Support NeoGAF

[Oppo]

I think you will find that there are more than 1 or 2 Mario releases per gen.

Heh.

 

[Anasui Kishibe]

Now that I think about it, PSP also launched in March at $250, but I don't remember the sales being sub 100K units in May of 2005. The price can't be the only thing here

it isn't even one of the reasons

the only reason is this:

or lack thereof

 

[upandaway]

They can do it just the same if they actually pushed games with marketing and budgets equivalent to a Mario or a Zelda game.

Think about this logically for a second. Can the modern Nintendo you know really make a game as new as Zelda 1 and Mario 1 were on the NES? It's not even a question of budget and marketing, but whether Nintendo can simply develop such a thing.

 

[MrGame&Watch]

They can do it just the same if they actually pushed games with marketing and budgets equivalent to a Mario or a Zelda game.

The downside of all this - which so vastly outweighs your supposed "positive", which isn't a positive since most normal developers can do it without whoring franchises - is we could have had these same amazing concepts only with completely original worlds, completely original characters married to completely original gameplay. In Mario platformers you're going to be platforming, you're going to fight goombas. No matter how they tinker with the formula the end result is being restricted in a billion different little and large ways by the requirements inherent in the franchise. There are expectations with all these games and it's infuriating and creatively limiting.

To this day I'm always in awe at how this is some acceptable practice to some people. No other company on Earth would escape unscatched if this was the limit of their creative juices, if Sony had to tie every other game they made to God of War or if Microsoft had to tie every other game they made to Halo (well, with Kinect, maybe they're going down that road too!) in order to be allowed to TAKE A RISK.

If that's the type of self-inflicting wound Nintendo puts on themselves, then it's still a shitty excuse for non-stop whoring and it's still bad for gamers and they sort of deserve their continued march toward irrelevance. Because other companies don't do this in order to take their risks, and they don't exist in a vacuum



Nope because like most skilled gamers I have never once in my life had trouble with depth perception in games.

I guess it sucks to be part of that class of gamers that are skill-deprived re: judging distance/depth. I'll never know what that's like!

I don't know why people expect these huge marketing pushes for anything by Nintendo. They don't spend that much marketing on Mario and Zelda because they don't need to. Creating a new franchise and then doing a huge marketing push is not very Nintendo at all. They are an extremely conservative company. I feel people expect such big expensive things from Nintendo because they look at the conpetition and assume that they're all the same. Nintendo is just a game company. They're not a huge media conglomerate like Sony or Microsoft who see losing money as potentially expanding mindshare into other areas of their business. Shareholders don't want Nintendo to start losing money in their games division because that's the entire company. Maybe if they still had those Love hotels...

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

I think you will find that there are more than 1 or 2 Mario releases per gen.

Heh.

Well, I consider the 3D and 2D games to be different series entirely, and I don't buy spinoffs. But I guess it really depends where you draw the line.

 

[Boney]

They pretty much underestimated the added value they were offering with the console.

Apparently nobody gives a shit about 3d.

Face Raiders and AR games are touted as the new nintendogs and brain age. And that just.. I don't know what to say...

I think each month of slow sales pass, negative stigma come with it. There's no direct competitor yet so it's no so bad, but it's not helping it's popularity.

If it doesn't pick up by holiday it'll probably need a PS3 style rebranding.

 

[Electivirus]

The downside of all this - which so vastly outweighs your supposed "positive", which isn't a positive since most normal developers can do it without whoring franchises - is we could have had these same amazing concepts only with completely original worlds, completely original characters married to completely original gameplay. In Mario platformers you're going to be platforming, you're going to fight goombas. No matter how they tinker with the formula the end result is being restricted in a billion different little and large ways by the requirements inherent in the franchise. There are expectations with all these games and it's infuriating and creatively limiting.

To this day I'm always in awe at how this is some acceptable practice to some people. No other company on Earth would escape unscatched if this was the limit of their creative juices, if Sony had to tie every other game they made to God of War or if Microsoft had to tie every other game they made to Halo (well, with Kinect, maybe they're going down that road too!) in order to be allowed to TAKE A RISK.

At the risk of sounding stupid, you seem to be making the assumption that new IPs are inherently better than reusing old franchises. Personally, so long as the game is good and fun, I couldn't care less whether it's a brand new IP or from a franchise that I've enjoyed for 20-25 years.

Sure, I'm certainly not opposed to Nintendo creating brand new IPs on the level of Mario/Zelda/Pokemon, but it's by no means a requirement for me to enjoy their games, and it being a new IP wouldn't automatically make the game better, either. Just as it being from a longtime franchise wouldn't automatically make it worse or "stale".

 

[kobashi100]

it isn't even one of the reasons

the only reason is this:

or lack thereof

Good point. Remember when this was released on DS. Sales went crazy!

