AshMat Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Yeah cause, you know, Halo is a new franchise and so is PGR. And all the new 360 franchises are incredibly original and revolutionary. Yeah, cause so is Mario, Metroid, Smash Bros, Mario Kart, MArio Strikers. Come on, all consoles have their share of sequels, they all got their fair share of new IPs too.
Hellfire Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Yeah, cause so is Mario, Metroid, Smash Bros, Mario Kart, MArio Strikers.Come on, all consoles have their share of sequels, they all got their fair share of new IPs too. That's kind of my point. They attack Nintendo for doing this, yet all of them do it. At least Nintendo sequels usually have big advances or significant changes.
Caris Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 At least Nintendo sequels usually have big advances or significant changes. Mario Party Mario Party 2 Mario Party 3 Mario Party 4 Mario Party 5 Mario Party 6 Mario Party 7 Mario Party 8
Hellfire Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Mario PartyMario Party 2 Mario Party 3 Mario Party 4 Mario Party 5 Mario Party 6 Mario Party 7 Mario Party 8 Touché (even though those are made by Hudson)
DCK Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Quite frankly, Hellfire has a point, too. Mario Party is the only Nintendo franchise you can criticise for not doing things differently. Usually, however, Nintendo has a way of making games different, moreso than other companies treat their franchises. I'm with Pit in the sense that given they have this level of creativity, they could easily make brand new games all the time. Nintendo is being too careful about this. The basics of Metroid, Mario and Zelda all lay way back in NES era, but this is a Wii we're talking about. I wonder what would happen if Nintendo would show what they can do because, although there are plenty of quality titles, I think that they are holding back on sheer creativity. Many third party ideas (like Zack & Wiki, like Spore, like that game with the flying Pollen) all display much more creative ideas than Nintendo is giving so far, and I think we could expect more from them.
darkjak Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 The problem is that forumites decide to don their bashing blinkers, ignoring reality so that they can complain. Yes, Nintendo are making games like Wii Fit and Big Brain Academy to tap into the wider market, but that doesn't discount titles like Twilight Princess, Corruption, or Galaxy. Nintendo's production of 'hardcore' games is at least on par with its efforts during the GameCube years, and factoring in the less traditional games as well they are making far more titles. In other words, the 'hardcore' are being treated the same as they always have yet feels badly done to simply because they are not Nintendo's sole focus. Perhaps instead of complaining they should give the titles they dismiss out of hand a try; a broader horizon always offers a more pleasant view. Well, actually no. On the GC Nintendo made sure that third party developers would release certain games on their format exclusively. Like Geist, or MGS:TS. Then they let other developers make new parts in some of their best franchises, like F-Zero and Starfox. I'm happy with a few games Nintendo are bringing us, like Zelda TP, Metroid Prime 3, Mario Galaxy, Battalionwars and so on, and I'll in all probability buy MoH:H... But the only REALLY epic core games for the Wii are Zelda and Metroid.
McPhee Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Quite frankly, Hellfire has a point, too. Mario Party is the only Nintendo franchise you can criticise for not doing things differently. Usually, however, Nintendo has a way of making games different, moreso than other companies treat their franchises. Twilight Princess was pretty much the same as every Zelda game that came before it... (im not saying it wasn't good)
jammy2211 Posted November 1, 2007 Author Posted November 1, 2007 Twilight Princess was pretty much the same as every Zelda game that came before it... (im not saying it wasn't good) For me, Ocarina of Time, Majoras Mask and WindWaker were all extremely different. Obviously they had the fundaments that you build the Zelda franchise on, but then the simililarities end there. You could so easily think they're completely different games if you weren't controlling the same guy in a green tunic. However, Twilight Princess was like a clone of OoT. That's what the fans had been screaming they wanted for years though, so what were Nintendo supposed to do? Make two Zelda games? Perhaps one which is like the old one and one which was more different like we normally expect? Oh wait, that's what they did :/.
Cube Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 However, Twilight Princess was like a clone of OoT. That's like saying that Phantom Hourglass was like a clone of Wind Waker...
Hellfire Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Yeah, I mean in OoT you could transform into a wolf, see spirits, use your senses, make special attacks, you had a twilight dimmension, you had motion controls. You also had to collect 30 masks, each with individual abilities, you had 3 days to play, controlled the flow of time, sailed around the seas searching for treasures and controlled the wind. Yep, Zeldas are basically all the same.
Petey Piranah Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Twilight Princess was nothing more than a fan service quick conversion to maximise on the sales of a new platform (at the time). Its not even really a Wii game, so why complain about nothing?
Aimless Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Well, actually no. On the GC Nintendo made sure that third party developers would release certain games on their format exclusively. Like Geist, or MGS:TS. Then they let other developers make new parts in some of their best franchises, like F-Zero and Starfox. None of those came out in the first year though, so it's an unfair comparison. If you compare the Wii to the 'Cube at the same point in its life, the former wins out easily in terms of Nintendo titles. I'm happy with a few games Nintendo are bringing us, like Zelda TP, Metroid Prime 3, Mario Galaxy, Battalionwars and so on, and I'll in all probability buy MoH:H... But the only REALLY epic core games for the Wii are Zelda and Metroid. Which are both Nintendo games. Level your ire at the third-parties if you must, but the first year for every console is rather uninspiring. The PS3 is suffering this at the moment, and the 360 had a rubbish first year; its now impressive catalogue of exclusives shows how things change.
