Utility Theory is not an Austrian school concept. Most adamantly libertarian economists embrace corporatism, as you seem to here. You've got this backwards, or don't seem to have a strong grasp of economics. Utility theory originated primarily in England in the 18th century, by social philosophers like Bentham and Bayes.
More to the point, independent artists certainly wouldn't agree with you, as they have a shortage of labor (independent artists are one person or a small group), but they may have great ideas. By contrast, large corporations would love your preferences, as they can afford enormous amounts of labor but cannot necessarily produce the best ideas.
It's fine if you're a corporatist, but in this case it isn't even applicable. It's a fairly straightforward concept; if I'm a consumer looking for entertainment, I buy things based on how much entertainment they will provide, not based on how much they cost to produce. I buy art because it communicates profound, creative, or moving concepts, not because it cost so much for the artist to make.
That is how rational consumers behave. Why would I pay more money for less enriching art (or less enjoyable entertainment), simply because it cost more to create it? That's not rational. As such, large corporations work very hard to override reason and rational considerations -- and that includes Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft.
Donkey Kong Country Returns is a mediocre piece of crap that is crushed by the shadow of its vastly superior predecessor; Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong-Quest. It even fails at meeting the visual bar set by a SNES game.
Hardly. Everything from the music (Donkey Kong Country Returns has way too many remixes of DKC1 songs, which were inferior to DKC2's OST anyway), to the enemies (Way to many of the DKCR enemies were simple jump fodder), to the settings and locals, and the levels are inferior. Also, Donkey Kong himself was never that fun to play. Replacing him with Dixie was one of the best moves the series ever made. Not only does Donkey Kong Country Returns actually regress, it blatantly takes a worse move by not making Donkey Kong the only actual playable character.
Every single aspect of the game is inferior to Donkey Kong Country 2.
Edit: And another thing! Lizard people dressed as Pirates > Boring Tikis.
Hardly. Everything from the music (Donkey Kong Country Returns has way too many remixes of DKC1 songs, which were inferior to DKC2's OST anyway), to the enemies (Way to many of the DKCR enemies were simple jump fodder), to the settings and locals, and the levels are inferior. Also, Donkey Kong himself was never that fun to play. Replacing him with Dixie was one of the best moves the series ever made. Not only does Donkey Kong Country Returns actually regress, it blatantly takes a worse move by not making Donkey Kong the only actual playable character.
Every single aspect of the game is inferior to Donkey Kong Country 2.
Let me make an analogy. One of the reasons for the endless sequels and remakes in the movie industry is because it's not writers who come up with the ideas, rather it's the executives and purse-holders who decide what films will be made, and then the best writers available are hired to write the script. In SMB3's case, things were a lot purer before corporate reliance on focus groups and marketing experts, and the game benefited from this. But you're kidding yourself if you think that Nintendo didn't explicitly give their studio directions to make a flagship holiday Mario game that had to appeal to x, y, & z demographics and it had to made on the cheap. That's why the game is hobbled together using existing assets from the original NSMB DS game, and also why the style and atmosphere is so bland. Put more simply, just because some other games (like SMB3) that had an actual style and in-game atmosphere succeeded doesn't mean that NSMB Wii wasn't the result of a cost-effective ploy by Nintendo to make a very generic 2D mario that they could sell to young masses of children and the Nintendo faithful alike.
Your whole argument seems so hung up on this one game. If Nintendo is a soul-less company pinching pennies at every opportunity, how do you explain Galaxies 1 &2? How is Skyward Sword an example of this cynical practice of appealing to demographics? Everything you say is made ridiculous too by the fact that, like others have said, Nintendo games play much better than a huge majority of other games on the market.
It's ironic how often you use the word "cynicism" in an accusatory sense when you're guilty of it. You have no idea of how Nintendo is run. For all any of us knows, NSMBW was only made possible because of the DS game. As the article this thread is ostensibly discussing points out, to many people $50 for a platforming game seems like a lot of money. You're right, Nintendo is a business and they definitely pay mind to how much it costs to produce their products vs. how much they expect to gain from them, and of course they used assets to reduce cost, but like I said, for all we know we may not have NSMBW if it weren't for those re-used assets and lower costs.