 

[FieryBalrog]

Personally I found that the 3DS was a DS with a 3D screen from what I've played of it (don't own it).

And since I found the 3D kind of annoying- maybe it's my astigmatism, but I just liked it way more with the 3D turned off- I had no reason to get one. I love my DSi and I'm quite satisfied with it. I don't see what the 3DS offers customers like me apart from what I feel is a gimmick. Certainly not the library, yet anyway.

Also from past experience I know not to buy Nintendo portable hardware until at least the 2nd revision.

 

[CountAntonius]

 

[FieryBalrog]

I'm sorry but I really don't understand the whoring argument for a ton of their titles.

Is there any other group of franchises that gets whored out more?

People complain about Starcraft 2 being Starcraft HD, or how Activision churns out same-y Call of Duty titles like clockwork. But frankly, they have nothing on Nintendo. Not even close.

Whether its Mariokart, or Mario platformer, or Mario Party, or Super Smash Bros, or the dozens of other spinoffs, or- king of them all- the Pokemon franchise, they redefine the word "milking". The difference between some iterations of these franchises make EA Sports titles look like a champion of innovation.

I do enjoy the base game of most of these franchises, but I certainly don't enjoy them enough to pay for them 10 times each every few years.

 

[Anasui Kishibe]

Is there any other group of franchises that gets whored out more?

People complain about Starcraft 2 being Starcraft HD, or how Activision churns out same-y Call of Duty titles like clockwork. But frankly, they have nothing on Nintendo. Not even close.

Whether its Mariokart, or Mario platformer, or Mario Party, or Super Smash Bros, or the dozens of other spinoffs, or- king of them all- the Pokemon franchise, they redefine the word "milking". The difference between some iterations of these franchises make EA Sports titles look like a champion of innovation.

I do enjoy the base game of most of these franchises, but I certainly don't enjoy them enough to pay for them 10 times each every few years.

yeah, because BLOPS has certainly brought the same level of innovation as, say, Mario Galaxy

 

[Amir0x]

Think about this logically for a second. Can the modern Nintendo you know really make a game as new as Zelda 1 and Mario 1 were on the NES? It's not even a question of budget and marketing, but whether Nintendo can simply develop such a thing.

YES!

Okay, no offense man, but this has to be hyperbole. Never once in your entire life? Most people? Have you seen the average person play one of the Galaxies? I am quite proficient at platformers and thus Galaxy's controls and level design really work well for me, but when I have a friend try the game or a family member it usually leads to a lot of mario deaths and frustration.

Yes, never once in my life. And the "general populace" argument is a poor one since my friends and family - and most people in general - suck at all games, period, and make no special extra suckage effort simply because the game is 3D and requires depth perception.

The only limiter is the time and effort you put into learning mechanics, and your general motor skills.

I don't know why people expect these huge marketing pushes for anything by Nintendo. They don't spend that much marketing on Mario and Zelda because they don't need to. Creating a new franchise and then doing a huge marketing push is not very Nintendo at all. They are an extremely conservative company. I feel people expect such big expensive things from Nintendo because they look at the conpetition and assume that they're all the same. Nintendo is just a game company. They're not a huge media conglomerate like Sony or Microsoft who see losing money as potentially expanding mindshare into other areas of their business. Shareholders don't want Nintendo to start losing money in their games division because that's the entire company. Maybe if they still had those Love hotels...

That's not true. They reportedly spent a lot of money marketing Galaxy and Twilight Princess, not of course including the budgets of the games themselves. Twilight Princess reportedly cost $20,000,000 or something to develop, which is twice as much as Gears of War.

They can do it if they want to. They've spent HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS marketing Wii Sports and the rest of their generic casualware stuff on Wii. They have the money. They just need to put forth the effort like every other company on Earth.

They don't exist in a vacuum. I don't know why people constantly expect me and others to act like they do

 

[Lord_Byron28]

Is there any other group of franchises that gets whored out more?

People complain about Starcraft 2 being Starcraft HD, or how Activision churns out same-y Call of Duty titles like clockwork. But frankly, they have nothing on Nintendo. Not even close.

Whether its Mariokart, or Mario platformer, or Mario Party, or Super Smash Bros, or the dozens of other spinoffs, or- king of them all- the Pokemon franchise, they redefine the word "milking". The difference between some iterations of these franchises make EA Sports titles look like a champion of innovation.

I do enjoy the base game of most of these franchises, but I certainly don't enjoy them enough to pay for them 10 times each every few years.

There is a difference between a new Mario, Zelda, SSB, etc. and a new Madden in terms of innovation, freshness and what new is brought to the table. If you can't see that than there is no point in even discussing things rationally with you.

 

[shaowebb]

MARKETING AND TITLES

The end.

