Support NeoGAF

[Sean]

But not all games need to sell as much as those games. Some games is ok with selling let's said around 800k as the budget can make it break even if it sells around 200k. So the sales number can be highly deceiving.

Sure, some games can break even at 200k or so, but that kind of goes back to the point of Nintendo not releasing "big" AAA new IP's.

With the Watch Dogs/Destiny/Gears of War examples I gave, that was the publisher saying "we're going to try and make this new game as popular as our biggest franchise". Activision wanted Destiny to be their next CoD and they went out and made it happen. Didn't even matter that the game was mediocre in the end cause they had millions of people hyped as fuck enough to pre-order the game in record numbers.

I want to see Nintendo attempt something like that, something that would interest millions of people and be a system seller, to set out trying to make a new series that can be as popular as Zelda and Mario. To see them swing for the fences and go all in. That would be exciting as fuck. Nintendo is certainly capable of doing this, but they never even try.

For example The Wonderful 101 was a fun game but it never had any chance of being a system seller, or even selling that well to existing Wii U owners. It was a niche game that Nintendo never really got behind or promoted, they just put it out there to have a Wii U game on shelves in August or whatever. It served no other purpose than that. When you put out a game like that and it sells just 5k copies in the first week, that almost doesn't count in my book. It feels like a complete waste.

 

[Shadow_FFVI]

It's more like the games that push the systems they sell are always the same, where Sony, for instance, created the Uncharted series, The Last of Us, Little Big Planet, etc, in the previous generation alone.

Those franchises are a part of Sony's roster and hugely important to them, while Nintedo still relies on Zelda, Mario and you know the rest.

It would be great if Nintendo added a new IP to their extremely prestigiuos cycle of first party games that help push the console to the public. Create new IPs that become integral to Nintendo's business and feel like they belong right there with their mega sellers.

 

[BGBW]

People have used new IPs to describe a "new brand" for long enough that nitpickingly pointing out what an IP is is counter-productive to a good faith discussion. If you're going to try and derail the thread, at least don't be dishonest about your behaviour.

Except it wasn't a derail. You are the only one who sees it as that. The fact the thread continue as normal goes to show it was just another opinion in a sea on opinions.

Okay, fine. My counter is "are you legitimately arguing that because one thing ever is not limited by the Mario game being used, that the Mario brand never limits or imposes rules upon gameplay?"

Well, Mario Bros has different gameplay to Super Mario Bros to Dr. Mario to Wrecking Crew etc. Technically they all fall under the Mario brand so there pretty flexible with those gameplay rules. Now if it was a platformer then they'd be more strict because people hav expectations when they buy a Super Mario Bros title so when Nintendo want to change the rules of that they tend to give us new IPs like Wario Land and Yoshi's Island (or do those not count as new IPs because they are characters from the Mario universe?)

 

[SystemUser]

'Bbbbut the other companies don't make many new Ip either....'

No. Stop it. It's not the same thing. It's not a competition. Why are we comparing them to Sony? Sony is an electronics company that bought into the games industry. Nintendo was founded and forged on making games, they also happen to make the hardware that exclusively plays those games.

(bold added by me.)


I thought they were founded on playing cards and plastic novelty toys.

 

[EvB]

Does Xenoblade count as a new Ip?

 

[Opiate]

It's more like the games that push the systems they sell are always the same, where Sony, for instance, created the Uncharted series, The Last of Us, Little Big Planet, etc, in the previous generation alone.

Those franchises are a part of Sony's roster and hugely important to them, while Nintedo still relies on Zelda, Mario and you know the rest.

It would be great if Nintendo added a new IP to their extremely prestigiuos cycle of first party games that help push the console to the public. Create new IPs that become integral to Nintendo's business and feel like they belong right there with their mega sellers.

Some of the largest system pushers last generation were Nintendogs, Wii Fit, and Wii Sports, all new IP. In fact, all of those IP are bigger than anything Sony has ever created.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Except it wasn't a derail. You are the only one who sees it as that. The fact the thread continue as normal goes to show it was just another opinion in a sea on opinions.