The issue is a lot more complex than a black-and-white "All corporations are evil and anti-consumer" mindset allows for. There's accounting people at Nintendo managing cost, and there's artistic people who want to make exciting games. Since Nintendo is a business and needs to make a profit, and isn't a charity obligated to produce games they know some people will love but may not see a net gain, there needs to be a balance between the two sides.
Haha, true. That reminds me of when people say "no offence......but youre an ugly piece of crap". Gee thanks! Like saying "no offence" is gonna make it ok.
Actually now that I go back and read the article I realize I had forgotten all about the GameCube rehashes that Nintendo repackaged and sold for the Wii at an exorbitant price for little more than added motion controls, or other lazy disappointments like Animal Crossing: City Folk. Again, since Iwata, this has been the rule more than the exception.
If it was a rehash on another system, instead of adding motion controls they'd just re-release it with an HD makeover. Several developers recently have either released or are planning releases of back catalog games. It's supply and demand, if the demand is believed to be there, they'll supply it.
Also that article is as lazy as it made Nintendo out to be. Would it have been that hard to expect an article accusing a company for being lazy/cheap to have some sort of evidence of development and/or research and development costs? Also the author contradicts themselves saying that Nintendo will go full bore for some games but not others without any idea why that must be so, so apparently the conclusion is that Nintendo is lazy, sometimes, he thinks. The way he waffles on that hurts his assertion that the company as a whole is lazy. He makes assumptions of business decisions of the company without any understanding or research into why those decisions were made.
If Nintendo was lazy/cheap than they would not have taken the risk of a motion controlled system, or poured money into the R&D for a dual screen portable, or a no glasses 3D portable.
Donkey Kong Country Returns is a mediocre piece of crap that is crushed by the shadow of its vastly superior predecessor; Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong-Quest. It even fails at meeting the visual bar set by a SNES game.
Donkey Kong Country Returns is a mediocre piece of crap that is crushed by the shadow of its vastly superior predecessor; Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong-Quest. It even fails at meeting the visual bar set by a SNES game.
I'm in the line of thinking that Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong-Quest is one of the greatest sidescrollers ever made, and that its so good that afterwords the Donkey Kong Country series had no where else to go but down, and Donkey Kong Country returns did not change my opinion on that.
I think the biggest thing that kills this game are the motion controls. I'm a big fan of motion controls. I think when done right they absolutely improve games. The Metroid Prime Trilogy, Red Steel 2, No More Heroes, and Okami are good examples. On the other hand, I feel that there are games where motion controls do not belong and Donkey Kong Country Returns is one of them. They don't jell with the game, they are blatantly shoe horned in, and they are extremely distracting and unnatural feeling. If I was to give the game a score out of ten, it lost two points due to how bad of an idea forcing motion controls into this game where, and the lack of an option on not using them.
I did not like the fact that the motion controls were shoehorned in (certainly by Nintendo HQ) but as the game went on I got used to them and they became not much of a bother at all. I would have preferred a button press, though, specifically for rolls.
I think another failure on the part of the game is the music. Too many of the songs are remixes from Donkey Kong Country 1 and the original songs are extremely forgettable. I can't recall a single one. Donkey Kong Country 2's soundtrack was so much better in every way.
Agreed here. Retro should have been given free reign on the soundtrack, as they showed how talented they were with Prime 1/2/3 (remixes aside). World 8 alone shows that a Retro-original soundtrack could have been amazing.
I'm also not a fan of the visuals. They're well animated and rendered, but they just seem lifeless to me I also would have preferred they used prerendered 3D models like they did in the original trilogy and gone balls out with it. Over all, I feel Donkey Kong Country 2 is still more aesthetically pleasing. I also think the environments chosen retread on areas the series has already covered. The silhouette levels look great though.
I disagree here. I love DKC2's visuals but DKCR's animation and art style trump DKC2's for me, but not by much. DKC2 is incredibly charming. Not sure how far this part of the debate can go considering this is purely subjective.
