Support NeoGAF

[timetokill]

xeno is in the name. that means it's part of the xeno series, like xeno, xenogears, xenosaga, xeno arena, and xeno quest.

...and possibly even Zeno Clash!

The phrase "new IP" may not actually be used accurately, but to anyone involved in the discussion, it's clear what people asking for new IPs mean

This seems to be incredibly wrong, considering the length of this thread and the frequency of threads like it. Saying Nintendo doesn't make new IPs is completely false, and if people mean something different then why don't they just say what they mean?

i think in this case, the onus is on the people who can't articulate themselves to better articulate themselves. they should explain more precisely their dissatisfaction and actually back it up. ignoring facts is a poor way to construct an argument and back up an opinion.

100% agreed. The issue here is that people are not saying what they apparently actually mean. They're trying to be quippy with "doesn't make new IPs" but that's not accurate, and then when trying to back themselves up it's display after display of ignorance as to what Nintendo owns or has worked on, or "that doesn't count" claims.

Ultimately it smacks of a lack of self-awareness or introspection. If people want to say "Nintendo doesn't make enough new IPs with rich worldbuilding and deep storylines made completely by internal teams along with AAA marketing budgets behind them" then they should say so.

In the meantime, it comes across as childish "I DON'T LIKE THING" and as anyone with a child knows, it's impossible to have a rational conversation when somebody is in that state of mind.

 

[ForsakenLotus]

microsoft does not own the rights to titanfall. titanfall is an intellectual property of respawn. the trademark belongs to them as shown on the back of the box. the wonderful 101 is a nintendo game in that they actually own the intellectual property.

tell me, if hal lab, sora ltd, or game freak would make a new franchise for nintendo, would that not count for you because they're third-parties?

AniHawk, please read this carefully. I, like many others, want the extremely talented studios that are the minds behind Mario, Zelda, GoldenEye, etc. to not be limited to only iterating on the same franchises they have been working on for 10-20 years, but for those awesome teams to attempt to create something completely new and exciting and for Nintendo to try to give it the attention and budget that it takes to normally create a new, major franchise. Please, please stop talking about whether or not an external development team making a game wherein Nintendo owns the IP counts. That is simply not what I have been talking about at any point.

If an external team is able to create a new franchise not tied in any way to an existing Nintendo universe, and that franchise has a decent amount of success, then it kind of counts. It's still not what I or many people want if you actually listen to what we are saying, but it is a reasonable concession. Still, I want to emphasize, Nintendo owned studios - WHO MAKE AMAZING GAMES - are almost entirely prohibited from trying to create wholly new, unique franchises for Nintendo to try to grow into a huge new franchise.

It's like if Disney still only released sequels or spin offs of The Lion King and The Little Mermaid in theaters, and people clamored for something new such as Frozen or The Princess Frog. The fact the Pixar releases Wreck it Ralph or that Disney released a completely new animated movie straight to DVD does not address peoples desire for Disney proper to not make so many sequels but try to make something new.

I don't know that I can be any more clearer here.

 

[A Link to the Past]

...and possibly even Zeno Clash!



This seems to be incredibly wrong, considering the length of this thread and the frequency of threads like it. Saying Nintendo doesn't make new IPs is completely false, and if people mean something different then why don't they just say what they mean?




100% agreed. The issue here is that people are not saying what they apparently actually mean. They're trying to be quippy with "doesn't make new IPs" but that's not accurate, and then when trying to back themselves up it's display after display of ignorance as to what Nintendo owns or has worked on, or "that doesn't count" claims.

Ultimately it smacks of a lack of self-awareness or introspection. If people want to say "Nintendo doesn't make enough new IPs with rich worldbuilding and deep storylines made completely by internal teams along with AAA marketing budgets behind them" then they should say so.

In the meantime, it comes across as childish "I DON'T LIKE THING" and as anyone with a child knows, it's impossible to have a rational conversation when somebody is in that state of mind.

