Support NeoGAF

[Glix]

even the first game from 87 on the nec felt more like an action rpg version of final fantasy than zelda to me



if they were copying a modern nintendo game they'd have plenty of leeway to put in DLC, microtransactions, and multiplayer experiences

Yeah, I guess you're right. I dunno.

It's interesting tho. Look at what you get when Nin "copies" everyone else.

Splatoon.

Its just so different and awesome. It shows how differently they do things. I guess my very poorly explained point is that if you take that and reverse it, it kinda shows why no one else can do what they do.

 

[LegendofLex]

I never understood the comparison between skyrim and zelda, they are completely different games. It's like saying mario kart outdid gran turismo, "look at its sales"

Only on a deeper mechanical level.

On a broad, mass-market audience level, they're both medieval fantasy games with large/open overworlds, dungeons, equipment/items, battles, puzzles, and treasures. Choosing between the two is a question of which one you think expresses that high-level concept more to your liking.

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

Weird premise because Mario was basically copied for two generations straight--8 and 16 bit generations.

all in all it feels like it is a post 2005 thread premise.

 

[nampad]

This started as a Zelda thread. But look, Zelda and Mario have never been even close to beaten. Zelda is basically a simple action game with all the beats of an RPG at a much faster rate. Mario is pretty much the basic foundation of any platformer.

Yet no one can come close. Zelda I shouldn't think is too difficult to copy or 'try on' but honestly whose come close? Meanwhile modern 3D platforming non-Mario is represented by Knack.

It just seems odd seeing the rest of the industry around this one standard bearer whilst Nintendo exists so far away on its own.

Someone hasn't played Knack but wants to do a stupid comparison...

Disclaimer: I think Knack is super mediocre but it is not really a platformer.

 

[Monty Mole]

Mario and Zelda games always sell well - indeed they almost single-handedly prop up Nintendo's platforms when necessary. But for some reason third party publishers think that these types of games are dead and everyone just wants shooters, sports, western-style RPGs. Baffling.

 

[EloquentM]

Why would anyone "Copy" the formula? Even if it was well done it would not sell in todays climate unless it had the name "Zelda" in the title.

I mean you answered your own question. I was simply saying Skyrim and dark souls aren't good answers in the context of OPs question.

 

[Nanashrew]

They're not immune from copies, it's that very few even succeed. Many do try and copy, but don't nail the finer and important details or try to make it all that unique from what they're copying. The copies we do remember being good did that.

We have an entire mascot war in the 90's but no one remembers a majority of them because they weren't good or it just felt like everything else and got lost among everything else. That's also how we'll remember most shooters of the previous generation. Some good, others felt like everything else and barely worth remembering.

 

[Venfayth]

Yeah, I disagree in modern times. Nintendo is trying new things with both games but nothing is really hitting in a way that makes me think they're still the king. Mario and Zelda are still fantastic series, but if you look at their latest iterations they really don't hold sway the same way they used to.

Nintendo also always had a certain level of quality control and shine to their games, I don't anybody can try to claim that over them though. There's a very distinct Nintendo feel that makes their games feel comfortable, for the most part.

Which kinda makes it sad how frustratingly obtuse Nintendo can be with various things, such as their obsession with code numbers for multiplayer. Nintendo is really a balanced company. Their great games have to compete against their frustratingly poor hardware and account decisions. Wonder what it would be like if they finally hit everything out of the park.

I literally get upset hearing or seeing any game come out on the 3DS at this point. The resolution on the 3DS is unacceptable for modern games, especially after playing a Vita. Anyone trying to make a game with 3D models is restricted to these tiny chunky monstrosities with bad textures. Anything with any sense of scale is immediately wing clipped by it. They need a new handheld with a real resolution.

 

[ninjablade]

as a huge zelda fan, batman is similar to zelda if you wanna get the riddle trophies, its zelda on a whole different level. now platformers, nintendo is still king by far. the problem why nobody copies nintendo is cause they still manage to sell games that are kid friendly and a unpopular genre wise, something which most companies can't do or find too risky.

