Support NeoGAF

[correojon]

The difference is in the Nintendo Seal of Quality and the guaranteed attention to detail:

• Darksiders 1 was great, but it had many rough edges.
• I love Okami, but pacing is HORRIBLE and the whole game feels like a tutorial. For all the hate Zelda games get for the hand holding it´s jarring to see Okami get a pass on it. Issun is FAR WORSE than Navi and Fi combined in this regard.
• Dark Siders 2 had progress stopping bugs that the devs couldn´t bother to solve, so if that´s all the respect you show your customers don´t expect that same customers to support your series for 30+ years like Zelda. For comparison, Nintendo asked players to send their savefiles so they could fix them when a game breaking bug was found in SS (which is something I found on the internet as I found no bugs whatsoever in my playthrough). Also the game was very unbalanced, once you got a weapon with the life stealing upgrade all challenge disappeared and some things like the blood gems/stones were crude examples of BAD design:
  -Hey I had the best idea ever, let´s hide these collectibles all over the game!.
  -Do we put them in meaningful locations, hide them intelligently, put them behind cool puzzles or use some kind of logic so the player can find them?
  -Nah, just throw them around so the player just has to move the camera over every little corner of the world to find them.

Dark Souls and Skyrim can´t be compared to Zelda, the series has been focused in puzzles for 20+ years, the first entry stopped being representative long time ago.

As for Mario...there are many great 2D platformers, but I haven´t played any 3D platformer that could be compared to Galaxy 1&2 or even to Mario 64 (though I may be biased on the last one).

 

[Nanashrew]

I hope Nintendo would copy itself on 2D Mario tho , they had a good thing going on in DK 94

Game is so good. I really wish there was a proper sequel. Also that final boss music is still some of the best. Guitar trills in 8-bit, man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNsiX0gKMEU

 

[ibyea]

Now that I think about it I can't think of any recent 3D platformers outside of Mario.

There are a few Zelda clones though. (and no it's not Skyrim or Darksouls since aside from the very thin similarities of being action/adventure they are really different)

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

If you are capable of copying Nintendo well, you are spending so much money that you are gonna really take things in your own direction.

 

[Orniletter]

Agreed. I haven't touched a Zelda game since Twilight Princess on the Wii. Nothing can trump Dark Souls.

So you don't even play the modern titles anymore (literally a decade and 4 mainline game's worth of time), but Dark Souls is better anyway.

Yeah. This thread.

I love Dark Souls too, but for entirely different reasons. Claiming one is better and completely replaces the other is just dumb.

 

[Doctre81]

Huh, I thought darksiders was better than any of the 3d zeldas. I'm probably in a huge minority on that though.

Yes...yes you are.

 

[Celine]

1) Nintendo games whose you are asking other companies to copy the formula are all King-of-the-genre and Nintendo is very good to manage franchises and their transition generation after generation.
Thus it's hard, business-wise, to compete head to head.

2) The genres/type of games in which Nintendo is strong are quite similar in tone and nowadays gravitate toward Nintendo systems, on the other consoles such type of games are in minority therefore there are little financial incentives for publishers to compete with large funding.

In short Nintendo is very good to manage their King-of-the-genre franchises and there are little financial incentives for other publishers to compete head to head in today environments on dedicated game systems.
Even when development costs were much lower (thus less risks) and mascot platform games were very popular competing with Super Mario was difficult (business-wise), now that the market on dedicated game systems is segmentated into Nintendo niche and PS4/Xbox wider portion copying a game formula from the Nintendo niche has even less sense.

 

[nkarafo]

Sonic on Genesis/Mega Drive came very close beating 2D Mario. Although later Mario games were more about exploration and secrets, i still think Sonic got the platforming/controls/physics better.

Then 3D Sanic happened...

I would say that Banjo-Kazzoie came close beating Mario 64 as well, with it's huge levels and excellent level design. But it fell short on controls (nothing beats Mario 64 in this) and it had a bit too much of collecting stuff.

Still, nothing beats Nintendo's Super Metroid. Not even SOTN.

 

[Shuggananas]

skyrim and souls game are like zelda

darksiders better than zelda

Nintendo got brand recognition, great artstyle (well, mostly) and fine tuned gameplay, of course they're hard to copy

 

[JustSomeone]

Mario's and Zelda's genres aren't popular enough for other devs to make games in those genres.