"I didn't succeed at trying to derail the thread, so I didn't try to derail the thread." Impeccable logic. Basic common sense dictates that the discussion happening right now is centering on games that aren't just Mario or Zelda or Pokemon or something, so what point is there to try and complain about how people don't use the phrase "new IP" correctly? It's just tone/wording policing that has no benefit to actual constructive discussion.

Some of the largest system pushers last generation were Nintendogs, Wii Fit, and Wii Sports, all new IP. In fact, all of those IP are bigger than anything Sony has ever created.

I don't know that I would have Wii Fit as a separate new IP from Wii Sports. It doesn't have the emphasis on Miis like Sports did, but Wii Fit was a (cool) expansion upon the craze of Wii Sports being a fitness-based game (or a compliment, I'm not sure how much of Wii Sports' success went into Fit's design). They both also have similar visual styles, though Wii Fit puts a lot more emphasis on softer tones than Wii Sports more colourful stuff.

 

[Fdkn]

Some of the largest system pushers last generation were Nintendogs, Wii Fit, and Wii Sports, all new IP. In fact, all of those IP are bigger than anything Sony has ever created.

Those are dead already.

 

[Opiate]

I don't know that I would have Wii Fit as a separate new IP from Wii Sports. It doesn't have the emphasis on Miis like Sports did, but Wii Fit was a (cool) expansion upon the craze of Wii Sports being a fitness-based game (or a compliment, I'm not sure how much of Wii Sports' success went into Fit's design). They both also have similar visual styles, though Wii Fit puts a lot more emphasis on softer tones than Wii Sports more colourful stuff.

We get in to a weird place when we do this. For instance, I don't personally think of Killzone as a new IP, as it's mechanically so similar to so many games which came before. However, I don't insist on this, because pretty quickly we could begin to insist that nothing is a new IP.

I'm much more concerned with the mechanical aspects of a new IP than the superficial trappings.

Those are dead already.

Certainly less popular right now, yes. They're still releasing them. Sony will have to release 5 Uncharted games to match a single Wii Fit.

 

[A Link to the Past]

We get in to a weird place when we do this. For instance, I don't personally think of Killzone as a new IP, as it's mechanically so similar to so many games which came before. However, I don't insist on this, because pretty quickly we could begin to insist that nothing is a new IP.

I'm much more concerned with the mechanical aspects of a new IP than the superficial trappings.



Certainly less popular right now, yes. They're still releasing them. Sony will have to release 5 Uncharted games to match a single Wii Fit.

Well I'm not really strict on naming conventions like that; for example, Excite Truck, even though it's meant to be a spiritual followup to Excitebike, I consider a new IP because it's so radically different in almost every way to what Excitebike was like. Even as a racing game, the win condition is radically different, so just getting first place isn't enough, you've got to do it in style. My issue with treating Wii Fit as a truly new IP is that it borrows so many ideas and themes from Wii Sports, and is pretty simple with respect to its presentation. It's definitely a good game, so I'm by no means shitting on it.

 

[4Tran]

It's really not that hard: Nintendo doesn't make new IPs I care about. That's what most people mean, and I agree.

It's not that Steeldiver or Wonderful 101 or whatever don't count: it's not what I want.

I think this hits to the essence of the issue. The phrase "Nintendo doesn't make new IPs" is a poorly formulated expression that is more about how Nintendo seeming to make the same kind of game over and over. And that in the cases where Nintendo comes up with new ideas, they either look a lot like their old ones aesthetically, or they barely register at all. All of the counter examples in this thread technically disprove the original phrase, but they also do nothing to address its actual concerns.

Does Xenoblade count as a new Ip?

It does, but I don't think many non-Nintendo fans even know that it's owned by Nintendo.

This is a very, very good point. When shopping last year for my nieces and nephews, I saw a lot more "Frozen" merchandise (T-shirts, pants, pillow cases, the whole works... But most especially, Elsa figurines) than I saw Mickey/Minnie stuff. And Donald and Goofy were nowhere to be seen. Of course this is anecdotal, but I think it serves to illustrate your example perfectly.

Of course, Disney always has Mickey in their back pocket. In this case, he'd be Disney's Mario. But they've also released the Frozen movie, and advertised/merchandised the hell out of it, that in limited cases Frozen's exposure has managed to eclipse Mickey's.