Seriously thats all they lack. They aren't communicating their product enough to the masses to compete with the ad campaigns of other companies and they don't have enough titles to speak of for these consoles.

Its not as bad as the PS3's first year woes of games because they do have some bigs coming, but it aint far behind on 3DS given the initial amount of titles we thought we would have. They need to hurry up the rate of new releases or their gonna drown for awhile on this system. Sadly most of what was being developed was 3rd party so their kinda at the mercy of other studios for the system.

Marketing power and having a lot of people aware of the systems and their capabilities is needed the most. Flood the market with ads, tie ins and contest. Bombard Gamestop with commercials and give in, book a sitdown with Oprah about your handheld to showcase it and a shit ton of 3DS to pass out to people like Microsoft did. Word of mouth and media hype is needed.

Get to it.

 

[MrMephistoX]

It's not the name alone. It's the name combined with the way the product looks that does this hat trick.

The new wii system kind of looks like a more bloated Wii; the tablet looks like a uDraw. It'll require wiimotes for multiplayer gaming. People are going to see the name combined with these aspects, and that's going to make them say "Wii U? Huh. A new revision of this old hat tech? Boooring!"

The same occurred with 3DS. The name alone wouldn't have done it. Take a close look at the way this image would appear to the uninitiated:

EVEN THE TAGLINE makes it seem like it's just another DS. "Choose your style."

"Hey, another DS revision? 3D is dumb. Pass!"

Precisely, the Joe consumer that picks GEICO because they think the Gecko is cute or KIA because they have no taste but like the easy financing terms can't tell the difference between a DSi, DS Light, DS XL and 3DS all lined up on the same store shelf.

 

[Anasui Kishibe]

Good point. Remember when this was released on DS. Sales went crazy!

yes, i seriously believe MK will destroy everything on a million miles radius. Anyway I'm citing just an example: Pokemon, MK, a good JRPG will do wonders, although this isn't precisely a safe bet since Nintendogs 2 failed to replicate the success of its predecessor

 

[Neon_Icarus]

As far as the 3DS goes, Nintendo needs to do the following:

Bundle, then price drop An early price drop might result in the 3DS being seen as a flop. They should at least wait until 2012 for that. For this holiday season they might instead bundle it with a strong title like Mario Kart 3DS or Kid Icarus.

Nintendo 2DS A lot of people seem to be hesitant about 3D, being worried about eye strain and getting headaches. Also, the warning about eye damage to young children will make many parents avoid getting one for their kids. If you are not going to use the 3D then buying a 250$ handheld just doesn't make sense.

I think releasing a cheaper edition without the 3D screen, a "Nintendo 2DS" if you will, might be good idea. Sure, there is a danger of confusing the consumers, but with the right marketing this might be avoided.

Monster Hunter If Sony gets Monster Hunter exclusively for Vita, Nintendo is going to be in trouble in Japan. Maybe Nintendo could at least get an updated Monster Hunter Tri (the Wii title) made for the 3DS?

Lots of great games Seems like a good idea.

 

[FieryBalrog]

There is a difference between a new Mario, Zelda, SSB, etc. and a new Madden in terms of innovation, freshness and what new is brought to the table. If you can't see that than there is no point in even discussing things rationally with you.

lol, OK. So SSBB compared to SSBM was... what exactly? Floatier & intentionally made less competitive? I just got halfway through NSMB. What exactly is the massive innovation here- the giant mushroom? How about the fact that it still has a save-game system from like 20 years ago?

No one is saying Madden is an innovative franchise. But frankly, some of Nintendo's franchises make it look good in that regard. Why do you still have to unlock shit in Mario Kart by grinding single player? Or, best of all, Mario Party- how ridiculously stupid is it that a party game needs you to grind to unlock stuff? This archaic shit is getting completely old and smacks of laziness.

 

[MrMephistoX]

.

Nintendo 2DS

I think releasing a cheaper edition without the 3D screen, a "Nintendo 2DS" if you will, might be good idea. Sure, there is a danger of confusing the consumers, but with the right marketing this might be avoided.

The last thing Nintendo needs right now is another version of already similar looking hardware and they've already demonstrated that the do not know how to market the system effectively: see photo above.

 

[Cromat]

They can do it just the same if they actually pushed games with marketing and budgets equivalent to a Mario or a Zelda game.

The downside of all this - which so vastly outweighs your supposed "positive", which isn't a positive since most normal developers can do it without whoring franchises - is we could have had these same amazing concepts only with completely original worlds, completely original characters married to completely original gameplay. In Mario platformers you're going to be platforming, you're going to fight goombas. No matter how they tinker with the formula the end result is being restricted in a billion different little and large ways by the requirements inherent in the franchise. There are expectations with all these games and it's infuriating and creatively limiting.