 

[AbandonedTrolley]

The Souls games took over for Zelda, at least they have for me.

Many indies have given us great Metroids, now that Nintendo's lost interest.

I agree with you on Mario however, no one is making decent 2D or 3D platformers.

I'd argue Ubisoft with the Rayman games have been great, but other than those they are certainly lacking.

 

[TeddyShardik]

Well they still finish their games before releasing for one. They're also usually very polished and don't need patches worth the main game's size to work and be fun.

That may sound a bit bitter but especially the latter is a big reason for me. Noone seems to take time and thus money for that level of polish and quality control anymore.

 

[justsomeguy]

Nothing can touch mario kart. I know what the op means.

 

[Iztok Mravlja]

Mario's and Zelda's genres aren't popular enough for other devs to make games in those genres.

They're making Lucky's Tale and that Yooka Layle game, aren't they?
But you're right, big publishers don't take many risks anymore.

I don't get the Souls/Zelda comparisons, in my mind they couldn't be further apart in their concepts.

I think brand recognition plays a big part here - people trust Nintendo to make good Nintendo games, everything else feels cheap (even when it isn't).

 

[Peterc]

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.

Nintendo does have the DNA or holy grail.
You have to understand it before you can clone it.
99.9% of game developers doenst have that.

It's all about the:

gameplay
art
and MUSIC

Nintendo can nail that.

Nintendo isn't that good in scenes/storylines, realistic things.
Nintendo is more like blizzard thinking with a few differents between the two.

Rare did understand it when it worked @ nintendo. But they all leaved afterwards...
Specially Dave wise....


Same for the castlevania games, you can't clone it, if you don't understand it how it works.


Look at other m. It's a big example of what the problem is when other devs are working on it.

 

[Shuggananas]

Look at other m. It's a big example of what the problem is when other devs are working on it.

Yeah about that...

 

[Nanashrew]

Yeah about that...

Well, in context with the rest of the post, I believe they still mean that you have to understand it. Retro clearly does. The Director who worked on the Oracle games and Minish Cap does too and also now works at Nintendo alongside Aonuma.

 

[Mozendo]

Crash Team Racing is still the best Mario Kart imo.

I was the kid that got beat up in elementary school because of statements like these.

 

[Peterc]

Yeah about that...

There are some small things missing in those games.
Like the gameplay for donkey kong freeze could be better, also the music is great but not perfect.
Donkey kong 2 does still have the best gameplay and music.

Metroid prime is almost perfect, but it doesn't yet reach the level of super metroid.
I think a metroid 3d game could even be better than prime. Like nintendo did with mario 2d to 3d.

But Retro understands it.

 

[Peterc]

I was the kid that got beat up in elementary school because of statements like these.

Never played the game so I can't juds.

Still looks unbelievable, that mariokart gameplay could be beaten by this.
Donkey kong racing gameplay wasn't also that great compared to MK.

 

[Shuggananas]

There are some small things missing in those games.
Like the gameplay for donkey kong freeze could be better, also the music is great but not perfect.
Donkey kong 2 does still have the best gameplay and music.

Metroid prime is almost perfect, but it doesn't yet reach the level of super metroid.
I think a metroid 3d game could even be better than prime. Like nintendo did with mario 2d to 3d.

But Retro understands it.

Uh... I can't even man

 

[Greddleok]

Why are people comparing Dark Souls to Zelda? They're not even close to being the same genre, unless you include all 3rd person games.

Souls are much closer to Castlevania type games.

 

[Celine]

Never played the game so I can't juds.

Still looks unbelievable, that mariokart gameplay could be beaten by this.
Donkey kong racing gameplay wasn't also that great compared to MK.

MK in general is debatable, MK64 in specific could be the case.
CTR and DKR were better than MK64.
MK64 had great battle mode.

 

[elhav]

Okami has beaten all of the Zelda games, as far as I'm concerned.

As for 3d platformers..nobody makes them anymore, so Nintendo doesn't have competition. Back in the day you've had a lot of other great 3d platformers from other developers.

2d platformers are quite abundant, and I have played a few that I think are better than the new Mario ones.