 

[SMattera]

Rayman Origins is probably the greatest 2D platformer of all time.

 

[LegendofLex]

I mean you answered your own question. I was simply saying Skyrim and dark souls aren't good answers in the context of OPs question.

This was the metric set by the OP for what a game would need to try to be to compete with Zelda:

Zelda is basically a simple action game with all the beats of an RPG at a much faster rate.

Skyrim definitely edges more this way than past Elder Scrolls titles.

Dark Souls is basically exactly this.

Are there differences? Sure. But genres aren't homogenous; they're diverse.

 

[Krathoon]

Platformers are pretty niche right now.

That is why you see the indie developers working on them. There is some pretty good stuff out there.

 

[EloquentM]

This was the metric set by the OP for what a game would need to try to be to compete with Zelda:



Skyrim definitely edges more this way than past Elder Scrolls titles.

Dark Souls is basically exactly this.

Are there differences? Sure. But genres aren't homogenous; they're diverse.

Spoiler

i only read the title

*runs*

 

[digita1alchemy]

Short answer: unique company culture.

 

[Fawk Nin]

Only on a deeper mechanical level.

On a broad, mass-market audience level, they're both medieval fantasy games with large/open overworlds, dungeons, equipment/items, battles, puzzles, and treasures. Choosing between the two is a question of which one you think expresses that high-level concept more to your liking.

Fair enough but I personally think you don't have to go that deep to see the differences are fairly obvious. I see what you're saying regarding the fantasy set up though.

 

[OrbitalBeard]

Darksiders was the best Zelda game last gen.
Rayman Origins / Legends were the best 2D platformers.

I may not disagree more with a post this year.

as a huge zelda fan, batman is similar to zelda if you wanna get the riddle trophies, its zelda on a whole different level. now platforms, nintendo is still king by far.

Damn, nevermind.

 

[KingV]

The only thing souls and Zelda have in common is z-lock on based combat.

The entire profession system and layout and way the games are structured is completely different.

Zelda focuses on puzzle dungeons and progression through gaining new items and Dark souls Is basically combat + RPG + old school style repetition and "learning" the sections.

 

[MrBadger]

Let me know when someone copies Super Metroid's formula but makes an equal/better game out of it.

Seriously, I want to know.

 

[Abyssal God]

No one wants to put the time, effort, and money to make them. They are probably right as they would probably not sell that well.

 

[Chastten]

I have no clue if they are objectively better but to a lot of people, me included, Nintendo's games just have a certain charm that most other games lack.

I enjoyed Rayman Origins a lot, and it's certainly a great game with inventive level design and tight controls, but it misses that little something extra. Maybe it's the weird characters or whatever, but it's not a game that attracts a lot of people. Mario is.

 

[Caronte]

No one's trying to copy them.

 

[Krathoon]

Nintendo games have heart.

 

[MrBadger]

Rayman Origins is probably the greatest 2D platformer of all time.

As much as I really enjoyed that game, nah.

 

[NinjamicWZ]

There's so many great Zeldalikes. It's been my favorite subgenre since Legend of Oasis/Story of Thor 2 on Saturn in 1996. Link to the Past is one of my all time favorite games, stays in top 10 forever, but Legend of Oasis has been my #2 behind Symphony of the Night since forever. As far as 3D Zelda does, Soul Reaver was doing what OoT did within a few months of it's release. I love almost every great Metroid and Metroidvania game out there too.

There's just certain flavors of people who only accept one rendition of an archetype and shun everything else. Nintendo-or-GTFO purists reminds me of east coast hip-hop dismissing west coast hip-hop in the early 90's, and then southern hip-hop in the mid and late 90's... to the point where groups like Outkast were boo'd on stage at the Source Awards in 1995 while accepting the best newcomer award for the ATLiens album. As far as popularity goes, it really just comes down to mindshare and exposure. Nintendo ip aren''t just quality, they're cultural phenomenons that permeated so many people's lives... relatively obscure, also-ran games didn't and ultimately have almost zero chance to, with very few exceptions to the rule.