To this day I'm always in awe at how this is some acceptable practice to some people. No other company on Earth would escape unscatched if this was the limit of their creative juices, if Sony had to tie every other game they made to God of War or if Microsoft had to tie every other game they made to Halo (well, with Kinect, maybe they're going down that road too!) in order to be allowed to TAKE A RISK.

If that's the type of self-inflicting wound Nintendo puts on themselves, then it's still a shitty excuse for non-stop whoring and it's still bad for gamers and they sort of deserve their continued march toward irrelevance. Because other companies don't do this in order to take their risks, and they don't exist in a vacuum

Exactly. Nintendo puts it's own talent in a "golden cage" by forcing it's developers to keep making Mario and Zelda games.

Imagine if the talent that went into making Galaxy would be allowed to make a new game that doesn't have to comply to 20 years of pre-conceptions.
The fact that they keep celebrating the fact that they are doing this pisses me off the most. Reggie comes on stage and says: "This is the Wii U and it has Zelda!" and the crowd goes wild. I know you have Zelda. When are you going to make something new?
Why do I have to see all this nostalgia-wanking all the time, like on Tetris DS? Or having Mario themes in Wii Music?

Not to mention the incredible double standard people have. Activision is milking Call of Duty? Well, that's certainly true but at least they aren't making Call of Duty Basketball or Call of Duty kart racing.
Of all the things Nintendo does - the bad online, the gimmicks, staying back on technology - this is the thing that bothers me the most. Because they are doing a huge disservice to all games by not allowing their studios to fulfill their potential.

 

[OMT]

They can do it just the same if they actually pushed games with marketing and budgets equivalent to a Mario or a Zelda game.

How do you know that? Could be that the game just doesn't catch on, in which case you're now out a huge development budget and a huge marketing budget. The ghost of Gumpei Yokoi still drifts through those hallways, after all.

The downside of all this - which so vastly outweighs your supposed "positive", which isn't a positive since most normal developers can do it without whoring franchises - is we could have had these same amazing concepts only with completely original worlds, completely original characters married to completely original gameplay. In Mario platformers you're going to be platforming, you're going to fight goombas. No matter how they tinker with the formula the end result is being restricted in a billion different little and large ways by the requirements inherent in the franchise. There are expectations with all these games and it's infuriating and creatively limiting.

Most developers aren't Nintendo, and create new IPs not out of desire, but necessity. I mean, let's look at the potency of Nintendo's franchises compared to everything else in the market. Even Sonic the Hedgehog couldn't pull the weight of as many spinoffs as Nintendo franchises have. From a branding perspective, Mario isn't simply a character, because to many, Mario is synonymous with video gaming as a whole, and synonymous with quality.

Unfortunately, lots of people on this planet like that sense of familiarity, and they most likely outnumber the more creative and exploratory among us. Nintendo's in business to make money, and when you're as big as they are, that means selling to the widest possible audience. Completely original worlds, characters, and gameplay means that a niche goes wild for this artistic masterpiece, while the vast majority of the gaming market doesn't even give it a passing regard.

These restrictions aren't all bad, either. Unrestrained creativity tends to become unfocused and disjointed. Thus, why every Fable game has somewhat disappointed. The familiarity of these games allow us to create anchors upon which the new gameplay experiences can grow and flourish. Super Mario Galaxy is a very radical game in many regards, but knowing that it's a Mario game, we can explore those developments with confidence arising from familiarity with mechanics.

To this day I'm always in awe at how this is some acceptable practice to some people. No other company on Earth would escape unscatched if this was the limit of their creative juices, if Sony had to tie every other game they made to God of War or if Microsoft had to tie every other game they made to Halo (well, with Kinect, maybe they're going down that road too!) in order to be allowed to TAKE A RISK.

Well, they're not Nintendo. Neither Sony nor Microsoft owns the #1 and #2 selling video game series of all time. Neither Halo nor God of War are old enough that parents who grew up on the franchises are now sharing them with their children. Master Chief and Kratos are great characters, yes. But people don't love those characters in a real, heartfelt sense. They do love Mario that way, or more precisely, they love what Mario represents: the joy and wonder of video games.

If that's the type of self-inflicting wound Nintendo puts on themselves, then it's still a shitty excuse for non-stop whoring and it's still bad for gamers and they sort of deserve their continued march toward irrelevance. Because other companies don't do this in order to take their risks, and they don't exist in a vacuum

Thing is, it's not a wound. Those franchises aren't just intellectual property; they're something that millions have emotionally bonded to. That's the absolute jackpot for any company that markets entertainment. What this means is that if they take risks, and fail, consumers will forgive them for it. Outside of such a bond, that rarely happens - take a risk with a new IP and fail, and people will think less of your company. What do they care if you think it's bad for gamers - to developers, it's not a matter of catering to every gamer's preference as much as it is a matter of one's career. It's a matter of creating a product that will sell.