Be that as it may, Nintendo makes games that are very well designed with tight controls. They have high standards when it comes to gameplay, more so than many other developers. Doesn't mean other games don't give them a run for their money, and imo they have been surpassed in the past on several occasions, but maybe it's just a matter of taste.

 

[speedpop]

I always felt that a lot of it came down to three things:

a) character movement polish

b) overall design, specifically areas which required attention from the gamer

c) camera perspective


The third point was more due to their push forward from 2D->3D back in the N64 era, but the point still stands that you generally feel an incredible amount of "weight" polish when it comes to moving characters in an EAD game. This was further highlighted in their move to 3D arenas - but they've been pioneering it since Super Mario Bros. on the Famicom/NES.

The second point is more about the attention to design. Anyone can create Point A - run to Point B. But how many developers can create obstacles which are not simple yet not obtuse? I'm looking at you collect-a-thons. That is the universal impact of Nintendo.

To further highlight... it's always humourous that the occasional gamer will voice their dislike for focus groups based on various feedback associated with marketing or shoe-horning products, but Nintendo has been loosely using them since at least the early 1990's with the Super Mario Club.

Okami has beaten all of the Zelda games, as far as I'm concerned..

Seems a bit rough when Okami is known for its repetitiveness. This is something the Zelda strives to avoid with flavour weapon unlocks via dungeons, but of course one can't sing the praises of another when Zelda is all about overworld>dungeon>overworld>etc.

 

[Dee Dah Dave]

Nobody really tries to. They did back in the day with 3D platformers but those slowly died off in favour of shooters. Sigh.

Zelda has never been 'copied'. Except maybe with Okami, that's the only game I can really think of that comes close to matching the formula.

Plus dat Nintendo magic. A mixture of core mechanics, art style, level design, charm and polish. Plus a few other things, it's a hard thing to replicate.

 

[DevilFox]

My take is that no one is even trying to copy them today. They're doing something better and harder: they expand on the basics by taking the best of what they learned.
When they did copy them, in the past, we had games of extremely high quality, same as Nintendo's, but not very different from them or even ambitious.
Today, developers have to deal with new challenges and can take advantage of better technologies to release something that's "more": bigger, more complex, more varied, more fun. Therefore, for example, it's not about simple platforming, it's about taking the platforming and finding a way to add it in a realistic setting, possibly making sense of the environment and respecting the game's world rules, and maybe giving the player the option to shoot at the same time.
The games mentioned so far, such as Batman, Souls games and Darksiders or Uncharted, they all expand on the basics mastered in the 90s and before. They mix platform with shooting, verticality, puzzle solving while trying at the same time to offer a new, interesting setting, story and characters.
Nintendo, on the other hand, like to stay loyal to their formulas, and by now they're pretty much the maximum expert in the field.

 

[Ansatz]

My take is that no one is even trying to copy them today. They're doing something better and harder: they expand on the basics by taking the best of what they learned.
When they did copy them, in the past, we had games of extremely high quality, same as Nintendo's, but not very different from them or even ambitious.
Today, developers have to deal with new challenges and can take advantage of better technologies to release something that's "more": bigger, more complex, more varied, more fun. Therefore, for example, it's not about simple platforming, it's about taking the platforming and finding a way to add it in a realistic setting, possibly making sense of the environment and respecting the game's world rules, and maybe giving the player the option to shoot at the same time.
The games mentioned so far, such as Batman, Souls games and Darksiders or Uncharted, they all expand on the basics mastered in the 90s and before. They mix platform with shooting, verticality, puzzle solving while trying at the same time to offer a new, interesting setting, story and characters.
Nintendo, on the other hand, like to stay loyal to their formulas, and by now they're pretty much the maximum expert in the field.

I get what you're saying here but the end result of developers trying to expand gaming has dumbed down game design.

Games that strive for scope have sacrificed hand-crafted content for copy/paste-y aspects and sometimes their level design is literally randomly generated. I dont see a point in playing through a level that an algorithm created. Open world games are also repetitive in nature, simply because the worlds are too big to fill with meaningful and interesting gameplay opportunities. To keep players engaged they implement various skinner box type elements with addictive qualities. I have yet to play a modern open world game that's fun because the very statement is a contradiction. The Witness acts as the perfect counter example, I mean it took them 7 years to fill that small amount of space with quality and varied gameplay, not to mention all the hidden layers of depth that were mindblowing to discover.

