RawkHawk2010
Member
Whoever said it earlier hit the nail on the head. The aesthetics look like they came from some CDi game.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
New Yoshi's Island announced for 3DS!
- Thread starter Shadowlink
- Start date
lordchompy
Member
Truth be told, Sony's singing my kinda tune these days. But don't take that as some sort of blunt admission of fanboydom, I've got almost every Zelda and Metroid game in my collection, and I feel Mario Galaxy and Twilight Princess were brilliant entries in two amazing franchises -- games that made me glad I waited in the cold to purchase my wii console back in 2006. It's just I feel everything else Nintendo has made in the past five years has been a disappointment to me.
Nintendo has found a formula that maximizes profit by targeting the casual gamer. Sony, on the other hand, takes risks in some of their titles, and I feel those risks improve the video game industry as a whole.
Now please don't flame me for my opinions.
DisenLedZep
Member
I recorded a little bit of gameplay to try and get a comparison as close as I could
Though I like the new version, I notice something that seems off...
In the SNES version, the "top layer" of the flowers travels at a different speed than the "main layer" that's the one with actual gameplay. This give us a false sense of depth that is pretty much appreciated. (I don't know you guys, I love that)
In the 3DS version both layers move at the same speed. This flattens the image and takes away the depth. Though it will then come from the 3D on, I believe the effect will be more convincent with the SNES pacing.
EDIT: Also, they should add a black borderline on some things. That flower was totally invisible the first three times I saw that gif.
I have no beef with Sony, but I'm really curious about these so-called "risks" which set them apart from the industry.
They take risks by retiring their franchises out of pure artistic integrity even if they're successful. This is why we haven't had Killzone or God of War in ages. Nintendo should take note.
Extra Sauce
Member
Sony started a whole bunch of new franchises this gen. How many has Nintendo started?
How many of these franchises were "risky" though?
It shouldn't be hard to find a list in the other "Nintendo are lazy" threads.
lordchompy
Member
Heavy Rain, Beyond: Two souls, Little Big Planet, MAG, Uncharted (the first one, not the sequels), Gravity Rush, etc.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
This post baffles me.
And how many franchises did they have worth a damn at the start of this generation? Please fill me in.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
I'd consider the first two to be "David Cage's poor attempt at filmmaking" series. MAG was... unsuccessful and pretty much a repackage. And LBP is something platformers shouldn't try to emulate.
Now I can't wait for people to spin my post as though I'm a Nintendo fanboy
I'll give you Heavy Rain, LBP, and Gravity Rush.
There's nothing risky about Uncharted and MAG. Beyond I don't know much about, but it seems to be piggybacking on Heavy Rain, so it's really not that risky in the context of Heavy Rain, which was already a decent success.
Extra Sauce
Member
Starting a new franchise is a risk in itself.
Besides, I don't really care how "risky" Nintendo's next major franchise is... just give me something. I am on my knees begging over here.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
Also I have a feeling he is assuming that the games are "remakes".
New for the sake of being new is a terrible path. You'd end up with different IPs acting the same thing but people are easily pleased because "new".
New for the sake of being new is a terrible path. You'd end up with different IPs acting the same thing but people are easily pleased because "new".
shinobi602
Member
I recorded a little bit of gameplay to try and get a comparison as close as I could
Vastly prefer the original. I just love that pastel crayon look to it. The new one loses a lot of that flair.
StreetsAhead
Member
Excluding new spin-offs to exisitng franchises, since 2004:
Fossil Hunters
Soma Bringer
ASH
The Last Story
Pandora's Tower
Wii Sports
Wii Fit
Wii Music
Wii Play
Wii Party
Dillion's Rolling Western
Sakura Samurai
Crashmo
Xenoblade
Disaster: Day of Crisis
Nintendogs
Brain Training
Endless Ocean
Kiki Trick
Line Attack Heroes
Rock N Roll Climber
Fluidity
Another Code
Electro Plankton
Ouendan
Magnetica
Hotel Dusk
Style Savvy
Sing Party
The Wonderful 101
Harmo Knight
These don't count because [arbitrary reason].
Extra Sauce
Member
If you don't think Nintendo is capable of creating a new, compelling franchise that isn't derivative... why even defend them?