The enemies are also very inferior compared to Donkey Kong Country 2's enemy variety in both purpose and charm. Every enemy in Donkey Kong Country served as a very specific obstacle and purpose in and of themselves. Way to many of the enemies in DKCR are jump fodder. Also, Tikis? Really?
In DKCR, enemies are placed in perfect position for platforming vets: there is a certain rhythym to the game that cannot be found on the older titles. Bouncing from enemy to enemy was very fun and built into the enemy placement of DKCR. I would guess that there was influence from Jungle Beat for this aspect. I also found the hit detection to be better than the original DKC series.
The level design and creativity put into the best levels in DKCR trump pretty much anything in DKC2. The different planes as well as certain amazing levels like
the cart ride with the track turned into a wheel and the spider level
made me prefer DKCR's gameplay to DKC 1/2/3. I also found the controls to be more responsive than the SNES titles. DK has a certain weight to him and I found him very fun to control. I also liked the timed button presses for bigger jumps, even if it was an annoyance at first.
The levels are good, but I find myself unable to enjoy them because of all the baggage holding the game down. I'm also really disappointed over Rambi being the only animal buddy. Sqwauks was awesome in Donkey Kong Country 2. I hate the Rocket Barrel Levels. I guess they provide the experience of riding a rocket made of wood, but that isn't exactly a fun thing. I'm also not a fan of the return to DCK1 style mine cart levels. Providing the mine carts each with their own specific gimmick in Donkey Kong Country 2 worked very well. Target Terror, Rickety Race, and Haunted Hallway, all had their own special gimmicks that made the levels more fun and interesting aside from the fact that you were riding a mine cart (Or roller coaster cart)
Rambi only was disappointing but I'm guessing they were leaving room for a sequel. The rocket levels were fine, they just shouldn't have been OHKO style. That made them frustrating.
I stopped playing Donkey Kong Country Returns after I beat the valley boss. When it comes to video game series, I have a hard time playing games from the series when I feel the game I'm playing is drastically inferior to another entry in the series. I have a hard time playing Sonic 1 and 2 because I prefer Sonic 3&Knuckles so much over the other two games. Its the same with the 2D Metroid games and Mario games as well and its the same way with Donkey Kong Country Returns. All it did was remind me just how much I really love Donkey Kong Country 2.
Please play through the game fully! As with pretty much every Nintendo platform this generation the best levels lie withing the last one or two worlds. It may not sway your opinion enough to top DKC2 but finishing the game will surely give you a more positive view on the game.
Your whole argument seems so hung up on this one game. If Nintendo is a soul-less company pinching pennies at every opportunity, how do you explain Galaxies 1 &2? How is Skyward Sword an example of this cynical practice of appealing to demographics? Everything you say is made ridiculous too by the fact that, like others have said, Nintendo games play much better than a huge majority of other games on the market.
It's ironic how often you use the word "cynicism" in an accusatory sense when you're guilty of it. You have no idea of how Nintendo is run. For all any of us knows, NSMBW was only made possible because of the DS game. As the article this thread is ostensibly discussing points out, to many people $50 for a platforming game seems like a lot of money. You're right, Nintendo is a business and they definitely pay mind to how much it costs to produce their products vs. how much they expect to gain from them, and of course they used assets to reduce cost, but like I said, for all we know we may not have NSMBW if it weren't for those re-used assets and lower costs.
The issue is a lot more complex than a black-and-white "All corporations are evil and anti-consumer" mindset allows for. There's accounting people at Nintendo managing cost, and there's artistic people who want to make exciting games. Since Nintendo is a business and needs to make a profit, and isn't a charity obligated to produce games they know some people will love but may not see a net gain, there needs to be a balance between the two sides.
First off let me assauge your fears, I can tell you exactly how Nintendo is run. The company is run conservatively by emphasizing, relying upon, and nurturing the worth of their formidable stable of intellectual properties. This however is at the extreme expense of any new properties. New gameplay ideas are tacked onto existing franchises (think Wario Ware) to keep them relevant and valuable. Hardware wise their strategy is to save costs on hardware and features, yet compensating by finding a hook to get gamers to buy their products anyway. With the DS it was dual screens and touch controls, with the Wii it was motion control, with the 3DS it was stereoscopic 3D. And with the Wii U... well they're throwing anything they can at the wall and hoping something will stick. This overall strategy has the benefit of low R&D expenses, cheap manufacturing costs, and the overpowering allure of novelty for less-informed consumers and impulse buyers.