Although I understand the developer's intention, platforming in Assassin's Creed is automatic and brain dead. Imagine if they had actual platforming in the games and every time you fell down because you didn't time a jump correctly you had to start all over again, it would result in constant frustration and tedium due to the sheer scope of the game. None of the climbing or parkouring feels engaging and that's one of the reasons why the games are so incredibly off-putting to me.

I can go on but the point is those games have sacrificed qualities that are the reasons why I play video games, in order to achieve their "ambitious" goals. Nintendo games haven't "evolved" because that would result in compromises in terms of game design.

 

[lukeskymac]

Put it another way. you can clone a quality game, but that doesn't necessary mean the cloned game will be better or match the quality of the game.

See PSASBR

That's not it.

Sony tried repeatedly, from Jak to Puppeteer to LBP to Tearaway etc, but they are not even in the same league at all.

You'd have to be an inane NINTENDO MAGIC fanboy to see those games as copies of anything, they are definitely their own thing. Or did Nintendo get a patent on platformers when I wasn't looking?

Same reason you can't copy Ferrari

Ferraris are more brand than car.

 

[Rhanitan]

The abilities in Dark Souls and Bloodborne are largely tied to the weapons as the weapons have different movesets that really constitute the abilities of the game. You can miss weapons.

The puzzles are definitely more limited. They are the shortcuts and the keys to areas that are optional and in some cases special items or tactics that simplify fights (e.g., music box and Gascoigne, or staying close to Micolash to prevent projectiles.)

Even so, they're there and it seems just plain wrong to say that there are no unlockable abilities or puzzles. Unless of course you want to refine what a "real ability" or "real puzzle" is in such a way that it only applies to Zelda.

Putting a key in a door or pulling levers are not puzzles. Their purpose is to block your path so that you are forced to go through more enemies. They aren't designed to make you think very hard about how you should be using them. There are only a couple of actual puzzles in dark souls like redirecting the boulder in sens fortress and equipping the abyss ring which are extremly simple and not the kind of stuff people play dark souls for.
The equipment in dark souls isn't comparable to equipment in zelda because they all serve the same function in the game even if the moveset is different. You can go through the whole game and see everything that any other player can by using your default equipment. Battle tactics are not puzzles either otherwise you could call every action game a puzzle game.

 

[punkmaggit]

The Souls games took over for Zelda, at least they have for me.

Many indies have given us great Metroids, now that Nintendo's lost interest.

Both great points. The Souls games encompass the feeling of the very first Legend of Zelda on the NES. And Axiom Verge is one of the best Metroid titles in years. Fans absolutely doing what Nintendo won't.

 

[Mihos]

Nothing can touch mario kart. I know what the op means.

I will take Sonic Transformed over Mario Kart any day.

 

[jblank83]

Game is so good. I really wish there was a proper sequel. Also that final boss music is still some of the best. Guitar trills in 8-bit, man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNsiX0gKMEU

Mario v DK on GBA is an excellent sequel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f0PaAqj2PI

 

[DiracSea]

I'd say it comes down to this: Copying gameplay is hard.

What does it mean to copy Zelda, Mario or Metroid? It means to copy the clever gameplay mechanics that make these games so great.

That is why I don't believe people who say "Darksiders is the better Zelda" to be Zelda-fans. You might prefer Darksiders, but all that means is that you don't like Zelda-games as much. Same goes for Dark Souls-fans.

It is easier to copy games from other developers, because most of them base their core concept on strong and prominent story telling and audiovisually supported atmosphere. What do you need to copy Assassin's Creed, GTA5 or Witcher 3? Money, first and foremost. What do you need to copy Mario Galaxy? The right guys that come up with those unique, special level designs that no budget in the world can force into existence.

But tbh I think we'd rather need a thread asking "Why refuses Nintendo do copy other games?" Because if we confirm that Nintendo-games excel at gameplay, what they pale at (with rare exceptions) is a modern presentation.

 

[Platy]

Game is so good. I really wish there was a proper sequel. Also that final boss music is still some of the best. Guitar trills in 8-bit, man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNsiX0gKMEU

The GBA one is pretty good in the first 2 or 3 worlds before it turns into toy mini mario thing =/

 

[Sami+]

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'd argue Zelda was surpassed in its style of play a decade ago, and still hasn't caught up.