 

[Aranjah]

Their games aren't uncopiable.

Spoiler

It's just that others suck at it.

Gotta agree with this. By and large, AAA developers haven't really tried. They've been too busy doing other things. And by and large indie devs that have tried don't have the resources to put a "Nintendo" level of polish on their attempts. A huge part of both Mario and Zelda games is level design. Nintendo has lots more money to throw seasoned vet level designers and years' worth of time at polishing the levels/dungeons/areas until they're satisfied. I would venture to say that the average indie developer/team doesn't have this luxury.

That and brand recognition. I feel like you could take a pre-existing Mario game and just reskin all the art/music and totally rebrand it to a new IP with an unknown cast of characters, without changing the gameplay at all, and pass it off as a new game (legality aside; that's not the point of the exercise), and it wouldn't get as much attention/acclaim as the Mario game would, just because it's "not Mario."

Edit: I'm not saying attempts by other teams are not good or even great, I'm just positing reasons that could keep them from reaching the same level of long-lasting praise by huge groups of people that the Nintendo versions get.

 

[LegendofLex]

Fair enough but I personally think you don't have to go that deep to see the differences are fairly obvious. I see what you're saying regarding the fantasy set up though.

The entire profession system and layout and way the games are structured is completely different.

Zelda focuses on puzzle dungeons and progression through gaining new items and Dark souls Is basically combat + RPG + old school style repetition and "learning" the sections.

I would hope there are fairly obvious differences between pretty much every game franchise in existence, and that each game franchise has its own unique flavor and gameplay hooks.

That doesn't suddenly mean they aren't competing. Skyrim is today in the gamer community consciousness exactly what The Legend of Zelda was in the 80s gamer community consciousness. Zelda was basically a Nintendo version of what Ultima was before it.

They're fighting over the same kind of experience: the superior (see: more popular) approach to large-world fantasy adventure. They may have different priorities about what makes that kind of game good. We should expect this. But they're still often executing on similar ideas: Skyrim, with its overworld + dungeon structure; Dark Souls, with its combat mechanics.

 

[Samus4145]

Let me know when someone copies Super Metroid's formula but makes an equal/better game out of it.

Seriously, I want to know.

Have you played Acxiom Verge?

 

[jonno394]

In recent years I dont think there have been enough attempts to copy Nintendo titles, but those that have managed to are as follows:

Sonic and Allstars racing Transformed - in my opinion, the best kart racer I have played since Diddy Kong Racing on the n64

Darksiders/Okami - Both great attempts at the full 3D Zelda formula.

South Park: The Stick of Truth - the game is very much Paper Mario in the South Park universe. Sublime

I want to see more games in the above styles.

 

[OrbitalBeard]

Have you played Acxiom Verge?

I personally didn't find Axiom Verge to be equal to or better than Super Metroid, though I enjoyed it.

 

[Glorified G]

You should play more games.

Nintendo dominates 3D platforming because nobody else makes them. Knack is not a platformer.

This thread should have been closed after this post.

 

[Krathoon]

In recent years I dont think there have been enough attempts to copy Nintendo titles, but those that have managed to are as follows:

Sonic and Allstars racing Transformed - in my opinion, the best kart racer I have played since Diddy Kong Racing on the n64

Darksiders/Okami - Both great attempts at the full 3D Zelda formula.

South Park: The Stick of Truth - the game is very much Paper Mario in the South Park universe. Sublime

I want to see more games in the above styles.

Dang it. Now I am going to have to check out Sonic and Allstars racing Transformed.

 

[Bear Force One]

Have you played Acxiom Verge?

Exactly. Since Nintendo hates Metroid I'm glad someone is doing it right.