Because people do that kind of thing all the time, especially when it's a situation like this where it's really obvious what they mean. Brain Age was a new IP, but the minimal style and lack of any real world makes it not count for them because a big point made is a lack of original theme ideas.

The theme design and story could all be the same. The story of that game was about Rosalina and her Lumas. The parts with Bowser and Peach were few and far between and only served to introduce the Mario fan to the new and completely different story, themes, and play style. Nothing would have changed had they been replaced.The look, though? That's artistic direction. Do you honestly believe that would have changed anyway? Did it change for Pushmo or Splatoon?

They could be. They wouldn't NEED to be.

Also, think about your comparison.

Super Mario Galaxy
Splatoon
Pushmo

Which one of these can be described as a game where the designers were forced to not have a story, and in fact had to secretly design a portion of the game to have a story in order to avoid Miyamoto taking it out?

 

[timetokill]

Because people do that kind of thing all the time, especially when it's a situation like this where it's really obvious what they mean. Brain Age was a new IP, but the minimal style and lack of any real world makes it not count for them because a big point made is a lack of original theme ideas.

Why don't these people say what they actually mean then, as opposed to saying something that clearly engenders confusion and misunderstandings?

 

[Deleted member 752119]

There's a definite need for people to better articulate their opinions, and state them as opinions and not facts, in general. But people are lazy, like to be extreme in stating opinions to get a rise out of people.

I'm bored with Nintendo's offerings, sold off a Wii U and 3DS last summer, and have hard time seeing myself buying another console. Maybe a portable if it's cheap enough and has a great library. But I wouldn't say they have no games or don't do new IPs.

I'd say stuff like:

I'm just not into the types of games they make, and grew sick of the franchises I did enjoy after playing too many iterations from the NES on. I'll probably eventually get sick of shooters, WRPGs etc., but those are newer to me as I didn't get heavy into them until last gen.

Nintendo does new IPs, just rarely on budget/scale/scope comparable to their major staples like Mario, Zelda, Smash etc. They tend to be lower budget and more niche in genre.

Nintendo doesn't do new IPs in genres I currently enjoy.

If people could be clearer, and clearly state things as just their opinions/taste, there wouldn't be so much bickering.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Why don't these people say what they actually mean then, as opposed to saying something that clearly engenders confusion and misunderstandings?

Often times, people DO say what they mean when prompted, or will describe what their thread title means in the body. On the other side of this, we have people who nitpick even after clarification has been made.

It's basically like "[blank] has no games." Unless you're being literal and citing the next Nintendo console as an example of that, blank obviously has games, and for some people has a good library. Just like people shouldn't take that literally there, people shouldn't take it literally with this statement.

 

[Chunky]

They make a lot of new IP's....that NoA never pushed to get over here. Especially in the Wii/DS generation. Some stinkers, but enough decent games to make you think why they were never brought over. Would've helped with the many Wii droughts.

LOL @ North American release (some games even showed and played at an E3 funnily enough):
Band Brothers/Jam with the Band
Line Attack Heroes
Freshly-Picked Tingle
Archaic Sealed Heat
Captain Rainbow
Disaster: Day of Crisis
Trace Memory 2/Another Code: R
Hotel Dusk 2/Last Window 2
Zangeki no Reginleiv
Soma Bringer
Fatal Frames
Wii Karaoke U (as someone who enjoys karaoke with friends a lot, this one hurts the most!)

On the upside, there's a lot more parity with Wii U/3DS. It helps that Wii U needs all the games it can get.

What the fuck, I never knew JWTB didn't make it over to america. That's so odd, maybe they didn't think paying extra for the licensed songs would be worth it?

I guess that makes up for us barely getting any Atlus DS games :/

 

[A Link to the Past]

What the fuck, I never knew JWTB didn't make it over to america. That's so odd, maybe they didn't think paying extra for the licensed songs would be worth it?

I guess that makes up for us barely getting any Atlus DS games :/

NoA got really, really weird around that time, we missed out on a lot of games that were localized for other regions.

 

[Uno Venova]

I usually thought they meant a new mascot IP.

