being really gullible. They won't. To be perfectly honest, anyone should just need to hear the "never say never" line to realize something completely off the table. But if you want to keep feeding unrealistic dreams, more power to you.
I think you're simply reading what he posted in the wrong way. Here it is with a helpful comma and quotations added where I believe it should be.
Basically Odyssey IS doing something completely different. Regardless of the likelihood of a new Banjo happening whether they had such an idea or not, the point is that you've kicked off this whole discussion based on the idea that a Mario 64 to Odyssey style sequel would be off the table, whilst the quoted line doesn't actually imply that at all. Without contesting that line, it's just business as usual, and you can remain grumpy that Rare isn't making what you want. But that quote hasn't made the outlook any more dire than it was last week.
TheDinoman
Member
New Super Mario Bros. though
We dont want games turning out like Yooka Laylee, so he's right about that.
What we do want is games to reinvent themselves, like Mario Odyssey, so he's right about that.
Seems like a sensible perspective? I dont see the controversy, unless we see a quality take on Banjo, keep it on the shelf.
Sea of Thieves looks amazing so im happy with Rares direction, although i hope the studio is also incubating and developing new games in parallel to SoT.
Id love this. Or Dues Ex style hybrid 1st/3rd person. They kind of started doing that with PDZ, i think it was the first of its kind to implement the mechanic well, i loved the stealth wall cover and peaking round the corners. The level design and everything else was really bad.
What we do want is games to reinvent themselves, like Mario Odyssey, so he's right about that.
Seems like a sensible perspective? I dont see the controversy, unless we see a quality take on Banjo, keep it on the shelf.
Sea of Thieves looks amazing so im happy with Rares direction, although i hope the studio is also incubating and developing new games in parallel to SoT.
Id love this. Or Dues Ex style hybrid 1st/3rd person. They kind of started doing that with PDZ, i think it was the first of its kind to implement the mechanic well, i loved the stealth wall cover and peaking round the corners. The level design and everything else was really bad.
That's the thing I really don't get about Nintendo.
They say stuff like that, but 10 mainline Mario Party games in 15 years would seem to discredit that claim.
And it's not like they completely revolutionize Fire Emblem with each instalment.
Not that I'm complaining when they don't. Metroid: Samus Returns, which I'm loving, makes some minor adjustments to the formula, but on the whole there's no Star Fox: Zero-esque shoehorning in a new mechanic based around the unique capabilities of the 3DS that ends up compromising the game. People have been wanting a competent, focused Star Fox 64 sequel for 20 years now but Nintendo refuses.
Salty Hippo
Member
The comma doesn't really change my point, does it? He's still lumping Odyssey's innovation (which still retains most if not all of 3D Mario's traditions and characteristics) together with the quote and I really doubt that's the kind of change Craig Duncan/Rare and Phil Spencer/Microsoft would deem proper to reboot Banjo. If you ask me, evidence from the day N&B was revealed to this very day support my "biased, grumpy" theory.
momshotdad
Member
Sounds fine to me. People don't play games like that anymore. Yooka Laylee was the perfect example of how the gaming industry has evolved since the 90s. People prefer progression over collection.
In a year where we're getting a Crash Trilogy, Mario Odyssey, Sonic Mania, Bubsy, and even a Banjo spiritual successor despite how it was received, you're telling me Rare still won't consider reviving Banjo?
How is it that Microsoft's other studios can pump out Halo, Gears, and Forza but we can't get the Bear and Bird back? Especially when 90's nostalgia is hot right now.
Yooka-Laylee doesn't mean a new Banjo game can't work. Mario Odyssey is proof you can get a 3d platformer in 2017 right.
How is it that Microsoft's other studios can pump out Halo, Gears, and Forza but we can't get the Bear and Bird back? Especially when 90's nostalgia is hot right now.
Yooka-Laylee doesn't mean a new Banjo game can't work. Mario Odyssey is proof you can get a 3d platformer in 2017 right.
Dr. Feel Good
Banned
Rare is part of what made me love gaming growing up. Most of their ideas and games are shit now. You can iterate old IPs and create new ones, which would benefit both sides of the argument here.