And it's more than just NSMB Wii that I see a trend with. There's the underpowered and under-featured hardware, the entire Wii Sports/Music/Play lineup, the 'New Play Control!' Gamecube ports to the Wii, lack of any decent online support for anything, a conservative approach to new IP development (i.e, basically none), early emphasis on ports and old software for the 3DS, blatant recycling of assets to make cost-effective sequels (Wii Sports Resort, Wii Fit Plus), cheap presentations (no experience enhancing voicework ever, except when titles are farmed out), etc. Mario Galaxy is among the spare bones thrown to the faithful this generation, and is the exception that proves the rule. The Wii has been plagued by a flood of shovelware this generation and it was encouraged by Nintendo's early reliance upon such cheaply made fare as Wii Sports or Wii Music, during the time period that consumer impressions about the system were being cemented.
You are right about one thing though, NSMB Wii wouldn't have existed without NSMB DS, and that's what I've been saying all along.
NSMB Wii is a perfect example. Nintendo's executives said they needed a holiday game that could sell in excess of 5 million, but it had to use the most cost-effective means of production possible. And so they took the existing art assets of NSMB for the DS, added token features to make a new game out of it and called it a day. It felt terrible to play that thing, like I was watching a straight-to-DVD Disney sequel to a once exciting franchise. It had no magic at all.
I actually agree with you that, conceptually, NSMB Wii isn't a very exciting game. The graphical style is ordinary, the character selection is poor, and there isn't a new scenario or setting at all. The last point is especially problematic with a goal-driven game like Mario. Nobody cared when Super Smash Bros. Melee didn't create a tone that resonated with the player or when Mario Kart DS didn't have a heart-stopping graphical style, because they exist in genres in which they've never been expected to provide more than Newer and Better. But when this "here's another one!" attitude is applied to a series that once introduced airship-flying turtle siblings and an egg-laying dinosaur who's trying to rescue his friends, it can be a bit disappointing. Now, this hasn't bothered me quite as much as you with the NSMB games, because they were meant as a return to a style of Mario game that hadn't been seen in 15 years, but I'll be let down if the idea behind the next 2D Mario is just "more levels, with Miis!"
With all of that said, the only way you can proclaim that the NSMBW team is lazy is if you completely ignore every other aspect of the game. There's a ton of new ideas presented in each world, from flying beetles that sink or fly when you stand on them to massive awkwardly-shaped rotating blocks that you must scale. While none of these ideas dominates the game in the way that Yoshi and the Cape did, they're just as fresh as some of the level ideas introduced in Super Mario World. The level design itself is some of the best in the series, especially in later levels, though I know that this is somewhat subjective. I don't understand why you're ignoring the actual playable content of the game in your argument.
I think the biggest thing that kills this game are the motion controls.
Agreed
I think another failure on the part of the game is the music. Too many of the songs are remixes from Donkey Kong Country 1 and the original songs are extremely forgettable. I can't recall a single one. Donkey Kong Country 2's soundtrack was so much better in every way.
Agreed, though I'd argue that almost every single one of DKCR's remixes are superior to the originals, and that the soundtrack has some good original pieces such as Feather Fiend, both rocket barrel themes, and the Sloppy Sands tower theme.
I'm also not a fan of the visuals. They're well animated and rendered, but they just seem lifeless to me I also would have preferred they used prerendered 3D models like they did in the original trilogy and gone balls out with it. Over all, I feel Donkey Kong Country 2 is still more aesthetically pleasing. I also think the environments chosen retread on areas the series has already covered. The silhouette levels look great though.
First part is subjective and I disagree. DKCR's level backgrounds are often epic in scope and beautiful to look at. As for the environments, it's only really true for DKCR's jungle. DKCR's ruins, caves, forest and factory are all radically different from DKC's. On top of that, the beach, cliff, volcano and golden temple areas are all brand new.