 

[Combichristoffersen]

They obviously make new IPs, they just don't give their new IPs the same market push Sony or Microsoft would give to a new (AAA) IP.

 

[entremet]

Captain Rainbow was never coming westward if you read about the content in that game lol.

 

[Kotetsu534]

I think it's legitimate to point out that when Nintendo "goes big" with a game, putting large marketing budgets behind it, giving it lots of time at E3 and other events, it's usually inside the Mario, Mario Kart, Smash Bros., Pokemon, Donkey Kong Country or Zelda series, and usually conforms to what those series traditionally offer. Titles outside that ambit usually get little marketing, sell a few 100k copies to the enthusiasts, and don't leave much of an impression beyond that, unless they happen to blow up by word-of-mouth.

There's nothing wrong with this - I, for one, think it's smart strategy and am happy for Nintendo to keep doing it - if something catches on in a big way, they can try going bigger with it next time (like Xenoblade Chronicles' sequel), if it doesn't, well, no big deal.

 

[Nostremitus]

They could be. They wouldn't NEED to be.

Also, think about your comparison.

Super Mario Galaxy
Splatoon
Pushmo

Which one of these can be described as a game where the designers were forced to not have a story, and in fact had to secretly design a portion of the game to have a story in order to avoid Miyamoto taking it out?

Considering the comparison was strictly about artistic design, and the fact that the same team would still be making Galaxy if it weren't Mario, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Considering the comparison was strictly about artistic design, and the fact that the same team would still be making Galaxy if it weren't Mario, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

I'm saying that Galaxy was limited because it was Mario. It almost definitely would not be the same game thematically or stylistically for the same reason that Splatoon and Pushmo have their own super distinct styles that, if they weren't new IPs, would need to be adjusted to suit the IP they're apart of.

 

[Nanashrew]

I think it's legitimate to point out that when Nintendo "goes big" with a game, putting large marketing budgets behind it, giving it lots of time at E3 and other events, it's usually inside the Mario, Mario Kart, Smash Bros., Pokemon, Donkey Kong Country or Zelda series, and usually conforms to what those series traditionally offer. Titles outside that ambit usually get little marketing, sell a few 100k copies to the enthusiasts, and don't leave much of an impression beyond that, unless they happen to blow up by word-of-mouth.

There's nothing wrong with this - I, for one, think it's smart strategy and am happy for Nintendo to keep doing it - if something catches on in a big way, they can try going bigger with it next time (like Xenoblade Chronicles' sequel), if it doesn't, well, no big deal.

I like where Pushmo is headed. It started small and now it's on its 3rd game on Wii U. It's now a full fledged franchise that can grow.

 

[Shion]

They aren't "dudebro" enough. It really is that simple.

Yeah, that's not it.

Unless, by "dudebro", you mean "anything that doesn't fall into Nintendo's current focus on party games, casual games, mini-game collections and their obsession with Hello Kitty-inspired aesthetics".

But one of the many differences between classic Nintendo and "modern" Nintendo is that, back in the 80s and 90s, their internal teams provided diversity by creating a variety of different gameplay styles, themes and aesthetics. Classic Nintendo let you play in the surreal, Disney-style, world of Mario, adventure in the dangerous, Tolkien-inspired, land of Hyrule, explore distant planets in the immersive, Alien-inspired, universe of Metroid, participate in futuristic, adrenaline-filled, races in F-Zero, ride jet-skis and descend snowy slopes, with realistic-looking characters, in Wave Race and 1080 etc.

I don't think that anyone wants Nintendo to make games like Call of Duty and Duke Nukem, but they also don't need to make everything feel like a Saturday morning cartoon. It'd be nice if they let their internal teams make some new core IPs, like F-Zero, as well as some larger-scope games –with absorbing, full-fledged, 3D worlds– that introduce new fictional universes like Hyrule and Zebes.

But Nintendo's teams don't do that anymore.