I'm not sure what Nintendo's "Frozen" is. Wonderful 101? Bayonetta? Xenoblade? It doesn't matter. The point is that, via a combination of lack of appeal and limited Nintendo advertising, these IPs will no way in hell dethrone Mario as the king of Nintendo.

One big difference is that Disney is perfectly willing to promote their new properties above and beyond their promotion of their legacy properties. This allows them to constantly refresh their product lines and build new fanbases. While Disney will forever be associated with Mickey Mouse, outside of the cartoon short in 2013, his previous appearance as a lead character was in 1995!

 

[A Link to the Past]

I can understand the validity in "I don't care about the new IPs they're making." While I enjoyed Brain Age and Wii Sports and Nintendogs and Wii Fit, I understood that the emphasis on making new IPs intended for a new audience is problematic for the old audience that don't get into these kinds of games nearly as much.

 

[LaserHawk]

It's gotta be tough being Nintendo and balancing people's desire for new IPs with people's rabid cravings for old IPs (and obscure IPs) to return.

 

[Opiate]

Well I'm not really strict on naming conventions like that; for example, Excite Truck, even though it's meant to be a spiritual followup to Excitebike, I consider a new IP because it's so radically different in almost every way to what Excitebike was like. Even as a racing game, the win condition is radically different, so just getting first place isn't enough, you've got to do it in style. My issue with treating Wii Fit as a truly new IP is that it borrows so many ideas and themes from Wii Sports, and is pretty simple with respect to its presentation. It's definitely a good game, so I'm by no means shitting on it.

I'm not saying you can't make this argument, but I could make an equally plausible argument for excitetruck (it is clearly named after excitebike, after all) or Killzone or any number of games which we generally agree are new IP.

 

[Ridley327]

Sure, some games can break even at 200k or so, but that kind of goes back to the point of Nintendo not releasing "big" AAA new IP's.

With the Watch Dogs/Destiny/Gears of War examples I gave, that was the publisher saying "we're going to try and make this new game as popular as our biggest franchise". Activision wanted Destiny to be their next CoD and they went out and made it happen. Didn't even matter that the game was mediocre in the end cause they had millions of people hyped as fuck enough to pre-order the game in record numbers.

I want to see Nintendo attempt something like that, something that would interest millions of people and be a system seller, to set out trying to make a new series that can be as popular as Zelda and Mario. To see them swing for the fences and go all in. That would be exciting as fuck. Nintendo is certainly capable of doing this, but they never even try.

For example The Wonderful 101 was a fun game but it never had any chance of being a system seller, or even selling that well to existing Wii U owners. It was a niche game that Nintendo never really got behind or promoted, they just put it out there to have a Wii U game on shelves in August or whatever. It served no other purpose than that. When you put out a game like that and it sells just 5k copies in the first week, that almost doesn't count in my book. It feels like a complete waste.

It's not like it's a Nintendo-exclusive issue. Just to limit it to one example a piece, you see Sony do nothing for Puppeteer; you see MS do nothing for D4; you see Capcom do nothing for God Hand; you see Konami do nothing for Castlevania: Lords of Shadow 2. I could keep going on with other publishers, but the end result is the same: there are just some games that no matter how much you spent on their production that aren't going to land like a mainstay, and the smart, sensible thing to do is minimize the hit you will be taking. For something like Wonderful 101, which is a hard sell for even for the crowd that would throw themselves on a sword for Hideki Kamiya, why would you break the bank on what's already a foregone conclusion?

Sometimes, games get made for the sake of diversifying a lineup, even if the game in question is something that not even the hardcore are going to line up for. I mean, Nintendo did fund a pinball RTS that utilizes a microphone and bongos for gameplay, and it certainly wasn't because they thought they had the next Tickle-Me Elmo in the making.

 

[Opiate]

I think this hits to the essence of the issue. The phrase "Nintendo doesn't make new IPs" is a poorly formulated expression that is more about how Nintendo seeming to make the same kind of game over and over. And that in the cases where Nintendo comes up with new ideas, they either look a lot like their old ones aesthetically, or they barely register at all. All of the counter examples in this thread technically disprove the original phrase, but they also do nothing to address its actual concerns.

I definitely agree, but what you call a technicality I would call a very real issue: "core" gamers in general operate as if the games they don't personally care about don't exist.