The enemies are also very inferior compared to Donkey Kong Country 2's enemy variety in both purpose and charm. Every enemy in Donkey Kong Country served as a very specific obstacle and purpose in and of themselves. Way to many of the enemies in DKCR are jump fodder. Also, Tikis? Really?
This represents a shift in the game design. In DKC1-3, the enemies provided challenge inside static levels with generally unchallenging geometry. In DKCR, you'd be hard pressed to find a platform that doesn't move, crumble, or is physics-enabled. The environments themselves are more dangerous than ever which provides (imo) a different and more interesting challenge than merely littering the course with enemies and calling it a day.
The levels are good, but I find myself unable to enjoy them because of all the baggage holding the game down. I'm also really disappointed over Rambi being the only animal buddy. Sqwauks was awesome in Donkey Kong Country 2. I hate the Rocket Barrel Levels. I guess they provide the experience of riding a rocket made of wood, but that isn't exactly a fun thing.
DKCR's wildly-varied levels have interesting enough gimmicks within themselves that basic mechanic-ignoring animal buddies aren't really needed. I liked the rocket barrel stages as well.
I'm also not a fan of the return to DCK1 style mine cart levels. Providing the mine carts each with their own specific gimmick in Donkey Kong Country 2 worked very well. Target Terror, Rickety Race, and Haunted Hallway, all had their own special gimmicks that made the levels more fun and interesting aside from the fact that you were riding a mine cart (Or roller coaster cart)
DKCR's mine cart levels didn't have gimmicks? (2 trains in Grip and Trip, enemy mole/rolling track in Bombs Away, physics-enabled tracks/giant egg in Prehistoric Path, the track getting tossed around by eruptions in Roasting Rails)
See this is how you hold an intelligent conversation on the merits of an individual game. I will say that while DKCR is admittedly visual impressive, I just don't think anything in Donkey Kong Country compares to the charm of the Pirate Ship, One of the only aesthetically pleasing swamps in video game history, the Theme Parks, Spooky Forest and the medieval castle.
_Alkaline_ said:
Sigh, it's not even worth getting involved in a debate. You could've at least had some semblance of sanity in that post.
First off let me assauge your fears, I can tell you exactly how Nintendo is run. The company is run conservatively by emphasizing, relying upon, and nurturing the worth of their formidable stable of intellectual properties. This however is at the extreme expense of any new properties. New gameplay ideas are tacked onto existing franchises (think Wario Ware) to keep them relevant and valuable. Hardware wise their strategy is to save costs on hardware and features, yet compensating by finding a hook to get gamers to buy their products anyway. With the DS it was dual screens and touch controls, with the Wii it was motion control, with the 3DS it was stereoscopic 3D. And with the Wii U... well they're throwing anything they can at the wall and hoping something will stick. This overall strategy has the benefit of low R&D expenses, cheap manufacturing costs, and the overpowering allure of novelty for less-informed consumers and impulse buyers.
And it's more than just NSMB Wii that I see a trend with. There's the underpowered and under-featured hardware, the entire Wii Sports/Music/Play lineup, the 'New Play Control!' Gamecube ports to the Wii, lack of any decent online support for anything, a conservative approach to new IP development (i.e, basically none), early emphasis on ports and old software for the 3DS, blatant recycling of assets to make cost-effective sequels (Wii Sports Resort, Wii Fit Plus), cheap presentations (no experience enhancing voicework ever, except when titles are farmed out), etc. Mario Galaxy is among the spare bones thrown to the faithful this generation, and is the exception that proves the rule. The Wii has been plagued by a flood of shovelware this generation and it was encouraged by Nintendo's early reliance upon such cheaply made fare as Wii Sports or Wii Music, during the time period that consumer impressions about the system were being cemented.
You are right about one thing though, NSMB Wii wouldn't have existed without NSMB DS, and that's what I've been saying all along.
You're still attacking Nintendo for things the entire industry is guilty of...