 

[Nostremitus]

I'm saying that Galaxy was limited because it was Mario. It almost definitely would not be the same game thematically or stylistically for the same reason that Splatoon and Pushmo have their own super distinct styles that, if they weren't new IPs, would need to be adjusted to suit the IP they're apart of.

Ok, I understand your stance but I don't see a difference between Pushmo, Splatoon, or Mario. The characters could exist in either game without looking out of place. That means they don't have distinct styles to me.

 

[RisesRises]

A most accurate notion would be that Nintendo doesn't put enough money in new ip (it includes marketing).
You do realize that among the game you are quoting, one is not not even release, and it's throuh 6 years. They are more, but those are even more ignored by most of us.

Small budget, small marketing.
The problem is on the share of investment, which can't be taken out of the quality question.
More means is alway more potential, though money doesn't enhance creativity.

More means is always positive for the industry when it goes to new ip.

 

[EnergizerFellow]

Unless, by "dudebro", you mean "anything that doesn't fall into Nintendo's current focus on party games, casual games, mini-game collections and their obsession with Hello Kitty-inspired aesthetics".

I very specifically mean games that can be described as "Call of Halo Battlefield #234", "FIFA Madden Calendar Year", and "Grand Theft Asscreed" - i.e. the games the dudebros play and expect to continue playing. Double bonus for any kind of military-themed gritty realism multi-player FPS, basically.

 

[sfried]

Ok, I understand your stance but I don't see a difference between Pushmo, Splatoon, or Mario. The characters could exist in either game without looking out of place. That means they don't have distinct styles to me.

Wait, Splatoon looks like a Mario or Pushmo game? Are we even talking about the same thing?

I don't see Mario games having an urban grit feel to it, nor that kind of "sk8ter" vibe when I see the level design in Pushmo. If you're just trying to use "looks the same" to just mean "colorful" (and even then, it's only due to the paint), then I feel you might need to check your eyes.

Also Kid Icarus Uprising says "Hi!" I definitely had some budget backing me!"

 

[Laughing Banana]

I still can't believe there are still people calling Xenoblade as not a new IP from Nintendo.

I mean, how thick-headed can you possibly be?

 

[Spineker]

^Anihawk gonna Anihawk^^



Third party/ co-developed. Doesn't count for reasons.

They're games you won't be able to get on any other platform except PS4. They may as well be new Sony I.Ps

 

[Chmpocalypse]

I prefer the Wii library over both. Now what? Opinions are mysterious, right?

From someone with a Yoshi avatar? Not really.

 

[DragonSworne]

I think the better question is why are people propping up these low budget, low risk, one off games as "new IPs".

I'm kind of upset that Nintendo will release these types of games but won't give F-Zero and Metroid a new release.

 

[ugoo18]

I think the better question is why are people propping up these low budget, low risk, one off games as "new IPs".

I'm kind of upset that Nintendo will release these types of games but won't give F-Zero and Metroid a new release.

I sure hope you're not labeling Xenoblade of all things as low budget and low risk.

 

[DragonSworne]

I sure hope you're not labeling Xenoblade of all things as low budget and low risk.

I'm not, Xeno<whatever> is a valuable brand for Nintendo that will continue to get future releases in the future. It is a big Nintendo property.

But people keep posting this huge list of games and say "look at all these new IPs!!!". Guess, what, everything Nintendo creates, distributes, and releases is "IP". This includes documents, public statements, images, commercials, print ads, websites, etc. Why aren't people including these in the list of "new IPs"? Because they are irrelevant to what people mean when they say "new IP", just like the majority of the games that make up the list people keep posting.

People want a new brand, a new mascot, a new big budget title, a new headliner, etc.

 

[Kiote]

People can go on complaining til they are blue in the face, but Nintendo has publicly stated that they do not share the same definition of New IP as everyone else does. They do not believe it is necessary or reasonable to create a new character for every new game.

2D Mario, 3D Mario, Mario Galaxy, Mario Party, MarioKart, Mario&Sonic, Mario Golf, Mario Strikers, Paper Mario and Dr. Mario are all individual IPs in Nintendo's opinion.