One big difference is that Disney is perfectly willing to promote their new properties above and beyond their promotion of their legacy properties. This allows them to constantly refresh their product lines and build new fanbases. While Disney will forever be associated with Mickey Mouse, outside of the cartoon short in 2013, his previous appearance as a lead character was in 1995!

Nintendo has heavily promoted new IP: sometimes it's not successful (e.g. Nintendoland) but sometimes it's very much so (e.g. Wii Fit, Nintendogs). We're really looking at a two-pronged problem; people don't just want new major, well publicized IPs, but specifically "core" IPs.

Nintendo makes new "core" IPs, but most are lower profile. Nintendo makes new major IPs, but most are casual. For a lot of people on GAF, if a game isn't a major new "core" property, that game effectively doesn't exist.

 

[demidar]

I can understand the validity in "I don't care about the new IPs they're making." While I enjoyed Brain Age and Wii Sports and Nintendogs and Wii Fit, I understood that the emphasis on making new IPs intended for a new audience is problematic for the old audience that don't get into these kinds of games nearly as much.

That's what people should actually say then. "I don't care about the new IPs Nintendo are making" is a perfectly valid opinion to hold. Saying "Nintendo doesn't make new IPs" is 1) blatantly false; 2) may have that nasty console warrior subtext of taking potshots at Nintendo (whether that subtext is intentional or not doesn't matter because of the next point); 3) because it's such a blatantly false "opinion", it will invite lots of people to correct that person's post, leading to a thread derail.

 

[M1ch04c4n0]

It's really not that hard: Nintendo doesn't make new IPs I care about. That's what most people mean, and I agree.

It's not that Steeldiver or Wonderful 101 or whatever don't count: it's not what I want.

So, by that logic, games like The Order, The Crew, Scalebound or Bloodborne are not new IPs, because I don't care about those games.

Nifty logic there.

 

[Moze]

I don't care if Mario and co. were in every game Nintendo published from here on out, so long as they're fun to play and at least somewhat inventive then I'm fine. I fail to see the problem with this.

 

[Shadow_FFVI]

Some of the largest system pushers last generation were Nintendogs, Wii Fit, and Wii Sports, all new IP. In fact, all of those IP are bigger than anything Sony has ever created.

Those were great system sellers, but don't fit with what I said. They certainly don't belong with the Mario and Zelda's of the world. They can't rely on those IP every generation. In fact, they only worked in that instance.

 

[Dimmle]

There's too much emphasis placed on "new IPs" rather than "new experiences." Nintendo tends to deliver the latter in familiar packages rather than create something like Watch_Dogs which delivers a new "iconic cap."

 

[A Link to the Past]

I don't care if Mario and co. were in every game Nintendo published from here on out, so long as they're fun to play and at least somewhat inventive then I'm fine. I fail to see the problem with this.

I'm fine with that, but I don't understand why you don't understand why people aren't the same way. Video games are a lot more than just mechanics.

That's what people should actually say then. "I don't care about the new IPs Nintendo are making" is a perfectly valid opinion to hold. Saying "Nintendo doesn't make new IPs" is 1) blatantly false; 2) may have that nasty console warrior subtext of taking potshots at Nintendo (whether that subtext is intentional or not doesn't matter because of the next point); 3) because it's such a blatantly false "opinion", it will invite lots of people to correct that person's post, leading to a thread derail.

That is what people mean when they say that, and people who say "Nintendo doesn't make new IPs" often do not count things like Nintendogs or Wii Fit because they are not thematically interesting games. People will invariably try to correct the poster, but once the issue is that people will often - upon clarification that they are speaking from their own point of view - keep complaining about word usage.

I'm not saying you can't make this argument, but I could make an equally plausible argument for excitetruck (it is clearly named after excitebike, after all) or Killzone or any number of games which we generally agree are new IP.

That's fine, I can respect that.

 

[Moze]

I'm fine with that, but I don't understand why you don't understand why people aren't the same way. Video games are a lot more than just mechanics.

That's exactly what video games are. I'm not trying to be told a story or shown how good Full Sail taught you how to make set pieces. I want to play.

 

[Nightbird]

Does Xenoblade count as a new Ip?

For some People yes, for others no.
But as a Fact, it is.

