Retro_Link

Watching the video again, everything also looks kind of generic and boring at this stage... from the logo, to the 'main characters'... these guardians of the city, that look like very secondary characters you'd find in a Star Wars or Mass Effect game; they don't have the same coolness/presence of Master Chief at this stage. Also regarding the city... have they learnt nothing from Majora's Mask! :p also wouldn't it always be in partial shade. With the Space Ship, I guess the first game in this series is very Earth based, and then towards the end... once this Orb 'wakes up' as I assume it will, you'll venture out into space (Halo 4 has an orb thing too :p), where the other games will be largely based. There's that solar system style image @ 0:15. Voice over narrative guy is terrible.

I just had the thought that maybe Infinity is the name of the Xbox 'Always on' Feature... as I've read that Destiny requires an 'Always On' connection or something. Although don't BT have Infinity Broadband... so don't know if it would be stepping on that.

It was a lot more enjoyable than Lylat Wars IMO! :p

Don't know if this was seen/leaked from an upcoming Destiny video or what, but anyway. You could imagine Microsoft doing an advertising campaign where the 8 is rotated into the Infinity logo I suppose. Though it seems quite a formal/business message for a games console.

Ah maybe that's the project I heard about... though could that have been a code name for early work on Darksiders III maybe? I think I probably should give them a go, and probably will. According to IGN's review the sequel really steps up significantly towards the end, so at least it should end on a good note! Just a bit of a shame to play a series that might not have a future. Buy it Nintendo!

Yeah it's a bit crazy, I think it spent 70hrs on it or something! :p Still, I did pretty much enjoy every single one of them, but it's quite a bit to ask.

Tempted to give the series ago, the first game is £3.99 and the sequel £7.99 on the Playstation Store, so at that price I think I might at least try the original. It really is a shame that Nintendo or another developer didn't get their hands on the franchise or Vigil themselves; rumours are that Vigil had been working on Darksiders III and had some incredible looking stuff to show for it. Judging by the art design for the first two games, you can only imagine what a next gen game might have looked like!

Why aren't they doing both of these within one Mario RPG franchise though?... sure fans would complain now because both those series are long established, but back when they were both conceived there must have been the option to have either created a new IP from one, or attach it to another franchise. Actually for Nintendo I think it is relatively simple at least. Nintendo could have an instant hit on it's hands with 'Smash Bros Kart' for example. However, that maybe has too much potential and could actually overshadow Mario Kart. However, I would argue that Rare did 'make a racing series that can come up and rival Mario Kart' in just one single instalment with Diddy Kong Racing. It can be done. And that didn't even have Donkey Kong in it, it had Diddy Kong and a whole host of entirely new characters! But look at how fondly it's remembered! Nintendo could do the same [and with the DK brand too if they wanted]. Yes whatever this second racer was might not instantly have the same draw and worldwide recognition as a Mario Kart... but not every game Nintendo puts out has too! It's equally important to stop a franchise getting stale; Mario Kart is also another series which fans are getting somewhat tired of. How about a Starfox racer, which takes the Arwing/Landmaster/BlueMarine vehicle concept, and has tracks which transverse Space/Sky/Land/Underwater. It would be awesome to be racing through space, and then suddenly dive bomb straight down through a planets atmosphere and straight into the ocean, and then you jump out on to land etc... Or how about Nintendo put the money behind a proper Pokémon racer where you pick from a human character in the series (Ash, Misty Brock, Oak, Team Rocket... whoever else there's been in the series since I stopped watching), and ride on the back of Pokémon, again across tracks of land/sky/sea, or tracks with allow for all like DKR. IMO that could be an instant smash hit! Maybe this is just me being selfish... but to keep their fans interested?Mario Galaxy isn't the same game as Mario 64 was, that series has evolved significantly with each console. Yes this is partly because it's often the series used to showcases the new hardware... but why can't other series do this? Do you remember when we were all dreaming about what Paper Mario on the 3DS might be when it was first announced. How you might use the slider and switch from 2D to 3D for puzzles. OK maybe this wasn't achievable I don't know... but I don't really see what Paper Mario 3DS did for the series. It didn't really take advantage of the extra power or capabilities of the hardware. How about trading stickers through street pass at the very least to unlock new areas in the game. I don't know if you've said it out right, but you're saying it's alright for Mario to be used over and over in so many games because they are different genre's. I get that. But the over reliance on the Mario brand is tiresome IMO. Of course it would, because that's a long established franchise, and one which was built on Mario. You couldn't take the Mario out of Mario Kart without stopping the franchise. What you could do however is when creating a new concept, not apply the Mario World to it in the first place. Did I do that? How do you compare them? Mario isn't a brand. What is it you think consumers know they are getting when they see the PlayStation brand?... is there something? And if so, how is it different to whatever consumers might know what they are getting with the Nintendo brand name? Surely then the Nintendo name should be able to sell a New IP. Nintendo used to have the 'Nintendo Seal of Quality'... if you saw the name Nintendo, you knew the product would be fantastic, and that was enough for all of their franchises back in the NES/SNES days to sell. People saw the Nintendo name associated to a game and therefore they bought F-Zero, Ice Climbers, Metroid, Kid Icarus etc... It didn't have to be Mario. Maybe that is something which has been lost over time. Consumers these days associate the Mario name with Quality, and not the Nintendo name itself? --- @Jonnas Mario Sunshine didn't really try and do anything! It was a laughable attempt, with absolutely no plot and terrible voice over work... you can't compare it seriously to anything. With the Mario name, Nintendo could seriously aim for Pixar levels of quality if they wanted too. It also didn't help that Sunshine took place outside of the Mushroom Kingdom where all the charm and the characters of the Mario universe are.