For the record, I think they're more than capable. Which is why it pains me that they won't even try.
Extra Sauce
Member
I'm talking about in-house development (and Style Savvy and Sing Party, really?)
I'm talking about taking the kinds of resources that go into making a mainline Mario or Zelda game and creating something new and unique.
Not this again...
Nintendo releases new IPs all the time if you care enough to look. Pandora's Tower literally just came out for instance.
StreetsAhead
Member
'These games don't count because I moved my goal posts'.
What does 'in-house development' even mean? Some of those are developed by SDP/EAD/other 1st parties, some are co-developed, some are paid for. You're aware that the game that is the topic of this thread is likely produced by a 3rd party studio under contract?
Celcius
°Temp. member
That's the first thing that came to my mind
Those kinds of resources went into Nintendo Land and all the Wii casual games. Also, what does "in house" have to do with anything, first party is first party. Monolith or Retro are just as much an internal studios as EAD and SPD now.
I hate these kinds of discussions because they eventually just become goal post moving. Yes everyone would like a completely new IP that is not casual focused and with the budget of Zelda. For something like that it would need to be shown at E3 and there's only a handful of teams that are given that kind of budget who are not already tied up in franchise sequels. X looks big budget, whatever Retro is working on will likely be big budget as well. Maybe EAD Tokyo is working on something big too.
shinobi602
Member
You know what he meant. He means major new IPs, not a ton of shovelware. Not all of what you listed obviously, but a bunch of it is.
That's kind of the thing. A new IP which follows popular genre conventions to a tee isn't much of a risk at all.
It's interesting to me how easily some people are won over by the sugary coating of a new IP when in reality most of them don't do much at all to differentiate themselves from the games which inspired them.
If there's one thing Nintendo knows how to do well it's combine "old" with "new", and they do this better than just about everyone. Fans get their "fix" of long-lived series, but their games are often chock full of new ideas, which are what keep people coming back. They may not be taking "risks" with many new IP (which is false anyway, but I'll play along), but their so-called risks exist in the fact that they're risking the sanctity of their IP by betting their ability to design compelling new ideas and content for them. If they actually re-hashed their series, you can imagine people would drop that shit like rocks. And in the process, their IP would potentially lose their lustre. In many cases, the opposite happens.
Extra Sauce
Member
You just listed games published by Nintendo, but to me a lot of them aren't really "Nintendo games". I won't blame you if you don't know what I mean, but I would think that you kinda do.
At the risk of repeating myself, I would like Nintendo to put the resources, care, and talent that go into stuff like Mario Galaxy and Skyward Sword, and surprise us with something new.
At the risk of repeating myself, I would like Nintendo to put the resources, care, and talent that go into stuff like Mario Galaxy and Skyward Sword, and surprise us with something new.
StreetsAhead
Member
If that was what he meant he should have said so. I have no time for people who cannot articulate their point and then try to claim that they meant something else.
A Nintendo game is a game published by Nintendo. If you chose to ascribed other arbitrary factors to it, so be it. You asked what franchises Nintendo had created, a list was provided and you moved your goal posts.
I'd consider the first two to be "David Cage's poor attempt at filmmaking" series. MAG was... unsuccessful and pretty much a repackage. And LBP is something platformers shouldn't try to emulate.
Now I can't wait for people to spin my post as though I'm a Nintendo fanboy
Are these arguments?
lordchompy
Member
Oh sure, there's nothing risky about Uncharted in hindsight, but keep in mind that it came out only a year after Gears of War made its mark on the third person action genre. furthermore, it was in development for at least since 2005.
You can nitpick and find reasons why these games aren't all that risky, but in the context of comparing Sony with Nintendo, of course they are!
The one big risk Nintendo made in the past seven years was making Wii Sports. That was a huge risk. Not making the game itself, mind you, but in terms of it selling their console, which it did.
Now back to the new Yoshi's Island game, I think it exemplifies Nintendo's choice to take as little risk as possible. Because, really, where's the new Metroid game folks have been waiting for? Metroid doesn't sell well anymore, that's why.
It seems Nintendo has truly given up on the core gamer demographic. Pikmin sure is nice, but the footage looks like an up-scaled version of part two (and I've played and enjoyed both).