 

[A Link to the Past]

That's exactly what video games are. I'm not trying to be told a story or shown how good Full Sail taught you how to make set pieces. I want to play.

So what you're saying is that if Nintendo didn't use any IPs from now on, and just made bland mechanical games, you would be overjoyed? This is such an absurd "grafix don't matter" post. They clearly matter - Kirby's Epic Yarn for instance gets half of its love from its style.

 

[Guevara]

So, by that logic, games like The Order, The Crew, Scalebound or Bloodborne are not new IPs, because I don't care about those games.

Nifty logic there.

You're not reading this correctly: All these games are new IPs, there's no question about. Who could possible argue otherwise?

 

[EloquentM]

I can't carry these goal posts fast enough. Slow down guys.

 

[Moze]

So what you're saying is that if Nintendo didn't use any IPs from now on, and just made bland mechanical games, you would be overjoyed? This is such an absurd "grafix don't matter" post. They clearly matter - Kirby's Epic Yarn for instance gets half of its love from its style.

All I mentioned was using the same characters. That seems to be the basis of people's argument against the lack of new IPs from Nintendo. "Mario is in it, it's the same old Mario game, etc."

When I was a kid I played Hot Pursuit on PS1. Now it's Drive Club, a new IP. But they're fundamentally the same game. This side of the argument has probably been dug through already, though.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Not a matter of new IPs, but a criticism related to it is that Nintendo reserves cool, innovative ideas for established series, especially the more popular ones. For example, F-Zero got shafted because an idea that suits it perfectly (anti-grav) was used instead on Mario Kart.

All I mentioned was using the same characters. That seems to be the basis of people's argument against the lack of new IPs from Nintendo. "Mario is in it, it's the same old Mario game, etc."

When I was a kid I played Hot Pursuit on PS1. Now it's Drive Club, a new IP. But they're fundamentally the same game. This side of the argument has probably been dug through already, though.

If it's the same characters, it's also probably the same tone and setting and enemies and musical style and graphical style and rules and logic.

 

[JCX]

This thread explains so much

 

[demidar]

IThat is what people mean when they say that, and people who say "Nintendo doesn't make new IPs" often do not count things like Nintendogs or Wii Fit because they are not thematically interesting games. People will invariably try to correct the poster, but once the issue is that people will often - upon clarification that they are speaking from their own point of view - keep complaining about word usage.

It doesn't matter if that's what they mean, the point is the very existence of those exact words in that exact configuration is what leads to thread derails.

If you want an example though, The "Nintendo : Mario :: Sega : Sonic" thread. This post kicks it off, poster then doubles down. This led to three pages of IP list wars to prove him wrong. I'd really like it if shit like this doesn't happen, even if the poster later clarifies what they mean (which did not happen in this case) because it gunks up the thread.

 

[tuxfool]

That's exactly what video games are. I'm not trying to be told a story or shown how good Full Sail taught you how to make set pieces. I want to play.

They may have been at some point, but that isn't what they all are any more.

Seriously why evolve from Pong? That was all game.

This thread explains so much

This post explains so little...

 

[A Link to the Past]

It doesn't matter if that's what they mean, the point is the very existence of those exact words in that exact configuration is what leads to thread derails.

If you want an example though, The "Nintendo : Mario :: Sega : Sonic" thread. This post kicks it off, poster then doubles down. This led to three pages of IP list wars to prove him wrong. I'd really like it if shit like this doesn't happen, even if the poster later clarifies what they mean (which did not happen in this case) because it gunks up the thread.

That kind of doubling-down behaviour is not exclusive to this discussion, though. As I pointed out, it is not uncommon for people on the other side to double-down and complain after the clarification is made.

 

[Aiustis]

That's one of the things I've liked about Nintendo. It seems they keep my gaming feeling fresh. Speaking as someone who's not a fan of most of their biggest stuff, they feel a lot more original than the other two as far as games.

If I had one regret it's that I didn't get a Wii and a DS and now I'm paying through the nose for great games.

 

[EloquentM]

Funnily enough the same people who try to change what a "new ip" actually is are likely the same people who try to change what a console "generation" is. Goal post moving to prove an agenda is the worst kind of conversation. It literally goes nowhere!