As mentioned repeatedly, Nintendo has created several franchises recently - as an analogy, though, it's just that for every Up and Wall-E that Pixar wants to make, it's got to throw a Cars 2 out there to pay the bills.

 

[Kai Dracon]

I will say this on the subject of Nintendo "whoring" franchises, and I believe it's a point that a lot of hardcore gamers entirely miss.

It IS true that Nintendo has been too hesitant to use their intense abilities to create new worlds.

It IS true that Nintendo would benefit from a larger overall catalog of IP.

However.

Nintendo's biggest franchises are aimed at a far more general audience than the hardcore franchises some cite as examples of what would happen if Sony say, "whored out" God of War. There is a difference between using Mario and his universe in a Walt Disney sense, and with Activision making Guitar Hero 10 times in four years, or Sony making yet another God of War over and over. It's false equivalency to claim that it's the same thing.

The reason why Nintendo "escapes" so much criticism for using their traditional franchises so much is that their franchises are more flexible in application and execution than the much more narrowly focused franchises and characters aimed at 18-30 year old males who want to Kratos Smash or Shoot That One Assault Rifle Everyone Loves.

Besides, I always shake my head at the sheer hypocrisy of a lot of gamers who line up for Call of Duty 8 while sneering at Nintendo "making another fucking Mario game, who needs those anymore?"

 

[Bgamer90]

Can't we wait for some Mario games to come out before saying the 3DS is doomed... I mean I could understand all of this if the 3DS was doing how it's currently doing with Mario, Star Fox, Kart, Zelda, etc. all being available.

 

[Neon_Icarus]

The last thing Nintendo needs right now is another version of already similar looking hardware and they've already demonstrated that the do not know how to market the system effectively: see photo above.

True, but considering the reaction so far from the mainstream consumer, it seems to me that having 3D is as much a disadvantage as it is a selling point, especially since it seems to be the 3D screen which makes the system so expensive. Having tabloids go on about the health risks (well at least in the UK) certainly doesn't help it's image either.

 

[FieryBalrog]

There is a difference between using Mario and his universe in a Walt Disney sense, and with Activision making Guitar Hero 10 times in four years, or Sony making yet another God of War over and over. It's false equivalency to claim that it's the same thing.

No, it really isn't. Magically conferring upon Nintendo the mantle of "Walt Disney" isn't going to make their rampant franchise-milking more artistic or sophisticated than that of their competitors.

And people got tired of a lot of Disney IP too- which is why they branched out.

 

[liger05]

Marketing the 3DS has been a huge problem. Regardless of the price nintendo have not managed to get a clear message across that this is not another version of the DS and two the 3D effect is a USP which they cant get across to the consumer unless they have it in there hand.

Obviously the lack of software has been an issue but something clearly went wrong since E32010 where there was plenty of hype for this new machine.

There is no crisis though!!

What will be interesting is how the Shareholders are reacting to the 3DS sales?

 

[Count Dookkake]

No, it really isn't. Magically conferring upon Nintendo the mantle of "Walt Disney" isn't going to make their rampant franchise-milking more artistic or sophisticated than that of their competitors.

And people got tired of a lot of Disney IP too- which is why they branched out.

There is a huge difference between a company producing sequels in quick succession and a company using a character in a variety of genres.

 

[Bgamer90]

No, it really isn't. Magically conferring upon Nintendo the mantle of "Walt Disney" isn't going to make their rampant franchise-milking more artistic or sophisticated than that of their competitors.

And people got tired of a lot of Disney IP too- which is why they branched out.

Mario platformers are higher quality and always feel unique and/or fresh when they come out IMO.

Can't say the same for the popular Activision games.

 

[Rolf NB]

Okay, no offense man, but this has to be hyperbole. Never once in your entire life? Most people? Have you seen the average person play one of the Galaxies? I am quite proficient at platformers and thus Galaxy's controls and level design really work well for me, but when I have a friend try the game or a family member it usually leads to a lot of mario deaths and frustration.

Tell them to watch for Mario's shadow.

 

[Cromat]

I will say this on the subject of Nintendo "whoring" franchises, and I believe it's a point that a lot of hardcore gamers entirely miss.

It IS true that Nintendo has been too hesitant to use their intense abilities to create new worlds.

It IS true that Nintendo would benefit from a larger overall catalog of IP.

However.

Nintendo's biggest franchises are aimed at a far more general audience than the hardcore franchises some cite as examples of what would happen if Sony say, "whored out" God of War. There is a difference between using Mario and his universe in a Walt Disney sense, and with Activision making Guitar Hero 10 times in four years, or Sony making yet another God of War over and over. It's false equivalency to claim that it's the same thing.

I completely understand why Nintendo does this and Sony and Microsoft don't.
It is because they can get away with it, and have gotten away with it for more than 10 years.