Making a new staring character for every game that Nintendo makes, and they make a lot of new games, would be a waste of time, money and effort. Nintendo intentionally uses the same characters repeatedly because people love those characters. If they used new characters, there is a good chance no one would pay attention. When they do decide to make a new character, they always go all out to make sure that it has the quality of design that Mario and Zelda have.

All that said, with the one exception of 2D Mario, a formula no one wants to break even if it does get minor tweaks, Nintendo goes out of there way to keep their games fresh. It is very rare that you will get two games from Nintendo, within the same IP, that do not have dramatic shifts in gameplay. Even if the basic mechanics remain in place, they always attempt to shift gameplay styles and keep you on your feet. They do not clone their games every year in the hopes of pulling another $60 out of you for the same experience.

 

[Boss Doggie]

I also stand by the idea that many "new IPs" have a tendency to have this "shiny new wrapper same content" PoV.

Yeah, that's not it.

Unless, by "dudebro", you mean "anything that doesn't fall into Nintendo's current focus on party games, casual games, mini-game collections and their obsession with Hello Kitty-inspired aesthetics".

But one of the many differences between classic Nintendo and "modern" Nintendo is that, back in the 80s and 90s, their internal teams provided diversity by creating a variety of different gameplay styles, themes and aesthetics. Classic Nintendo let you play in the surreal, Disney-style, world of Mario, adventure in the dangerous, Tolkien-inspired, land of Hyrule, explore distant planets in the immersive, Alien-inspired, universe of Metroid, participate in futuristic, adrenaline-filled, races in F-Zero, ride jet-skis and descend snowy slopes, with realistic-looking characters, in Wave Race and 1080 etc.

I don't think that anyone wants Nintendo to make games like Call of Duty and Duke Nukem, but they also don't need to make everything feel like a Saturday morning cartoon. It'd be nice if they let their internal teams make some new core IPs, like F-Zero, as well as some larger-scope games &#8211;with absorbing, full-fledged, 3D worlds&#8211; that introduce new fictional universes like Hyrule and Zebes.

But Nintendo's teams don't do that anymore.

Yeah because when I look at Zelda I am thinking of Hello Kitty. It's like you missed out the complaint of Nintendo that apparently they have too much anime now.

Also casual games is misused nowadays that one could argue that a niche-filled developer is making casual games.

 

[SuperLeviathan]

Why are people using the phrase "IP" when they really mean "franchise"? Dozens of posts here don't make any sense to me.

Stuff like Captain Toad and Mario Maker are definitely part of the larger Mario franchise. They're also both explicitly tied to games in the main series in a way that, say, Dr. Mario or Mario Kart aren't.

But one of the many differences between classic Nintendo and "modern" Nintendo is that, back in the 80s and 90s, their internal teams provided diversity by creating a variety of different gameplay styles, themes and aesthetics. Classic Nintendo let you play in the surreal, Disney-style, world of Mario, adventure in the dangerous, Tolkien-inspired, land of Hyrule, explore distant planets in the immersive, Alien-inspired, universe of Metroid, participate in futuristic, adrenaline-filled, races in F-Zero, ride jet-skis and descend snowy slopes, with realistic-looking characters, in Wave Race and 1080 etc.

I don't think that anyone wants Nintendo to make games like Call of Duty and Duke Nukem, but they also don't need to make everything feel like a Saturday morning cartoon. It'd be nice if they let their internal teams make some new core IPs, like F-Zero, as well as some larger-scope games &#8211;with absorbing, full-fledged, 3D worlds&#8211; that introduce new fictional universes like Hyrule and Zebes.

This, so much this. Even a new cartoony franchise that veers into the psychedelic and surreal (ala Earthbound and some of the trippier Yoshi and Wario games of old) would be welcome.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

It's not that they don't make new IPs, it's that they make new IPs that I'm not interested in. Couldn't care less about Xenoblade or Steel Diver or whatever.

This is the elephant being danced around in this thread. Yes, Nintendo makes new IPs... that don't resonate with the majority of gamers. They exist; no one really gives a shit.