 

[redcrayon]

This started as a Zelda thread. But look, Zelda and Mario have never been even close to beaten. Zelda is basically a simple action game with all the beats of an RPG at a much faster rate. Mario is pretty much the basic foundation of any platformer.

Yet no one can come close. Zelda I shouldn't think is too difficult to copy or 'try on' but honestly whose come close? Meanwhile modern 3D platforming non-Mario is represented by Knack.

It just seems odd seeing the rest of the industry around this one standard bearer whilst Nintendo exists so far away on its own.

I don't think Zelda contains 'all the beats of an rpg at a much faster rate.'

The 3D Zeldas clock in at 50 hours+ these days, and the dungeons are generally more complex than the corridors of both the more popular AAA western and Japanese rpgs. Despite that complexity, the use of hub rooms and interlocking puzzles makes them seem much more simple than they are as you advance through them, but really it's just good puzzle/game design guiding you forward and reducing backtracking. I think that's why Souls is getting mentioned here, where most rpgs have you killing stuff and filling up xp bars for progression rather than physically opening the way forward. The 'puzzles' in Skyrim's dungeons are so pathetic as to be pointless, where a puzzle with a handful of potential trial-and-error solutions has somehow thwarted adventurers for centuries. That doesn't mean that Skyrim isn't fantastic at what it does best, I must have spent hundreds of hours just 'living' in that world, whereas Zelda always compels me to advance and finish the story.

The commonly-listed closer games to Zelda (Okami, Alundra, Beyond Good & Evil, Darksiders) all echo those interlocking puzzles far more than the xp bars and swathes of combat encounters that make up most rpgs.

 

[Mysterious]

They have culture.

 

[thomasmahler]

Cause Nintendo's designers are just very, very, very, very good at what they're doing.

 

[Nanashrew]

Also gotta agree on the 3D Mario stuff. I'd be completely okay if they made one more new IP that was a 3D platformer with similar budget to Mario. Mario is literally all I got in that realm and I gotta wait like once per generation.

 

[SMattera]

As much as I really enjoyed that game, nah.

Even if you disagree, would you at least say it's better than any 2D platformer Nintendo has put out since Yoshi's Island?

The NSMB games, while obviously influencing Rayman with the multiplayer aspect, are just so sterile.

As for 3D platformers, Galaxy and Galaxy 2 are definitely the best, but in the late 90s/early 00s, Nintendo had a lot of competition and much of it was better. Banjo-Kazooie, for example, being a much better game than Mario 64.

 

[cm osi]

alundra is better than most of the zeldas

 

[ar4757]

Don't agree at all....sorry. Give me souls over anything nintendo has done for years.

Beaten at what they do best, is what he means

 

[Bear Force One]

They have culture.

That doesn't mean anything.

 

[_machine]

They're not uncopyable, but there are for example two clear elements as to why they are successful on market that doesn't seem to be that enticing for others:
-Brand and especially brand loyalty, they have a lot of pull in terms of marketing just because of the IP and loyalty to it
-Resources, they do the games very well, because they can afford to iterate for a very long time (partly due to budget, partly due to less technical complexity compared to most AAA) and have the staff gain expertise for those specific genres and titles (their employee churn is minimal)

 

[Vital Tundra]

Nintendo just has the talent, and doesn't let business compromise their games. If they need to delay a game, they will. Stuff like that is what makes Nintendo do stand out for me.

 

[LegendofLex]

I don't think Zelda contains 'all the beats of an rpg at a much faster rate.'

This is almost verbatim how the first Zelda game was marketed and designed.

Actual Nintendo marketing for the original Legend of Zelda:

"This game is so special, we even packed it in gold. What's so different? It has the fast-action you'd expect from an arcade hit, along with all the depth and advanced roll(sic) playing of personal computer games. The best of both worlds!"

Zelda was originally basically a simplified RPG without visible stats.