 

[Crom]

This is kind of a spin-off thread from the Nintendo-Mario vs. Sega-Sonic treatment comparison thread. It got me wondering about why people think Nintendo doesn't make new IPs. In recent years, they've put out...

- Xenoblade Chronicles (Wii, 2012): A badass JRPG so far & hailed as one of the best JRPGs in recent years. Hell, Shulk got in Smash & Xenoblade is getting a Wii U sequel this year. I'm pretty sure Xenoblade is a franchise on the rise. Okay sure, I just started, but I'm loving what I'm playing so far. You guys can argue that Xenoblade is just a continuation of the Xeno franchise that Monolith Soft made under Namco, but the fact that Nintendo is continuing with the Xenoblade brand does help it earn its IP stripes in its own regard.
- The Wonderful 101 (Wii U, 2013): Easily one of my favorite games of last year. It was an insane experience & quite the rewarding one too with its deep combat. It may be a tough nut to crack in terms of the learning curve, but damn is that nut delicious. A shame more people didn't buy it.
- Splatoon (Wii U, 2015): Okay, so Splatoon isn't out yet, but it's already looking to be a creative spin on the first person shooter genre. One that I can't wait to dive into. Plus Splatoon is actually from Nintendo EAD, which is apparently part of the complaints of Nintendo's apparent lack of new IPs.
- Code Name S.T.E.A.M. (3DS, 2015): Another game that's not out yet but it has potential, more so given that Intelligent Systems is behind it (the guys who gave us Fire Emblem, but I don't really need to say that on GAF). I'm growing more curious about this game by the day & look forward to playing it.
- Rhythm Heaven (DS, 2009): I vaguely remember playing Rhythm Heaven, but I do remember all the fun I had with this game. It was probably one of my favorite rhythm-based games in recent years.

And these are just the high-profile games. There are others like Dillon's Rolling Western, Pushmo, HarmoKnight, & a few others are also noteworthy IPs Nintendo has established recently. So what do you guys think, GAF? Is this enough, is the criticism for the supposed lack of new IPs justified (& why, of course)?

They make plenty of new IPs. Even ones with familiar characters are new.

Take Luigi's Mansion or Captain Toad for example. Totally new games when they came out but since they had characters from the Mario Universe some people don't look at them like new IP when they are and they play totally different than Mario games

 

[Moze]

Not a matter of new IPs, but a criticism related to it is that Nintendo reserves cool, innovative ideas for established series, especially the more popular ones. For example, F-Zero got shafted because an idea that suits it perfectly (anti-grav) was used instead on Mario Kart.



If it's the same characters, it's also probably the same tone and setting and enemies and musical style and graphical style and rules and logic.

Mario Baseball, Mario Kart, Mario Break Dancers. All very different games my friend.

 

[Shabad]

QUOTE=Opiate;147235913]We get in to a weird place when we do this. For instance, I don't personally think of Killzone as a new IP, as it's mechanically so similar to so many games which came before./QUOTE]

Holy sweet potatoes, that's some very misguided opinion there >.< You are either confusing IP with genre there, or you have no idea what Killzone is ^^ Killzone happen to have a very heavy background in a quite complex universe, and one of the reason it's been snobbed by many is because it has a very different take on many FPS mechanics.

Your premise (all FPS are the same IP) is completely flawed, but your example is even worse ^^

Nintendo makes new "core" IPs, but most are lower profile. Nintendo makes new major IPs, but most are casual. For a lot of people on GAF, if a game isn't a major new "core" property, that game effectively doesn't exist.

It's not that they doesn't exist, it's simply not what they are looking for. And when they complain about "Nintendo doesn't make new IPs", what it means is exactly that : "Nintendo doesn't make enough new IPs that aren't low profile eShop titles or casual games".

 

[A Link to the Past]

Funnily enough the same people who try to change what a "new ip" actually is are likely the same people who try to change what a console "generation" is. Goal post moving to prove an agenda is the worst kind of conversation. It literally goes nowhere!

No one is trying to change what a new IP means. What is happening is that people, when they say new IP, mean that they want a new game that:

1. Is not tied to rules of a preexisting IP,
2. Is interesting thematically and mechanically, and
3. Get an adequate level of attention and promotion.