Conkers Bad Fur Day is a game that took a lot of risk, imagination and creativity. I would love to see current day Rare make something even half as interesting.
Conkers Bad Fur Day is a game that took a lot of risk, imagination and creativity. I would love to see current day Rare make something even half as interesting.
Baraka Obama
Banned
More like they can't make banjo an online shared world game that will most certainly be littered with microtransactions without backlash amirite.
TheDinoman
Member
It's just extremely disheartening to see so many people not being able to tell the difference between Banjo-Kazooie and Yooka-Laylee and use the latter as an example of "See? SEE?! 3D platformers like Banjo totally can't work in today's gaming climate! Meanwhile let me go get hyped for Mario Odyssey which is basically an evolution of the 3D platformer structure I just said can't work today."
YL's problem wasn't that "it was too much like an N64 game", it's problem was that it didn't have a big enough budget behind it for it to be a fully realized and polished platformer on par with the Banjo games of old. Just look at the enemies for example. Kazooie and Tooie all have a huge gallery of unique, world-specific enemies with their own animations, sound effects, etc. YL on the other hand keeps reusing the same six, while reskinning the common mook one each level and slapping a different hat on them. Same thing with the constant reuse of NPCs. Playtonic was clearly biting off more then they could chew with that game.
YL's problem wasn't that "it was too much like an N64 game", it's problem was that it didn't have a big enough budget behind it for it to be a fully realized and polished platformer on par with the Banjo games of old. Just look at the enemies for example. Kazooie and Tooie all have a huge gallery of unique, world-specific enemies with their own animations, sound effects, etc. YL on the other hand keeps reusing the same six, while reskinning the common mook one each level and slapping a different hat on them. Same thing with the constant reuse of NPCs. Playtonic was clearly biting off more then they could chew with that game.
Yeah but MO is nothing like Mario 64 or previous Mario's on GC. I dont think Craig is contesting 3D platformers wont work, but the ideas need to be bold and daring, and in all honesty, the father of Banjo, who is the director of Sea of Thieves doesn't want to do another Banjo. Also, Nintendo are the masters of platforming, i feel no one is able to match thier inventiveness and genius, Banjo came close but i felt Rare had a sense of pride to outdo them back then, but they've become jaded with the genre. Still, Rare remain one of the premier dev houses in UK, they are a magnet for bright new talent, so they still have a positive future. I dont see any revival coming from the vets though, not for Banjo at least. They're burned out on the franchise it seems.
That's a fair argument. I still believe with multiple 90's properties coming back and finding success lately that there's still potential for someone to take a crack at Banjo, even if it isn't Rare.
If it doesn't affect your point, then your point was wrong in the first place quite frankly. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your predictions on what games Rare is actually going to be working on... only how you're parsing the part of the interview you decided to make this thread on. He only states the IP would need to see something "genuinely new and innovative". This could very well describe both a Nuts & Bolts or a Mario Odyssey. What it wouldn't describe though, would be a Yooka-Laylee, that attempts to slavishly replicate the experience of the prior games. If I'm honest the whole thing about saying that "people would think they want it" seems like an indirect dig at stuff like Yooka-Laylee and other such kickstarters where the inspiration seems to end at "remember that classic game? we'll make a new one just like it!!", where the final result has been routinely leaving most disappointed. Considering he directly mentioned Nintendo as the first name drop when talking about how gaming moves on, it certainly doesn't suggest that their approach to handle IP is incompatible with what he views Banjo as requiring.
daTRUballin
Member
Yooka Laylee's "problem" was that it wasn't made by Nintendo. I guarantee you that when Odyssey comes out, everybody will be singing its praises and the game will be touted for "successfully returning the platformer genre to the N64 days" no matter the quality of the game while Yooka Laylee will be forgotten.
It's the same reason why Banjo Kazooie is criticized as a "collectathon" while Mario 64 gets a pass even though you technically collect more things in Mario 64.
It's really funny when game developers/publishers/etc. go on and on about innovation when only a small handful of games each gen are innovative.
Now add in being innovative and good, the list gets shorter.