Ah yes, I'd say you've got the best third of the game still ahead of you! Only gets better and better story wise until it's finished.

Well you should have persevered with it the firs time! :p It's fantastic!! Where are you up to?

@Fierce_LiNk, why not see what you make of the post I replied to Serebii with as well as I expended there. I don't quite understand what you're saying here?... are you saying it's OK to do Mario Galaxy 2, because it carried over and expanded upon the ideas used by Galaxy 1 and went on to be one of the best games of the generation? If so you could say the same about Uncharted 2. But I don't really see what this has to do with anything. What other games does Final Fantasy attach it's name to in the same way? I'm actually pretty stunned that you're happy to just see Nintendo use Mario over and over. You can't suddenly compare the Playstation brand to the Mario franchise, because Nintendo has the Nintendo name to put to thing to sell it's products in the same way Sony has the Playstation brand. Are you saying the Nintendo brand isn't strong enough to sell games therefore they need to use Mario? That's not the case. Nintendo are over relying on Mario, there's no two ways about it. Sony is releasing new IP left, right and centre... they don't know how well they will sell, but they're still doing it. So in actuality they had to progress with out him and they've done so. No I used that as an example. There's no reason why two different Mario RPG's needed to have been created in the first place; one of them could have been applied to a different franchise or a new IP. And why not?... Because heaven forbid they try and do something different in a Mario game? Like make it into a beautiful Pixar style adventure, as well as it being all about the gameplay the series is known for. The Ratchet and Clank series manages to combine the two... Mario could do it even better. I loved the Mario World Cartoon and seeing the adventures in the Mushroom Kingdom! :p

And yet Sony is constantly taking chances on New IP. And why don't they sell well?... maybe Nintendo needs to push them more and dedicate more time to them. Why have two Mario RPG's?... Why not integrate the story and humour from the Mario&Luigi series into the main Mario Home Console games?... by doing so wouldn't you make the main series even stronger, perhaps increasing it's sales, and at the same time free up the Mario&Luigi developers to work on something new. [as an example] Why release half-asses games based on other franchises like Donkey Kong Barrel Blast/Kirby's Air Race?... It devalues the property in the general public's eyes. Both looked like they needed longer in development/are hampered by their control scheme... ... Why not develop a second Nintendo racing series as strong as Mario Kart, like Diddy Kong Racing was, and then alternate their releases, creating less monotony, and a different experience year on year. Also maybe the likes of Skyward Sword underperformed because of Nintendo's reluctance to develop the franchise, in line with other games on other console around it. OK Nintendo now say they have realised this and will be addressing it, but it's two Zelda's later than it should be. And maybe the constant Mario's wouldn't be as bad if Nintendo would take risks with them either... if anything they feel like they're being dumbed down. Why wasn't the last Paper Mario something as creative as Tearaway for example?...

@Fierce_LiNk Well Nintendo themselves fell into the 'more than one flagship title' themselves with Galaxy on the Wii... who knows if that hadn't had a console cycle the length of the 360/PS3 we wouldn't have had Mario Galaxy 3 as well; I actually think we probably would have done. Both Sony and Microsoft had to sustain those console for a greater time than Nintendo did the Wii, so I don't think seeing 3 Halo's or Uncharted is unreasonable. OK those 17 Mario games in 3 years are different genre's, but having 17 games with Mario in over 3 years still sounds like a lot to me, it sounds like an over-reliance on one franchise... [if we apply the same ratio back to 2001 when the first Halo came out, that would be 68 Mario games, to Halo's 8! :p] ... Why do they have to be Mario games? Why does the 'Paper' [Mario] series have to be confined to just Mario, why not expand it to other franchises? Or when making a new Nintendo RPG series, or series in general, why not set it on the Starfox/Metroid/F-Zero universe, or better yet a new IP? Why do we have 2 different Mario RPG series? The likes of Paper Mario, Mario & Luigi, Mario vs Donkey Kong, are largely series that only really appeals to us Nintendo fans and not the casual NSMB market. They don't set the sales chart on fire. So why not give the Nintendo fans some differentiation. Why are Nintendo applying Mario to their games in both the hardcore and casual market? WiiFit/WiiSports/BrainTraining... we're clearly looking for very different things from our new IP's. I enjoy those games, but they don't fill the gap in the market left by Nintendo's character franchises, the likes of which Sony are delivering hand over fist.