The overworld + dungeon idea was lifted wholesale out of computer RPGs.
The game's core mechanics involve equipping different kinds of gear that you pick up from dungeons/shops.
You grind for money to buy better equipment.
You get upgrades to boost your health, armor, weapon power, and magic power.
You can buy potions to restore your life/magic.
Different enemies are weak against different kinds of weapons.

The main difference is that the battles weren't defined mostly by stats but by arcade-like action gameplay.

If you want some more insight into how deeply Zelda's design was influenced by RPGs, take a look at this:

https://books.google.com/books?id=G...MAA#v=onepage&q=miyamoto zelda ultima&f=false

(link to a search result, let me know if it doesn't appear for you)

 

[TheJoRu]

Nintendo-games aren't really uncopiable. I mean, you look at studios like Retro with their DKC-games and Next Level Games with Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon (for example), and they are in terms of feel and function in many ways indistinguishable from the games they make at EAD in Japan. If you work with the same philosophies of function first and you do that really well it's not impossible at all.

Obviously working directly with Nintendo-producers and on Nintendo IP helps a lot, but in its essence it's just a way of thinking about design. It's not specific to a director or a team, or ultimately the company. I think when you look at games that are obviously heavily influenced by Nintendo-games they tend to copy concepts rather than the actual development philosophy, which is more proof of misguided priorities (if you want to copy them because you want to make as good a game as they do, and not copy because they made a Kart-racer that sold well and you want in on that) rather than evidence of Nintendo-like games being impossible to make. Maybe the finer details of what that is may be hard to grasp unless you actually are part of that company culture, but I don't see why a talented studio would not be able to replicate something similar.

Ultimately, though, I don't think most developers are talented enough, and those who are want to (as they should) have their own culture and way of thinking rather than try so hard to do exactly what another company does.

it sure is selling consoles

It's not that they're immune to being copied, it's that nobody wants to copy them.

The Wii U isn't exactly flying off of shelves.

 

[Gen X]

Why copy them when you can make games that are better?

 

[00ich]

This started as a Zelda thread. But look, Zelda and Mario have never been even close to beaten. Zelda is basically a simple action game with all the beats of an RPG at a much faster rate. Mario is pretty much the basic foundation of any platformer.

Yet no one can come close. Zelda I shouldn't think is too difficult to copy or 'try on' but honestly whose come close? Meanwhile modern 3D platforming non-Mario is represented by Knack.

It just seems odd seeing the rest of the industry around this one standard bearer whilst Nintendo exists so far away on its own.

Today no one can afford to make Mario or Zelda at a remotely comparable budget. The games are, without the legacy that grants Mario and Zelda special attention, pretty much impossible to sell at a full price.

There have been supposedly great 2D platformers with kid friendly licences on GBA for example. No teenanger or adult cared, I forgot the titles too.

 

[redcrayon]

alundra is better than most of the zeldas

Considering how many games are in the series, there's at least half a dozen Zelda games that are better than most of the Zeldas too.

I like Alundra, it's a great game (outside of the jumping puzzles where it's hard to judge where you will land) but it's way below LA, LTTP, OOT and several others for me.

 

[maxcriden]

it sure is selling consoles

Your username is deliciously ironic.

 

[Lomax]

We need more Zelda clones. I keep hoping it will be the next indie trend, and there's been a couple, but we need more. Lord knows we've had enough indie platformers to last a lifetime.

 

[redcrayon]

Today no one can afford to make Mario or Zelda at a remotely comparable budget. The games are, without the legacy that grants Mario and Zelda special attention, pretty much impossible to sell at a full price.

There have been supposedly great 2D platformers with kid friendly licences on GBA for example. No teenanger or adult cared, I forgot the titles too.

Also, home console Zelda's get what, five years of development to sell a few million copies? It's important to Nintendo as a brand as it props up lots of other stuff (it's a highly visable and recognisable, critically acclaimed series, sells tons of merchandise etc), but few other publishers would see it as worth the investment without the sheer brand power that the name has.