I understand Nintendo needs the casual market to survive, but why can't they say "look, here are the games for casual gamers, and those looking for nostalgia, and here are the games for those who have already experienced those games before and are looking for modern games done with with the Nintendo level of quality and attention to detail that only we can deliver."
Of that modern style of game, Kid Icarus was perhaps the only such one on the 3DS so far.
TheFLYINGManga_Ka
Member
Sony did some amazing first party stuff, no doubt, but they also dropped the ball on many occasions. Like passing on Demons Souls, Resistance Burning Skies and other Vita stuff, etc. And like every company, once there's a hit than they're going to milk it, like God of War Ascension.
I don't see why Nintendo gets so much blame. I do agree that some franchises can be fatigued. I criticized New Super Mario Bros. 2 for the 3DS because it felt to familiar. Same with Mario Kart 7. But overall, Nintendo does great and amazing games such as how good New Super Mario U is and how amazing Pikmin 3 is looking.
As long as the games are great than I see no reason for criticizing them if they're giving fans what they want and if they're making a profit.
I don't see why Nintendo gets so much blame. I do agree that some franchises can be fatigued. I criticized New Super Mario Bros. 2 for the 3DS because it felt to familiar. Same with Mario Kart 7. But overall, Nintendo does great and amazing games such as how good New Super Mario U is and how amazing Pikmin 3 is looking.
As long as the games are great than I see no reason for criticizing them if they're giving fans what they want and if they're making a profit.
Extra Sauce
Member
Tell that to 38 Studios.
A "major IP" is an IP that's very successful, not a franchise that used a ton of resources regardless of market performance. So yeah, sadly stuff like Xenoblade and The Last Story are not "new major IPs".
Unlike Yoshi games which set the charts on fire, same with Fire Emblem I guess.
Unfortunately the asterisk beside every risk or non-risk is the game actually needs to be good to be successful (usually)
edit: also, just to add to my point above about risk within the confines of existing IP, just take a look at what happened with Metroid after Other M. The game was wildly unpopular and was a sales bomb. It was also a pretty experimental take on the series as a whole -- it was a risky move, and it failed miserably. Now many people actually consider the Metroid IP to be in the toilet, which is extremely sad. Nintendo risked their IP on that game and it didn't pay off; they (and we) are living through the consequences of this right now.
I don't see why Heavy Rain and Beyond count for Sony, but the Wonderful 101 doesn't count as a major new IP for Nintendo. It looks excellent, it's being made by the star director of one of the best developers in the industry, and it seems to have a fairly large budget. It also will probably sell terribly, so there's the risk.
shinobi602
Member
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
Considering that the original point wasn't, might as well give him favor. And despite the hyperbole my point still stands. You guys prefer "new" without adding depth to said "new".
These are the types of IPs I like to see from Nintendo. No one buys them, but they're refreshing ideas that haven't really been explored by Nintendo before. I'd like for them to continue that. That being said, I have a strong suspicion that Retro is working on a flagship new IP.
I don't know anything about Sing Party, but Style Savvy (particularly the 3DS sequel) is one of the most polished, well presented, and content-filled games on the market of any genre. It doesn't have to fit your image of a traditional video game to be a quality franchise.
How about some depth to your terrible points?
Are these any good? Not going to lie, not knowing anything about them they seem a bit shovelware-ish to me
Extra Sauce
Member
You really know how to stall a conversation.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
And what may I add should I add depth when the argument in particular wasn't solid to begin with? Like I said, I responded a terribly-made argument with a similarly terribly-made argument to deal with the post. Along with goal-posts, arbitrary reasoning, and all that shit, it's just better to watch and indulge.
StreetsAhead
Member
Since you've not addressed any of my points and simply moved the goal posts, you're the one stalling. You came into this thread and said 'Sony made new IPs this gen. What has Nintendo made?'. A list was provided, with games from 1st and 3rd parties, and then you decided most of them don't count because they don't feel like Nintendo games, without bothering to explain what in the hell that actually means.
Once again, I will ask, is the game in the OP a 'Nintendo' game?
This is starting to feel like the argument I think I had the other week when someone said that Wario World (GCN) was a Nintendo game, but Sin & Punishment was not, even though the developers are the same.