@Fierce_LiNk... How is 8 Halo games in 12 years the same as 17 Mario games in 3? Uncharted is 4 games in 7 years.... 3 were full on Home Console games and 1 was a full on Handheld game... ... If that was the way Nintendo treated Mario games, wouldn't that be far better? If over a 7 year console cycle (if it had lasted as long as the PS3) the Wii had had Mario Galaxy 1, 2 and 3 and the 3DS had Super Mario 3D Land... and not loads of Mario spin-off/side series instead... I think that more focused/refined approach would have been far better. And give plenty of time for other franchises between. Also with Sony, you may say 3 Uncharted's on the PS3 is quite a few, however, they were also putting out and developing new IP's at the same time, something Nintendo's First Party studios haven't done for a long time. Also, if Sony follow the trend, there might be a lesser reliance of Uncharted for the PS4; where as the overreliance on Mario has been building since the Gamecube.

I'd say Crash Bandicoot was... and yet Sony haven't even had the need to use him on the PS3!... their original mascot! Or for the recent generation take Sackboy's use across the PS3/Vita. Also regarding Master Chief/Nathan Drake, I'm sure there are other genre's they could apply them too (it doesn't have to follow the Mario spin-off games formula)... 2D platformer, Side scrolling shoot'em up, Tower defence, Pinball, Light Gun shooter, strategy, puzzle etc.

Maybe he's the Mascot (not sure); but I'd still say Drake was the 'face of the PS3'. Either way then they've successfully had more than one, or never have to rely on just one.

I think you're right in that I am looking for something different as I get older, I'm wanting more new experiences, more new IP's/franchises... which I think is why I appreciate so much what Sony has done this generation. I don't really see the point in listing games the Wii had that the Gamecube didn't, because you could do the same the other way round; the important point is that there seem to be an increasing amount of Mario games from the Gamecube onwards; a trend that only seems to be getting stronger as we move on into 2013. --- Also... Master Chief is the face of Xbox, we haven't had 17 games set in the Halo universe over the last 3 years. And Sony have successfully been able to transition between consoles without an over-reliance on one mascot. Crash Bandicoot (PS), Solid Snake (PS2), Nathan Drake (PS3)... There's no real reason Nintendo have to rely so heavily on Mario all the time, or if they do, they shouldn't have, as they are in the fortunate position of having so many widely recognisable characters and franchises.

@Fierce_LiNk, OK well for me I do find it an issue. You didn't highlight the important part of my post about the Gamecube in that it didn't feel like I was being overwhelmed with Mario... well actually it did a bit towards the end with the likes of Mario Baseball etc... but by then we were in the last year of the console and you've built up a nice collection/backlog of games to play. The NES, SNES, N64 and Gamecube had far more games based on other Nintendo franchises than we've had in recent years. Another factor is probably that it's been building and building... You like to highlight the Gamecube as being almost, if not as bad. Well OK, but when it's the start of a situation, you probably do somewhat overlook it. But when that situation then continues through on to the Wii/DS/WiiU/3DS... seemingly growing more and more in frequency, it's then you notice it far more and it becomes an issue with people. If it had been confined to one console and then rectified/the balance re-adjusted fine. But 'The Mario Epidemic' just seems to be getting worse, with no signs of slowing... And that's not something I personally want to see or feel when I consider whether to buy a Wii U or not. Moving forward I want to feel like I'm buying a Nintendo box, and not a Mario box.

It's true Mario games do sell for Nintendo and obviously they have to take this into account. However, it didn't seem to matter to them/we didn't have this situation on the NES, SNES, N64 or Gamecube... all those consoles seemed to have a very well balanced distribution of Nintendo franchises. Now whether that was actually the case if you go back and look at what games were released I don't know, but the important thing was that's how it felt. It felt like a wide range of franchises being offered to us, something for everyone, and frequently too. Diversity. So something has got skewed somewhere. They were willing to put those games out back then... And that was even in a time when they weren't interspersed with NSMB games to bring the really high sales/money in! OK, we're in a different financial climate now, and Nintendo maybe does have to pick and choose more... but lets not fall under the assumption that Nintendo are not sat on a huge money pot! With franchises like NSMB and Pokémon Nintendo can fund other projects, they can buy other developers and properties. If they want to just carry on developing Mario and Zelda in house, why not hand out their other franchises to some other developers more, like they've done and in the past. For me personally, Nintendo need to get this balance back if they're going to keep me as a fan.

Looks crazy!

The issue for me is not that Mario is in a lot of games, it's that they make up a large majority of the games Nintendo are releasing. 17 Mario related games in 3 years sounds ridiculous to me! Why not have these spread out over 6 years and give some other Nintendo franchises a look. Also they need to look at which Mario games they are releasing when. Why wait 10 years for a new Luigi's Mansion, and yet have 2 NSBM games released within the same year for example.

What's the advantage of being able to offer say... 'Pay this much a year and you can stream all you want' over 'Pay this much a year and you can download all you want from PSN'? Also would it conflict with Plus in any way?

You're forgetting DKCR 3DS [/OHHHHHHH]

Dog one is somewhat your friend/companion though right?