What I DON'T understand is why anyone bothers to defend this behavior. It's bad for gamers. It's misusing the companies talents. It causes creative stagnation.
And eventually it will cost Nintendo dearly.

In the E3 hope thread I said what I wanted the most out of Nintendo is that they showcase their new console and show a trailer for an entirely new game in an entirely new world. Obviously, that wasn't how it turned out to be. Instead, they show a single screen shot of a new Zelda game and a glimpse of a new NSMB clone, and they get applauds.

 

[Truth101]

I completely understand why Nintendo does this and Sony and Microsoft don't.
It is because they can get away with it, and have gotten away with it for more than 10 years.

What I DON'T understand is why anyone bothers to defend this behavior. It's bad for gamers. It's misusing the companies talents. It causes creative stagnation.
And eventually it will cost Nintendo dearly.

In the E3 hope thread I said what I wanted the most out of Nintendo is that they showcase their new console and show a trailer for an entirely new game in an entirely new world. Obviously, that wasn't how it turned out to be. Instead, they show a single screen shot of a new Zelda game and a glimpse of a new NSMB clone, and they get applauds.

Nintendo's core games have been anything but creatively stagnant, and as long as the games they make are excellent then they can make as many as they want.

 

[Bgamer90]

What I DON'T understand is why anyone bothers to defend this behavior. It's bad for gamers. It's misusing the companies talents. It causes creative stagnation.
And eventually it will cost Nintendo dearly.

You say this when yet each Mario platformer added innovative features/design. That's why they have always been "fresh" even though they have been around for more than 20 years. They don't just add new levels to each one and nothing more.

I mean, do you really want "innovation" or do you want a new character? If nintendo built a new mario game but then suddenly removed mario and replaced him with a new character and change the design of the levels a bit, would that be innovative?

 

[Electivirus]

If the games are fun and well-made (which they generally are), then how exactly is it bad for gamers?

 

[heyf00L]

IMO the biggest thing Nintendo needs to overcome is the fact that it did nothing with the Wii. The best motion-controlled game they ever made was Wii Sports.

I got a Wii a few days after launch and imagined so many things they could have done with it. I couldn't wait until Mario Golf, Mario Tennis, Mario Party, Pikmin, and Zelda with motion sword-play were released. What I got was no Mario Golf at all and ports of Mario Tennis, Mario Party, Pikmin and Zelda with worse controls than the GC versions (exception Pikmin). Wii's best games don't use motion control (Mario Galaxy, DKCR, NSMB, SSBB, etc).

So what gives, Nintendo? You've got some new, interesting controller yet again. But will you use it past the pack-in title? I hope Wii's current sales will spur them to try again.

 

[Cromat]

Nintendo's core games have been anything but creatively stagnant, and as long as the games they make are excellent then they can make as many as they want.

Yes you're right, Mario Kart Wii, Animal Crossing Wii, Super Smash Bros. Brawl and so forth were all brilliant and fresh.

Let's face it: only Mario and Zelda remain as top-tier franchises. And I have nothing against them making more Mario and Zelda games. But that's not enough, they can and should use their talents to try and make something new.
I don't want Mario with another character, I want a new game in a new world with new characters and new gameplay ideas. I want a new franchise that is on par with Mario and Zelda. I want Reggie to come on stage and say "this is our new series, it's going to blow you away".
But he keeps saying "we'll welcome back some old friends...". It's like all of Nintendo's creativity went to the gimmicks department. And people who say "i'm satisfied with Mario and Zelda" are the ones enabling this to happen.

 

[Oppo]

You say this when yet each Mario platformer added innovative features/design. That's why they have always been "fresh" even though they have been around for more than 20 years. They don't just add new levels to each one and nothing more.

I mean, do you really want "innovation" or do you want a new character? If nintendo built a new mario game but then suddenly removed mario and replaced him with a new character and change the design of the levels a bit, would that be innovative?

Well they are sort of locked into some basic boundaries of each particular property, right? You can't have a sad, moody game with Mario in it really. So does that mean only Metroid gets to be a sad, moody game? I get that aspect of it.

And besides, we all agree that Nintendo is very creative, and could do this if they were so inclined, so I don't see what's wrong with wishing that they'd maybe add a new IP or 2 to the mix.

 

[Truth101]

Yes you're right, Mario Kart Wii, Animal Crossing Wii, Super Smash Bros. Brawl and so forth were all brilliant and fresh.

Let's face it: only Mario and Zelda remain as top-tier franchises. And I have nothing against them making more Mario and Zelda games. But that's not enough, they can and should use their talents to try and make something new.
I don't want Mario with another character, I want a new game in a new world with new characters and new gameplay ideas. I want a new franchise that is on par with Mario and Zelda. I want Reggie to come on stage and say "this is our new series, it's going to blow you away".
But he keeps saying "we'll welcome back some old friends...". It's like all of Nintendo's creativity went to the gimmicks department. And people who say "i'm satisfied with Mario and Zelda" are the ones enabling this to happen.