Zechs Merquise Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 You're missing the point Zechs, Pit wants new 'core' franchises. Nintendo hasn't put out too many of those over the last years... The Wii's novelty sort of requires new ideas in the franchises as well. No but the ones it has come up with in the last generation like Pikmin and BWii were great.
DCK Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 No but the ones it has come up with in the last generation like Pikmin and BWii were great.Pikmin 2 was a good game. Battallion Wars is essentially Advance Wars in a 3D jacket, though, hardly a new franchise.
Cube Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 Battallion Wars is essentially Advance Wars in a 3D jacket And with completely different gamepley.
khilafah Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 We've Not Forgotten About the Hardcore Gamer - Nintendo But has the Hardcore Gamer forgotten about Nintendo??
Tphi Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 Mario PartyMario Party 2 Mario Party 3 Mario Party 4 Mario Party 5 Mario Party 6 Mario Party 7 Mario Party 8 Well, er, there was that awesome microphone support.. *cough*
Hellfire Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 And with completely different gamepley. And new name. And characters.
DCK Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 Maybe so, but it was still marketed as a 3D Advance Wars by Nintendo... It shows of how frightful Nintendo is with introducing new franchises, and I'm not sure why they are.
LazyBoy Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 Maybe so, but it was still marketed as a 3D Advance Wars by Nintendo... It shows of how frightful Nintendo is with introducing new franchises, and I'm not sure why they are. Compare the sales of Pikmin to Pokemon and you'll se why. A new IP is a gamble. When the payoff of a gamble is big and you're running out of money, then yeah, place the bet (Square and the first Final Fantasy). But if you're payoff is as high as playing the safe bet (Mario or Zelda) then why gamble? It's common sense. It may not be great for us, but you can't say it isn't understandable.
Pit-Jr Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 Compare the sales of Pikmin to Pokemon and you'll se why. A new IP is a gamble. When the payoff of a gamble is big and you're running out of money, then yeah, place the bet (Square and the first Final Fantasy). But if you're payoff is as high as playing the safe bet (Mario or Zelda) then why gamble? It's common sense. It may not be great for us, but you can't say it isn't understandable. Its definately understandable but it doesnt give them immunity from criticism. After all is said and done, most of us are customers, not shareholders. I want Nintendo to do more than retread old ground with the money i keep funneling to them. And unlike Square during that time period, present-day Nintendo is in NO danger of running out of money.
DCK Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 Compare the sales of Pikmin to Pokemon and you'll se why.Did Pikmin sell bad? Of course it was nowhere near of being near to Pokemon, but it did quite decently didn't it? Anyway, introducing new IPs is the only way forward if they want to have something to fall back on in the future. If they try several times they might create a new Zelda and only profit from it. Besides, Nintendo games are really rare to really flop if the effort made is anywhere half decent.
LazyBoy Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 Its definately understandable but it doesnt give them immunity from criticism. After all is said and done, most of us are customers, not shareholders. I want Nintendo to do more than retread old ground with the money i keep funneling to them. And unlike Square during that time period, present-day Nintendo is in NO danger of running out of money. I agree completely. I want innovation and an orgy of new IPs more than anyone else. But at the end of the day Nintendo doesn't give a shit about you as long as you buy Mario. You're gonna buy Mario right? Catch 22 baby. Did Pikmin sell bad? Of course it was nowhere near of being near to Pokemon, but it did quite decently didn't it? Anyway, introducing new IPs is the only way forward if they want to have something to fall back on in the future. If they try several times they might create a new Zelda and only profit from it. Besides, Nintendo games are really rare to really flop if the effort made is anywhere half decent. Pikmin doesn't have to sell bad. When one figure is bigger than the other which one are they going to go with? And I agree, revitalisation of a game library is completly essential. But Nintendo just bought themselves 5 years with the Wii controller and all the new goodness it delivers. It's Sony and Microsoft who have to start worrying about new IPs. However in my opinion they actually are, and are trying to solve it.
Pit-Jr Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 But at the end of the day Nintendo doesn't give a shit about you as long as you buy Mario. You're gonna buy Mario right? Catch 22 baby. Absolutely! On the subject of MS/Sony, i read an interesting article in this months GI about new IP's in the last 5 years. They define new IP's as ''games that arent sequels, spin-offs, or based on a license'' Total New IPs Since 2002: Console and Handheld Sony: 36 Microsoft:25 Ubisoft: 28 Capcom: 20 Nintendo:17 EA: 13 Midway: 12 Activision: 7 This list in no way indicates game quality but it does highlight Nintendo's reluctance to release many titles outside of the Mushroom Kingdom
Cube Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 Don't Microsoft/Sony publish a lot of games from other companies, though (as in companies not owned by them, or buying out a company after they create the IP)?
Recommended Posts