 

[Robert at Zeboyd Games]

I don't get the Souls/Zelda comparisons, in my mind they couldn't be further apart in their concepts.

Souls isn't very similar to modern Zelda, but there are definite similarities to the original Legend of Zelda (focus on exploration & combat, minimal direct story, mix of freedom & linearity, they both even have the whole fake walls thing). As the Zelda series continued, the puzzle & story elements became more and more prominent.

 

[James93]

Its because nintendo is amazing at making nintendo games.

 

[Kai Dracon]

What Nintendo is good at, that others have trouble copying, is polish. Nintendo's best games are slick as a sheet of glass, with gameplay that has no rough edges. Nintendo still treats making games like designing toys, that should appear appealing and usable from all angles, in all hands. Nintendo, on a good day, makes games that are extremely pleasing to just play.

Plenty of other games can be compared favorably to a given Nintendo title in a more general sense. However a lot of it comes down to a matter of aesthetics and taste. Most games which successfully differentiate themselves from Nintendo titles without coming off as lesser copies, do so in terms of theme, art direction, and content - not absolute quality of play mechanics or the player's experience picking up the controller and pushing buttons.

It's the polish aspect that's hard to equal. It's not that Nintendo is unique, a few other developers can hit their level of polish and sheer enjoyment of interaction, like Blizzard. It just seems most developers regardless of size and funding, either don't value that kind of polish as much, or don't know how to achieve it.

 

[georly]

i think it comes down to two things

a) people who want mario, zelda, etc are buying nintendo systems and buying those games. they don't really care about buying clones

b) nintendo has a certain level of quality and charm to their titles that a lot of developers can't quite nail down. easiest example for me is to compare the physics in games like super mario bros to games like sonic, giana sisters, etc

I guess this is me, but at least I give copies/clones a fair shake. I tried my best to like darksiders, but it lacked whatever the je ne sais quoi it is that makes zelda so appealing to me. It may have followed the formula, but it lacked the 'world,' 'charm,' and 'feel' that zelda games have that I like.

There have been other 3D platformers that I enjoyed, like banjo, jak, and some of crash 2, but 3D mario games typically beat them out. I can't really say the same for 2D platformers - I really only enjoy playing mario ones, and I don't know why.

I'd argue Zelda was surpassed in its style of play a decade ago, and still hasn't caught up.

I'd argue this game is nothing like zelda, but that's just me. (For the record, this game is amazing and I love it, but it's certainly not an iteration or copy of the zelda formula in any way).

 

[Platy]

I'd argue Zelda was surpassed in its style of play a decade ago, and still hasn't caught up.

This game is more zelda than dark souls, if only because the original pitch was "a zelda game consisting only of bosses" =P

But still misses lots of the puzzle feel, new itens used in puzzles and other stuff that zelda games are famous for

 

[Kholdy]

Hmmm...

3D Zelda: Brave Fencer Musashi and Okami

I could play Brave Fencer Musashi right now and have a blast (If it was released on US PSN...Argh!)

 

[Nabbis]

Dunno about Zelda, but i did find Spyro to be far more interesting than Mario 64. I think it has something to do with the modern industry not really giving a crap about platformers or "light" adventure rpgs like Zelda.

 

[Lupin the Third]

I'd argue this game is nothing like zelda, but that's just me. (For the record, this game is amazing and I love it, but it's certainly not an iteration or copy of the zelda formula in any way).

Yeah, SotC is a fantasy version of Punch-Out!! more than it is a Zelda clone.

 

[Deleted member 752119]

I think its more that few try because:

1. Those types of games/art styles don't tend to sell well on the other platforms (see Rayman, Tearaway, Crash and Spryo and Jak and Daxter dying off etc.).

2. Too many Nintendo fans only buy first party games, so few sell well on Nintendo consoles as well.

 

[Xbob42]

I'm a bit of weird inbetween here, personally.

I actually never saw the Darksiders/Zelda comparisons until they were pointed out to me repeatedly, the game just didn't feel Zelda-like at all to me, and I had no idea that's what it was going for. Even after it was pointed out, I felt like the similarities were superficial at best. Maybe it was the art style and how different the combat felt. I enjoyed the game, but I still don't think of it at Zeldaesque.