Games like Splatoon and Codename S.T.E.A.M. fulfill the first three, while games like Pushmo and Fluidity fulfill the first two (they both receive good attention/promotion on the eShop, but limiting them to eShop releases seriously hampers their ability to define their eras like Mario, Star Fox, Banjo-Kazooie, Pikmin, and Wii Sports did for theirs).

Mario Baseball, Mario Kart, Mario Break Dancers. All very different games my friend.

Well, let's see

Mario Baseball:

Same tone (lighthearted)
Same setting (grasslands for example)
No enemies (but features typical enemies from Mario games as playable characters)
Similar musical style (different composers, but expectations for the music to be like Mario)
Same graphical style
Same rules and logic of Mario (game does not defy established "things" in the series)

Mario Kart and DDR Mario Mix both in large part are the same list. If you really wanted to cite a game that defies shit in the Mario series, Strikers would be your answer. Even more would be Luigi's Mansion, which is easily the darkest and creepiest Mario by a long shot (Mario games occasionally feature creepy things, but Luigi's Mansion is defined by it). Luigi's Mansion features different music, a different setting, almost entirely different enemies, a different graphical style, and different rules and logic (for the most part).

 

[demidar]

That kind of doubling-down behaviour is not exclusive to this discussion, though. As I pointed out, it is not uncommon for people on the other side to double-down and complain after the clarification is made.

I'll need an example because I don't think I've ever seen that happen.

Regardless the damage is already done, and I can't fault people for trying correct others. And so far there's no solution proposed to curb these derails.

 

[Trigonometrize.]

Honestly, I like it when Nintendo does things like Luigi's Mansion and Captain Toad. Its old IPs can last a lifetime so long as they continue to be inventive.

 

[LegendofLex]

They make plenty of new IPs. Even ones with familiar characters are new.

Take Luigi's Mansion or Captain Toad for example. Totally new games when they came out but since they had characters from the Mario Universe some people don't look at them like new IP when they are and they play totally different than Mario games

When people say they want "new IP," they mean "new characters and universes," not "old characters and universes... with a twist!"

 

[reSpec Gaming]

Nintendo is like the Kevin Smith of video games. All his movies are publicly perceived either as cult classics or complete flops. Same goes for anything Nintendo makes. So when they make something Mario (or Kevin Smith makes something in the Askewniverse) it does well, when they do something kind of original it's kind of 50/50 how it will be received.

Here's to hoping Splatoon isn't the Gigli of video games!

 

[Azuran]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeno_(series)

I haven't seen anyone say Splatoon doesn't count.

That Xeno wiki article annoys me so much. You would think they would change it already. From the talk page:

Xenoblade and X for Wii U has nothing to do with the Xeno-series. The title ist just a symbol and came from Nintendo to honor Takahshi. It's first name was Monado.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2010/02/17/xenoblade-detailed

Quote: Let's get some misconceptions out of the way first. Xenoblade may have "Xeno" in the title. It may be coming from Monolith Software. But It's not a new entry in the Xenosaga series.

The game's director, Tetsuya Takahashi clears any sort of confusion over the "Xeno" name in a lengthy interview in this week's Famitsu. The Xeno name, he said, should be taken as just a symbol, placed there as some sort of common point with Monolith's past works. Xenoblade is a completely new game, with a new world setting.

Please, read what the article actually says, and check the sources, especially the one from Wired interviewing the president of Nintendo.

 

[Crom]

When people say they want "new IP," they mean "new characters and universes," not "old characters and universes... with a twist!"

But games like this are totally new IP. Luigi's Mansion plays nothing like a Mario game.

Sounds weird that if you replace Luigi with a game named generic dude name Hank it would magically make it a new IP.

Just because it has a familiar character doesn't mean it isn't a new IP.

Another example. Mario was the ref in Punch Out. It was still a new IP at the time and so was Luigi's mansion.

 

[Hiltz]

When people say they want "new IP," they mean "new characters and universes," not "old characters and universes... with a twist!"

Heh, both you and Crom are correct for obvious reasons.

 

[A Link to the Past]

The best idea to avoid confusion would be to say "new brands", but then people may get pedantic and say "well Captain Toad is a new brand!"