So, you say games that get released once per generation are being whored out? And the only one of those that hasn't changed at all is Animal Crossing and you could argue Brawl somewhat.

Also Nintendo makes plenty of new and interesting IPs, if those IPs turn out to be successful then you can bet they would get triple AAA treatment also.

Your mistake is to think Nintendo should be like every other game company and pour tens of millions of dollars into development of a single game. That isn't the type of company they are.

 

[Anasui Kishibe]

Yes you're right, Mario Kart Wii, Animal Crossing Wii, Super Smash Bros. Brawl and so forth were all brilliant and fresh.

Let's face it: only Mario and Zelda remain as top-tier franchises. And I have nothing against them making more Mario and Zelda games. But that's not enough, they can and should use their talents to try and make something new.
I don't want Mario with another character, I want a new game in a new world with new characters and new gameplay ideas. I want a new franchise that is on par with Mario and Zelda. I want Reggie to come on stage and say "this is our new series, it's going to blow you away".
But he keeps saying "we'll welcome back some old friends...". It's like all of Nintendo's creativity went to the gimmicks department. And people who say "i'm satisfied with Mario and Zelda" are the ones enabling this to happen.

and you know why that happens? Because noone among those who play games such as Galaxy or TWW gives two shits about the fact you have to rescue the princess or Dino Piranha makes his 4000th appearance, Mario and Zelda are constructed around the very idea of gameplay, I think not even nintendo gives a fuck about the Mushroom Kingdom, it's just a tool they use to develop new gameplay ideas

now, i agree with you when you say they need new IPs but you've got to consiuder the fact Pikmin games weren't never bestsellers, so you can't blame Nintendo when they decide to use the dropper when it comes to introduce people to new ideas

 

[Cromat]

Your mistake is to think Nintendo should be like every other game company and pour tens of millions of dollars into development of a single game. That isn't the type of company they are.

This is exactly what I am saying. They don't invest as much in new games.
The only question is why defend them for acting this way? I couldn't care less about their profits and their risks. I care about the games.
They keep pushing the same franchises for decades while their competitors are forced to create new ones. Why should I enable or encourage this behavior? Why should you?

 

[NeonZ]

lol, OK. So SSBB compared to SSBM was... what exactly? Floatier & intentionally made less competitive?

Completely revamped the single player aspects of the game?

I just got halfway through NSMB. What exactly is the massive innovation here- the giant mushroom?

Simultaneous co-op up to 4 players?

Edit: Nevermind. You meant the original DS game. Well, they were bringing back a series that had been dead for years, so establishing the basis again was important. Even so, they did introduce some core gameplay changes, like multiple types of jumps. When they did make a sequel not a long time after it, they then introduced the 4 players feature.

Yes you're right, Mario Kart Wii, Animal Crossing Wii, Super Smash Bros. Brawl and so forth were all brilliant and fresh.

The whole vehicle system getting revamped, including handling, completely different slide style, double the amount of tracks, allowing more than 2 players to participate in GP type races... There are plenty of changes and additions. The only game that really stagnated was Animal Crossing Wii, and it suffered for it.

 

[Anasui Kishibe]

This is exactly what I am saying. They don't invest as much in new games.
The only question is why defend them for acting this way? I couldn't care less about their profits and their risks. I care about the games.
They keep pushing the same franchises for decades while their competitors are forced to create new ones. Why should I enable or encourage this behavior? Why should you?

so you're saying you won't play a universally rated 10/10 game just because of this insane principle? Jesus..

 

[Quadrangulum]

This is exactly what I am saying. They don't invest as much in new games.
The only question is why defend them for acting this way? I couldn't care less about their profits and their risks. I care about the games.
They keep pushing the same franchises for decades while their competitors are forced to create new ones. Why should I enable or encourage this behavior? Why should you?

I'm enabling them by buying their games because I like them and I'm not going to stop. I have other systems so I get plenty of variety. You're right in that Nintendo is too limited for their own good but I'm not going to deprive myself to help maximize their potential.

 

[Bgamer90]

Well they are sort of locked into some basic boundaries of each particular property, right? You can't have a sad, moody game with Mario in it really. So does that mean only Metroid gets to be a sad, moody game? I get that aspect of it.

And besides, we all agree that Nintendo is very creative, and could do this if they were so inclined, so I don't see what's wrong with wishing that they'd maybe add a new IP or 2 to the mix.

don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with wishing that Nintendo would but as long as their current franchises continue on being fresh and creative compared to most of the other games out during their release, I don't really see that much of a problem with it.