Why is another topic, but it boils down to Nintendo being out of touch in today's industry.

 

[Nostremitus]

Wait, Splatoon looks like a Mario or Pushmo game? Are we even talking about the same thing?

I don't see Mario games having an urban grit feel to it, nor that kind of "sk8ter" vibe when I see the level design in Pushmo. If you're just trying to use "looks the same" to just mean "colorful" (and even then, it's only due to the paint), then I feel you might need to check your eyes.

Also Kid Icarus Uprising says "Hi!" I definitely had some budget backing me!"

I'm talking about artistic direction. If a Pushmo or Mario character were placed in Splatoon, they wouldn't look out of place. Characters from KI:U would look a little off due to the different artistic direction of that game.

Splatoon reminds me a LOT of Mario Sunshine, actually, and not just the paint splatter aspect. It's the art design and lighting I think. The while game reminds me of the Blooper levels.

 

[SuperLeviathan]

I'm confused about Xenoblade. It technically has nothing to do with Xenogears or Xenosaga, but it's the same people (and in the case of Xenosaga the same company) making it, and the games have "thematic" similarities (as per TVtropes and other places).

It's technically a new franchise but owes a debt to the creators' previous games, or is that a complete misinterpretation.

 

[Boss Doggie]

Why are people using the phrase "IP" when they really mean "franchise"? Dozens of posts here don't make any sense to me.

Stuff like Captain Toad and Mario Maker are definitely part of the larger Mario franchise. They're also both explicitly tied to games in the main series in a way that, say, Dr. Mario or Mario Kart aren't.

This, so much this. Even a new cartoony franchise that veers into the psychedelic and surreal (ala Earthbound and some of the trippier Yoshi and Wario games of old) would be welcome.

You talk about misuse/confusion yet you agree on something that does the same thing.

This is the elephant being danced around in this thread. Yes, Nintendo makes new IPs... that don't resonate with the majority of gamers. They exist; no one really gives a shit.

Why is another topic, but it boils down to Nintendo being out of touch in today's industry.

Out of touch or doesn't really care?

 

[DSix]

It's because Nintendo doesn't have a "Rare" anymore.

Nintendo is extremely good at catering to the same people over and over again, they have a severe variety problem.

 

[SuperLeviathan]

You talk about misuse/confusion yet you agree on something that does the same thing.

To be fair, he only mentions the IP thing once towards the end (which I didn't catch). Shion's mostly talking about different aesthetics in his post, and that's the part I agree with.

 

[Dragonseeker]

Right, I get that. But my personal take on this topic is that Nintendo owns some of the most talented development studios in the industry. EAD Tokyo and Retro are amazing at what they do. The fact that Nintendo works with some third party developers doesn't change the fact that Nintendo (i.e. EAD, Retro, Monolith) are not allowed to create new IP's very often.

I guess look at it like this. Say you have a rock band that has been around 30 years, and they made of the greatest music in the genre. They were progressive, distinct. Now they still make good stuff, but it sounds the same as what they were doing 20 years ago. If they release a CD with a bunch of songs that still sound the same, but have one or two songs with a guest singer/band, does that satisfy my desire to see this formerly innovative band attempt something new rather than continue to produce songs that sound the same? Not really.

Even then, I'm talking about my interpretation of "Nintendo doesn't make new IP's anymore." Because I want to see the actual Nintendo try to make a new, awesome franchise.

Please tell me that makes sense?

I get what you are saying, but the problem with your argument is that you act like other companies don't do the same thing. Their IPs are new because they started out later than Nintendo did in gaming and in reality, they are only new in name only. The game play, graphics, storyline are all cliches of other games of their genres.

 

[Ansatz]

It's because Nintendo doesn't have a "Rare" anymore.

Nintendo is extremely good at catering to the same people over and over again, they have a severe variety problem.

That's interesting because all I see on PS4's retail lineup are sports games, sim racers, WRPGs, open world sandbox and TPS/FPS.