Also, You really think that Nintendo is a bad company ethically for changing strategies after flopping in the console market twice in a row? Seriously? I can tell that if you were to run any company, you would drive it into the ground. You seriously have no clue what you're talking about. I can easily tell that you're either a butthurt "hardcore" gamer who misses the "old" Nintendo, or just a general Nintendo hater. Your obvious resentment of Iwata (you make it sound as if you feel he ruined Nintendo) makes me believe the former, and I'm willing to bet that you hope 3DS doesn't recover and Iwata is forced to resign, at which point someone who wants to seriously compete with powerhouse hardware and nothing but "hardcore" games with $30+ million budgets steps up. Sales? Why should a company care about those? It's all about keeping a niche fanbase happy!
What you say also implies that you want a ton of one-off IPs, but I'm sure that stems from you not realizing the flaws in your argument.
So instead of arguing about bizniz and what sequels you think are better, how about we discuss how Mario/DK could evolve...
For me I'd like to see a return to the SMB3/Lost Levels type of controls and more emphasis on "mini-Metroidvania" by proxy of power-ups, and better use of walljumping and vertical levels. Another thing (which was only recently really picked up by Meat Boy/IWBTG) is making the use and mastery of maneuvers the real heart and soul of the gameplay, which hasn't been done in Mario since The Lost Levels. For DK, the same could be true aside from a more "heavy feel" to his controls and really great use of bonus rooms and interacting with levels.
You're still attacking Nintendo for things the entire industry is guilty of...
Also, You really think that Nintendo is a bad company ethically for changing strategies after flopping in the console market twice in a row? Seriously? I can tell that if you were to run any company, you would drive it into the ground. You seriously have no clue what you're talking about. I can easily tell that you're either a butthurt "hardcore" gamer who misses the "old" Nintendo, or just a general Nintendo hater. Your obvious resentment of Iwata (you make it sound as if you feel he ruined Nintendo) makes me believe the former, and I'm willing to bet that you hope 3DS doesn't recover and Iwata is forced to resign, at which point someone who wants to seriously compete with powerhouse hardware and nothing but "hardcore" games with $30+ million budgets steps up. Sales? Why should a company care about those? It's all about keeping a niche fanbase happy!
What you say also implies that you want a ton of one-off IPs, but I'm sure that stems from you not realizing the flaws in your argument.
Without getting into list wars, I vehemently disagree. Nintendo's first-party output may not have had many new coats of paint (new IPs), but it's been extensive for traditional gamers, putting out games that rival some of their absolute best.
This overall strategy has the benefit of low R&D expenses, cheap manufacturing costs, and the overpowering allure of novelty for less-informed consumers and impulse buyers.
What are you on??? Their R&D costs increased dramatically under Iwata. They spent hundreds of millions on 3DS and Wii U, much more than they spent on their hardware before!
That's the problem with IGN. They don't know how to make a good point without burying it in stupid points.
Want to complain about leaderboards not being in Pilotwings Resort? Criticize Pilotwings Resort.
Also, in response to the earlier comment about how New SMB Wii sold on its name, true. But it's clearly not just the name - it's also that it's an appealing game (otherwise, Galaxy could have sold as much). A better point would be to say that New Super Mario Bros./New SMB Wii's sales are exceptionally high considering past games in the series, implying that they're doing more to help sidescrolling platform games than any other game.
The Nintendo games might have a slight edge in terms of pure gameplay but the humor and story of the Ratchet and Clank series combined with great gameplay I feel put it above Nintendo's offerings.
When I play something like this or this in DKC2, I'll admit it has better level design than DKCR. Meanwhile, I just think it has a better soundtrack and the powerful factor nostalgia behind.
Not just Nintendo that this should apply to. The bigger question here is "is asset reuse alright if the core game is good?"
I would argue yes, although ideally I like games that add to that.
I'd go one further: *NOT* reusing assets, if the option is available, is *really really dumb*. Don't go reinventing the wheel.
Where NSMBW *did* add stuff, it was generally in the form of new *types* of obstacle. Those pillars rocking back and forth. The blocks which went along a rail and rotated. The tilt-controlled seesaws and lights.
*THAT* is making new content with real tangible impact on gameplay. Failing to recognise that is not understanding gaming.