 

[To Far Away Times]

I completely understand why Nintendo does this and Sony and Microsoft don't.
It is because they can get away with it, and have gotten away with it for more than 10 years.

What I DON'T understand is why anyone bothers to defend this behavior. It's bad for gamers. It's misusing the companies talents. It causes creative stagnation.
And eventually it will cost Nintendo dearly.

Creative stagnation has no business being used to describe the Mario games.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

Is there any other group of franchises that gets whored out more?

People complain about Starcraft 2 being Starcraft HD, or how Activision churns out same-y Call of Duty titles like clockwork. But frankly, they have nothing on Nintendo. Not even close.

Whether its Mariokart, or Mario platformer, or Mario Party, or Super Smash Bros, or the dozens of other spinoffs, or- king of them all- the Pokemon franchise, they redefine the word "milking". The difference between some iterations of these franchises make EA Sports titles look like a champion of innovation.

I do enjoy the base game of most of these franchises, but I certainly don't enjoy them enough to pay for them 10 times each every few years.

Mario Kart I don't know about, as the last one I bought was Super Circuit for GBA, but to my knowledge they continue to add stuff to the series and change up the racing mechanics.

Nintendo hasn't made a Mario Party since the Wii's first year. That was blatant whoring before they stopped, but that's not a mainline Nintendo series so I don't really care. Those titles are outsourced anyways so it's not like Nintendo's internal studios are wasting time on them.

Smash has three games in its series over a 12 year period, one per home console.

Pretty much every Mario platformer, 2D or 3D, has something that sets it apart from the rest. They're all usually at the top of the genre in terms of creativity, controls and level design.

Pokemon I'll give you to a point. They're pretty much on a yearly schedule now (remake>new game>remake>special edition etc). I think that the series has certainly stagnated visually, though competitively the game improves with every release. Black and White were pretty easily the best in the series in terms of the mechanics, online and single player.

Animal Crossing as mentioned is completely lazy.

And if you really think Activision recreates its titles as much as Nintendo, well, I don't agree with you. I get the feeling you aren't really playing these games when you say they're whoring them out. They simply aren't the same games, and are hardly released as often as you say (10 times every few years lol).

I think we just have different definitions for whoring out. If a mainline series gets 1 or at most 2 entries per console, and each of these games differentiate themselves from each other, I don't see the issue.

And by the way, Nintendo can't NOT release a Mario Kart or Zelda or Mario Platformer or Smash Bros. THEY'RE SYSTEM SELLERS.

Tell them to watch for Mario's shadow.

Maybe next time. Most people who I've seen play move really slowly through the game and make a ton of use of Mario's normal jump.

Monster Hunter If Sony gets Monster Hunter exclusively for Vita, Nintendo is going to be in trouble in Japan. Maybe Nintendo could at least get an updated Monster Hunter Tri (the Wii title) made for the 3DS?

This would control like poop. MH needs a second analog.

And eventually it will cost Nintendo dearly.

See, the problem here is that you're wrong. A big part of why people buy Nintendo systems is Nintendo's quality software.

 

[Somnid]

Nintendo created Miis, Nintendogs and Brain Training in the last generation. They all sold 10s of millions. I guess if it's not testosterone fueled it doesn't count.

 

[apana]

Yes you're right, Mario Kart Wii, Animal Crossing Wii, Super Smash Bros. Brawl and so forth were all brilliant and fresh.

Let's face it: only Mario and Zelda remain as top-tier franchises. And I have nothing against them making more Mario and Zelda games. But that's not enough, they can and should use their talents to try and make something new.
I don't want Mario with another character, I want a new game in a new world with new characters and new gameplay ideas. I want a new franchise that is on par with Mario and Zelda. I want Reggie to come on stage and say "this is our new series, it's going to blow you away".
But he keeps saying "we'll welcome back some old friends...". It's like all of Nintendo's creativity went to the gimmicks department. And people who say "i'm satisfied with Mario and Zelda" are the ones enabling this to happen.

What a ridiculous argument. You clearly have blinders on, you need to see things in ther proper context.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

Nintendo created Miis, Nintendogs and Brain Training in the last generation. They all sold 10s of millions. I guess if it's not testosterone fueled it doesn't count.

Not to mention a bunch of other IPs. The fact that these IPs are not directed at the average gamer on this forum, just like you said, leads to them being ignored.

 

[davonaytor]

I don't think Nintendo is really in 'trouble' with these systems, they are just not doing as well as Nintendo had hoped (well, we can't really comment on Wii U sales). I mean, the 3DS has sold more in the last 3 and a half months than the other systems, without a solid first party title, and with marketing that may lead people to think it's just another revision of the DS.

I think word of mouth is a big factor in the sales of the 3DS, and is something that can only grow as time goes on. Also, if I remember correctly, Nintendo is making a pretty good margin on each 3DS sale