Even sub-genres within say TPS are getting more and more homogenized, by sharing the same UI elements, structure and mechanics. The differences between a stealth, RPG or cover based game are barely noticeable anymore.

In a couple of weeks I'll be playing a game using an artstyle based on clay where you control a spherical object indirectly by drawing paths around it using the touch screen. When was the last time you could describe a physical release in this exotic fashion?

 

[RedSwirl]

It's because since arguably 2001, Nintendo hasn't made a new IP that's as influential or groundbreaking as Mario, Zelda, or Pokemon. There hasn't really been one that's a big enough deal to sell systems like Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon do.

The most successful things since have been the Wii brand and Nintendogs, which don't appeal to core gamers.

Part of the issue is when Nintendo makes new games they mostly think about gameplay concepts first. Miyamoto has admitted many times that they often think up gameplay concepts first and then figure out if they have an existing brand that fits it well. A lot of their franchise games from maybe the last 15 years probably could have been new IPs. The gameplay of Donkey Kong Jungle Beat, or Kirby Canvas Curse for instance.

 

[casiopao]

I think the better question is why are people propping up these low budget, low risk, one off games as "new IPs".

I'm kind of upset that Nintendo will release these types of games but won't give F-Zero and Metroid a new release.

Just like how people keep listing Pupetter,Knack and Tearaway as Sony new IP when it is low budget and low risk.

Some like me are also upset on why Sony keep pumping these kind of games but won't release games like Wild Arms and Arc the Lad new title.

 

[NewGame]

Nintendo doesn't make cinematic third person shooters so they are creatively bankrupt.


¯_(&#12484_/¯

 

[EnergizerFellow]

That's interesting because all I see on PS4's retail lineup are sports games, sim racers, WRPGs, open world sandbox and TPS/FPS.

With exception of the WRPGs, that's a list full of nothing but dudebro. And even then, a good chunk of WRPGs are arguably dudebro these days.

Nintendo doesn't make cinematic third person shooters so they are creatively bankrupt.


¯_(&#12484_/¯

If it's not Scotti... dudebro, it's crap!

 

[Neoxon]

I'm confused about Xenoblade. It technically has nothing to do with Xenogears or Xenosaga, but it's the same people (and in the case of Xenosaga the same company) making it, and the games have "thematic" similarities (as per TVtropes and other places).

It's technically a new franchise but owes a debt to the creators' previous games, or is that a complete misinterpretation.

You pretty much summed it up right there. Xenoblade does take inspiration from the other Xeno games, but Xenoblade is its own beast.

 

[Dryk]

We need a version of the Nintendo chalkboard with

"Nintendo should make a new IP that"
<bunch of things crossed out>
"Actually counts"

 

[GenG3000]

We need a version of the Nintendo chalkboard with

"Nintendo should make a new IP that"
<bunch of things crossed out>
"Actually counts"

It won't probably be the gritty FPS / TPS / sandbox that Western gamers want. Nintendo rarely if never have contributed to trends or popular genres with a cookie cutter title. If they feel they have a good idea that's never been done before they will market it in whatever way they see fit (retail, digital, big or small scope, etc.). It's their best asset but also their bane.

 

[AniHawk]

AniHawk, please read this carefully. I, like many others, want the extremely talented studios that are the minds behind Mario, Zelda, GoldenEye, etc. to not be limited to only iterating on the same franchises they have been working on for 10-20 years, but for those awesome teams to attempt to create something completely new and exciting and for Nintendo to try to give it the attention and budget that it takes to normally create a new, major franchise. Please, please stop talking about whether or not an external development team making a game wherein Nintendo owns the IP counts. That is simply not what I have been talking about at any point.

goldeneye was made by a third-party developer who nintendo had very close ties with.