You know, I waited years, actually almost 2 decades for a brand new proper 2D Mario console adventure. And I'm damned thankful that I got it, even if it didn't break much new ground.
But it amazes me that people look at games like this or retro throwback titles like the recent 8-bit Mega Man games and talk about how these companies are against "evolving" the medium.
Look, I'm all for evolving video games. Goodness knows, there's plenty of other games out there that do just fine in taking video games to new heights. Nintendo, included. I look around GameStop or any other video game outlet, and I see walls covered in modern-looking titles that use high-definition graphics and other modern 'conveniences' as a selling point.
So what's wrong with the occasional retro throwback title? It just so happens that a lot of people really like these kinds of games. Me? These are the games that I look forward to the most. Innovation is great, but not when it comes with the price of forgetting all the many great things that came before.
I don't see why video games have to be different than any other medium. Movies, music, and books all continue to produce new things using older styles and variety, so why do game developers get the third degree every time they decide to make a major title that doesn't exactly re-create the wheel?
I love Mario, Donkey Kong and Kirby as much as the next guy, but it can't be denied that these games are selling gameplay that hasn't necessarily evolved since the NES and SNES eras
This is bolded, as to imply stupidity on the part of the writer, however this statement is not necessarily false. The writer was referencing, specifically, New Super Mario Bros, DKC Returns, and Kirby's Epic Yarn. Context is a great thing to keep in mind.
And it's more than just NSMB Wii that I see a trend with. There's the underpowered and under-featured hardware, the entire Wii Sports/Music/Play lineup, the 'New Play Control!' Gamecube ports to the Wii, lack of any decent online support for anything, a conservative approach to new IP development (i.e, basically none),
You just listed 3 new IPs of the many they have created this generation, and proceeded to claim they haven't had any new IPs. Pick a side.
The Wii has been plagued by a flood of shovelware this generation and it was encouraged by Nintendo's early reliance upon such cheaply made fare as Wii Sports
1) The market-leading console always has, and always will get drowned in shovelware. It happened with the NES, the SNES, the PS1, the PS2, the Wii, the Gameboy, the DS, etc etc etc. It's a simply fact of how things work. Unless you have the memory of a goldfish, you'd remember the same experience digging through the PS2 wall at Gamestop as you do digging through the Wii wall at Gamestop. Protip: avoid the titles in the $9.99 bin, generally.
2) If you think that anyone can make a minigame title like Wii Sports or Kinect Sports, look at that wall of shovelware again. It takes a team with talent to pull off, successfully, a minigame collection and to make it play well. Wii Sports > Deca Sports, as an example. If the Wii launched with Deca Sports or Carnival Games we wouldn't be talking about it in this thread.
And the FPS genre hasn't evolved since Doom. You still just walk from point A with a floating gun, aiming at things to shoot while pushing buttons to open doors and searching for point B.
This is bolded, as to imply stupidity on the part of the writer, however this statement is not necessarily false. The writer was referencing, specifically, New Super Mario Bros, DKC Returns, and Kirby's Epic Yarn. Context is a great thing to keep in mind.
Yes. It's referencing two games that were intended as throwbacks to that era, and one game which is completely different from the games of that era. What a great way to strengthen his point!
This is bolded, as to imply stupidity on the part of the writer, however this statement is not necessarily false. The writer was referencing, specifically, New Super Mario Bros, DKC Returns, and Kirby's Epic Yarn. Context is a great thing to keep in mind.
For me I'd like to see a return to the SMB3/Lost Levels type of controls and more emphasis on "mini-Metroidvania" by proxy of power-ups, and better use of walljumping and vertical levels. Another thing (which was only recently really picked up by Meat Boy/IWBTG) is making the use and mastery of maneuvers the real heart and soul of the gameplay, which hasn't been done in Mario since The Lost Levels.
This "mastery of maneuvers" type level design your talking about is designing levels around nuance. I wrote about SMB Lost Level's nuanced level design in this two part series.
I prefer things the way Nintendo is doing them now. Much cleaner difficulty progression. The challenge is highly variable via player choices (go after coins/hold onto powerups). And there's lots of room for style/pro play instead of forcing all players to try to play on that level.