But games like this are totally new IP. Luigi's Mansion plays nothing like a Mario game.

Sounds weird that if you replace Luigi with a game named generic dude name Hank it would magically make it a new IP.

Just because it has a familiar character doesn't mean it isn't a new IP.

Another example. Mario was the ref in Punch Out. It was still a new IP at the time and so was Luigi's mansion.

Luigi's Mansion was bold and interesting and does almost everything imaginable differently from what Mario games typically do (and has a completely different non-gameplay feel), but suggesting it on the same level as Punch-Out!! is pretty absurd. Luigi is a strongly established character in the Mario universe, and is an icon of Nintendo, so it's clearly connected to Mario. Meanwhile, Mario's presence in Punch-Out!! is explained that Miyamoto wanted to insert Mario as cameos, almost like a brand. It is more akin to saying that multiple Disney movies are Peter Pan movies because they feature Tinkerbell in the beginning.

 

[Moze]

When people say they want "new IP," they mean "new characters and universes," not "old characters and universes... with a twist!"

Are you sure? I don't see an original setting or character in sight when I look over the top games on the market now, Nintendo excluded. It's all the same water being treaded over and over again.

 

[EloquentM]

No one is trying to change what a new IP means. What is happening is that people, when they say new IP, mean that they want a new game that:

1. Is not tied to rules of a preexisting IP,
2. Is interesting thematically and mechanically, and
3. Get an adequate level of attention and promotion.

Games like Splatoon and Codename S.T.E.A.M. fulfill the first three, while games like Pushmo and Fluidity fulfill the first two (they both receive good attention/promotion on the eShop, but limiting them to eShop releases seriously hampers their ability to define their eras like Mario, Star Fox, Banjo-Kazooie, Pikmin, and Wii Sports did for theirs).



Well, let's see

Mario Baseball:

Same tone (lighthearted)
Same setting (grasslands for example)
No enemies (but features typical enemies from Mario games as playable characters)
Similar musical style (different composers, but expectations for the music to be like Mario)
Same graphical style
Same rules and logic of Mario (game does not defy established "things" in the series)

Mario Kart and DDR Mario Mix both in large part are the same list. If you really wanted to cite a game that defies shit in the Mario series, Strikers would be your answer. Even more would be Luigi's Mansion, which is easily the darkest and creepiest Mario by a long shot (Mario games occasionally feature creepy things, but Luigi's Mansion is defined by it). Luigi's Mansion features different music, a different setting, almost entirely different enemies, a different graphical style, and different rules and logic (for the most part).

thats nice and all but all you literally gave me was an explanation that contradicted itself. What people want to say is that nintendo doesn't treat all their new ips equally to their existing ips, however Thats what's not being said. What's being said is that nintendo has no new ips. Adding a new goal post to an initial discussion doesn't do anything to change the initial viewpoint. It just makes people look sillier than they did before. You don't need to interpret for any other poster. We have people in this thread literally saying xenoblade isn't a new nintendo ip. People saying wonderful 101 isn't and by the same merit they're saying Pokemon and smash weren't either. It's laughable.

 

[Crom]

The best idea to avoid confusion would be to say "new brands", but then people may get pedantic and say "well Captain Toad is a new brand!"



Luigi's Mansion was bold and interesting and does almost everything imaginable differently from what Mario games typically do (and has a completely different non-gameplay feel), but suggesting it on the same level as Punch-Out!! is pretty absurd. Luigi is a strongly established character in the Mario universe, and is an icon of Nintendo, so it's clearly connected to Mario. Meanwhile, Mario's presence in Punch-Out!! is explained that Miyamoto wanted to insert Mario as cameos, almost like a brand. It is more akin to saying that multiple Disney movies are Peter Pan movies because they feature Tinkerbell in the beginning.

Not the best example but many times popular Nintendo characters are feature in new IP so that it sells.

What would sell better? Hank's Mansion or Luigi's Mansion. If a generic cowardly character named Hank was the hero of the game it still would be the same game and people would more likely consider it new IP (which is silly IMO) It is new IP because the gameplay is different. They characters don;t matter.

Dinosaur Planet is another example. It was an original IP that they threw Fox in so that it would sell better and they renamed it Star Fox Adventures. Still was a new IP even with Fox in it IMO