There hasn't been many 3D platformers this gen(although this year is sure helping change that) so it's not like a Banjo-Threeie wouldn't stand out. It's also a pet peeve of mine when developers act as if people are asking for the same game again when you can easily add and improve to an existing formula, especially to one that hasn't been replicated often in the past decade or so.
I say that while not thinking the Banjo games were ever that great. I loved them as a kid but clearly there's a lot more to do with what was established. As someone who fell out of favor with them I'd certainly give a full blown new Banjo game that is more in line with the 64 titles a shot. Can't say the same for some pirate MMO that is almost assuredly dead on arrival.
Now add in being innovative and good, the list gets shorter.
There hasn't been many 3D platformers this gen(although this year is sure helping change that) so it's not like a Banjo-Threeie wouldn't stand out. It's also a pet peeve of mine when developers act as if people are asking for the same game again when you can easily add and improve to an existing formula, especially to one that hasn't been replicated often in the past decade or so.
I say that while not thinking the Banjo games were ever that great. I loved them as a kid but clearly there's a lot more to do with what was established. As someone who fell out of favor with them I'd certainly give a full blown new Banjo game that is more in line with the 64 titles a shot. Can't say the same for some pirate MMO that is almost assuredly dead on arrival.
Even though Odyssey isn't even out yet I doubt Rare or anybody could make a Banjo Kazooie game on that level.Exactly. As someone who generally doesn't buy Mario games ever and has an irrational dislike for the IP, I'm actually interested in Odyssey despite myself, just because all the footage of it looks exactly like what I'd expect out of a BK game in 2017, but with the Mario IP substituted in. And people are off in other threads predicting it'll be their GOTY already.
Seems weird to me all these people saying that YL is proof that 3D platformers should stay in the 90s. I guess nobody told Nintendo. ¯\_(ツ
Crash, Mario and Sonic all released on platforms that still have a huge chunk of their audience with them. The people that said they played Crash on PS1 the last time, or the amount of people that know Odyssey will be quality platforming or people who yearned for a good Sonic game and got it all have platforms these games are built for. And I won't even talk about Bubsy.. come on lol.
I and appearently Microsoft and Rare doubt that there is a large enough audience for a collectathon platformer on the Xbox ecosystem. And after all these years of Halo/Gears/Forza they are probably right.
And to the bolded: Mario Odyssey is proof that Nintendo has some of the best devs in the indsutry and are the only ones who can make actually stellar 3D platformers. There have been 5 of those (or 6 with 3D Land, or 5 again if you don't count Sunshine because..eh..) in the last 20 years, and all of them were better than pretty much any other 3D platformer out there.
These things take expertise that, in Nintendo's case, built up over decades. Even if Rare suddenly wants to make a Banjo game again, how much of the talent that actually knows how to do a 3D platformer is still there to prevent another Yooka Laylee? It would look better for sure, and would probably be more polished but otherwise?
GabeTheGrouch76
Member
Why do I get the feeling that by "completely paradigm shifting idea" they mean turning the IP into something entirely different in complete defiance of what the fans wanted? We saw how that worked out for Banjo, Fable, and FASA's Shadowrun. There's also the fact that if you want to bring back an established IP in a fresh way, you need to actually go back to the source material and study it first, rather than leaving it on the shelf and hoping something new might come to mind in the future. Moreover, in many cases, people couldn't care less on how "new" it is; if you revive the IP in proper fashion, that's all they need to be happy. Do that, then come back with talk about making it "innovative".
Not like it would matter anyway. Forget not reviving the old IPs or having only a handful of the heydey of staff, the entire studio paradigm (and by consequence, the games they produce nowadays) is/are nothing like the original, even in its twilight years (re: early 360 era). The studio that calls itself Rare is a completely different beast in name only and it's only by surviving on the former company's legacy they haven't faded into complete irrelevance.
Not like it would matter anyway. Forget not reviving the old IPs or having only a handful of the heydey of staff, the entire studio paradigm (and by consequence, the games they produce nowadays) is/are nothing like the original, even in its twilight years (re: early 360 era). The studio that calls itself Rare is a completely different beast in name only and it's only by surviving on the former company's legacy they haven't faded into complete irrelevance.