Dark Souls on the other hand... I originally played Demons Souls around release, but found it really annoying, so it was a while before I went back to the series (I'm still not a fan of the hub world in that game. As you can see, I'm quite fickle.) and by a while, I mean Dark Souls. Zelda didn't enter my head through the first playthrough, but on the second, it absolutely did.

I guess what I mean by that is that, to me, the spirit of Zelda has never been about overworld->dungeon->town->overworld->dungeon, etc. The fact that it has any decipherable formula at all is actually its biggest weakness to me these days. I tried to think about what made the original games so exciting, and I'm sure this has been talked about to death, but it was that sense of exploration. Of something you'd never really quite done before, about secrets all over the place, of potential, of changing the way you see games.

Of course, that alone makes at least the original visions very similar, but you've still got gameplay to talk about, and as I've said over the past few years, I think Dark Souls is what Zelda COULD have turned into at some point had it kept evolving instead of stagnating. No, that's not to say it should be dark and gritty like people circa 2002 message boards. I mean bringing back that sense of wonder, of challenge. The combat evolved. Sure, you could make comparisons to any third-person hack 'n slash and say it's similar to Zelda, but something about Dark Souls just feels much closer to the series.

I'm starting to ramble here, let me try and get back on track. Dark Souls takes the concept of overworld and dungeons and turns it into a much more natural feeling world, but also one that's more streamlined. There's no big fields to run across, just a series of long, winding mazes. Even when you're not in a dungeon, it kind of feels like you are. And there's always a big boss waiting at the end for you. I guess at some point a lot of games are similar enough to what makes Zelda familiar these days that these comparisons don't mean much, so all we have to go on is "feel."

And how I feel is that Zelda continually lets me down, and while I'm absolutely suffering from Souls fatigue (Moreso as the games feel that much more formulaic, losing their sense of wonder and discovery.) I think the Souls games have done right by me thus far. Though I hope this is the last really similar one we get. A lot of the reasons I fell in love with Souls are starting to fade. They feel too similar.

Anyway, that's my take on Souls vs Zelda, it may not be a direct comparison, but there's a lineage, a spirit there, that I think very much harkens back to the first couple of Zelda titles. Dangerous, wild worlds with fantastical enemies and secrets lurking everywhere.

As for Mario... Well, in the 3D space they're largely untouched, but that's, I think, more down to them not having any competition. No one really makes 3D platformers. And barely anyone makes 2D ones, but I actually prefer Super Meat Boy to just about any Mario game. I mean, Super Mario World is sublime, and Super Mario Bros. 3 I like even better (More down to the worlds than the gameplay, World definitely plays better.) but Super Meat Boy just got its claws in me. Again, it's not really a direct comparison... then again, maybe that's a good thing. Copying game elements is cool, copying games wholesale is pretty lame. I don't want you to copy Zelda, because even if it's just as good, that's not what I come to Zelda for.

 

[dEvAnGeL]

You can't copy the soul these games have

 

[KJRS_1993]

Uncopiable? Other games have long surpassed what Nintendo is making nowadays. I get quite annoyed by Nintendo's huge lack of imagination and creativity nowadays and how they get a free pass for it.

"What's new in this game is that Mario can change colours with his hammer!".
I'd love a Zelda game with the same sense of exploration and dangers as the Souls series.

 

[ASIS]

I've yet to see a Pikmin clone.

I really want more Pikmin

 

[OrbitalBeard]

Uncopiable? Other games have long surpassed what Nintendo is making nowadays. I get quite annoyed by Nintendo's huge lack of imagination and creativity nowadays and how they get a free pass for it.

"What's new in this game is that Mario can change colours with his hammer!".
I'd love a Zelda game with the same sense of exploration and dangers as the Souls series.

They aren't exactly getting a free pass for their games over the past few years. Have you seen Wii U sales?

Not that your statement is wholly accurate, mind you. Splatoon proves that Nintendo has not been surpassed by other developers, though it is true that a number of studios have caught up to Nintendo in recent years, quality-wise.

As an aside, I adore Souls games but I'm starting to see why the fans annoy those outside of their community. Zelda does not need to become like Dark Souls. Christ.