If an external team is able to create a new franchise not tied in any way to an existing Nintendo universe, and that franchise has a decent amount of success, then it kind of counts. It's still not what I or many people want if you actually listen to what we are saying, but it is a reasonable concession. Still, I want to emphasize, Nintendo owned studios - WHO MAKE AMAZING GAMES - are almost entirely prohibited from trying to create wholly new, unique franchises for Nintendo to try to grow into a huge new franchise.

it's not whether or not it counts. if you're talking about intellectual property, it's either the company it belongs to or it isn't. if you're talking nintendo ead, you should be more specific. if you're talking about games generally published by nintendo but sometimes it counts because it's an established partner like hal or game freak, then you need to be really clear on why you need to make such arbitrary borders (more so for yourself really, but also for others).

regarding your assertion that ead, spd, monolithsoft, etc is prohibited from making new things, i think i'm going to need some information to back that up. in the last ten years, there's been at least ten new ips from nintendo ead and ten from monolithsoft/spd/sdd/intelligent systems.

It's like if Disney still only released sequels or spin offs of The Lion King and The Little Mermaid in theaters, and people clamored for something new such as Frozen or The Princess Frog. The fact the Pixar releases Wreck it Ralph or that Disney released a completely new animated movie straight to DVD does not address peoples desire for Disney proper to not make so many sequels but try to make something new.

I don't know that I can be any more clearer here.

disney, not pixar, released wreck-it-ralph. in fact, while pixar was releasing new movies and disney was making sequels to movies in the straight-to-dvd scene (and also putting some of those into theaters), they were also making new films in that time. actually, from 1985 to 2014, the only year that walt disney animation didn't release a new film was in 2006. and then 2011's winnie the pooh was the only film based off an existing property of theirs. are you talking about a hypothetical situation in which disney only released sequels to their catalog of animated films into theaters, and you feel that's comparable to what nintendo has been doing for 20 years?

 

[4Tran]

That's interesting because all I see on PS4's retail lineup are sports games, sim racers, WRPGs, open world sandbox and TPS/FPS.

That must be because you haven't been paying attention. The PS4 has fighting games, platformers, Lego games, board games and indeed the entire gamut of console gaming genres. That's because Sony has been trying to position itself as a console for all audiences, and they've been able to garner support from all the third party publishers.

 

[The Maverick]

With exception of the WRPGs, that's a list full of nothing but dudebro. And even then, a good chunk of WRPGs are arguably dudebro these days.



If it's not Scotti... dudebro, it's crap!

Jesus Christ, I wish there was a ban on the word dude bro. Seriously reduces the level of discourse. And then saying that the majority of Western RPGs are such. How about no.

You talk about misuse/confusion yet you agree on something that does the same thing.


Out of touch or doesn't really care?

What is the difference?

 

[Ecotic]

Looking at the lists on the first page, it's easy to see the problem. The titles are all such small, throwaway, forgettable titles. Nintendo funds or makes new IPs, but nobody remembers them or cared much in the first place. Nintendo doesn't even have faith in them sometimes, Xenoblade Chronicles took years of asking to get localized, the now ancient Electroplankton I remember wasn't even sold to retailers, you had to order it online from the Nintendo Store. Captain Rainbow sold 22,000 units total and was never released outside of Japan. I can't even fathom who greenlights projects like that. There's only a finite amount of company resources.

It's all just another glaring symptom of what Nintendo is nowadays. They don't capture the imagination nor remember how to swing for the fences. 'Solid', 'serviceable', is what you think of them now. Most of those titles in the lists on the first page I'm sure were decent efforts, but not what Nintendo should have been making.

 

[BGBW]

Nintendo doesn't even have faith in them sometimes, Xenoblade Chronicles took years of asking to get localized, the now ancient Electroplankton I remember wasn't even sold to retailers, you had to order it online from the Nintendo Store.

Maybe in the States, but in Europe we got Xenoblade just fine and Electroplankton was available to buy in any store (not that I got it). So basically we've got geography defining what can be considered a "new IP".

 

[timetokill]

Maybe in the States, but in Europe we got Xenoblade just fine and Electroplankton was available to buy in any store (not that I got it). So basically we've got geography defining what can be considered a "new IP".

The list of criteria is ever-expanding!