NINTENDO and Fanservice

[Burny]

Just have to comment on something I stumbled on further up:

 

A CoD-beater from Bioware would've been interesting. Even if they'd make a modern military shooter, it would still be a Bioware game and Bioware would undoubtedly have their own spin on things.v Just like if Nintendo were to make a GT-beater, I wouldn't actually want them to have real racetracks, Instead I'd like their levels to be very scenic, sort of how they are in Mariokart or the older Need for Speed games.

 

Seriously, you're studying game development? I sincerely hope not all of you people think in terms of "beaters" to this game concept or that game concept. Otherwise within a few years, large scale game productions might suffer from having even less variation than they already do.

 

Why the heck would Bioware give a damn about beating CoD when their whole focus is on making games with elaborate and branched stories? Why would Nintendo give a damn about beating Gran Turismo, when their whole focus is on making accessible games with abstract but very fine tuned mechanics? Even less, as they work with very limited hardware, which clashes with the basic requirements for a good simulation in the context of the current hardware landscape.

 

Saying, that you want to beat their game, is like a declaration of bankruptcy in terms of creativity. It's like saying: "Our game shall be like their game, only better". Why would anyone do that, as long as they've got their own unique designs to work with?

 

Provided, in the simulation space, that's the only way to distinguish your game from competitors, but true simulations are a niche in the large scale of things.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Burny

[darkjak]

I think Nintendo could use a bit more fan-interaction, but shouldn't ever take the opinion "hardcore fans" seriously. Like people said, those guys can't come up with new ideas, and shoot down originality whenever they can.

I'm fine with original ideas. But when Nintendo start abusing loved franchises rather than just making an evolved version, then that pisses me off. Wind Waker would've been fine, if they didn't try to market it as a Zelda game!

And then we have purely lame stuff like Wii Music which shouldn't even be released.

 

 

1. Your opinion =/= the majority's opinion. You're the only Nintendo fan I've seen that keeps clamouring for a realistic driver.

Back in the N64 days, a week didn't go by without Nintendo magazines getting letters with people asking if there'd be a GT-beater for the N64. And in every single preview or review of a realistic looking racing game, magazines commented that the N64 lacked a good racer.

Since then, many Nintendo fans have stopped being Nintendo fans, quite simply because the games they were expecting didn't happen.

 

2. They launched Wii Music once. They don't "keep doing it". Also, they brought back Kirby, Donkey Kong and they keep evolving the Excite series, but you don't care, right?

Do you really consider Excitebots an evolution over Excitetrucks? For gods sake, it's not original, it's just a rehash of Excitetrucks with pwetty wobots in it.

 

Declining quality of a series =/= Nintendo not listening to its fans

I also disagree on Zelda's quality declining, but that's besides the point.

Well yeah, if Nintendo were listening to their fans they'd know that New Zelda= Best Game EVAH!

1. You obviously don't know enough about Pokémon and/or the Oracle games if you just said that.

 

2. Spirit Tracks is awesome, you don't go dismissing it like that. And even if you think it is, it's still the finest adventure game on the DS, so you're kinda burying your own point, here.

Yes. They brought out multiple games instead of just launching one game. Hence it's like Pokémon.

 

Why do you ignore the games that didn't make those mistakes?

Oh, right they were handheld...

What games didn't make those mistakes?

 

I love the fact that you keep dismissing certain games in a series, that happened to please a lot of fans, but you keep saying it's stupid because it's not exactly what you liked.

Like what? When it comes to for example the portable Zeldas, I've not heard that much positive being said about them.

 

That might be, but asking for Nintendo to monopolize the genres is a bit unreasonable.

 

...just because a company ventures into other genres doesn't mean they will come out amazing, like you're asking. Is Sega GT better than Gran Turismo? Is Sonic Adventure on par with Super Mario 64? Did Virtua Fighter triumph over Tekken, or the other way around?

What about Sega's FPS...wait, I mean, Sega's collectible monsters RPG...no, it was their Kart gam...Argh!

Some argue that SA is as good as SM64. I personally, along with a lot of other people prefer Virtua Fighter over Tekken. And for the time Sega GT was a good evolution over Gran Turismo (although in turn Sega GT looked dated as soon as GT3 came out). Sega didn't need to bring out their own FPS, because the DC got all the latest and greatest FPS games. But even in spite of that, they brought out Outtrigger. Also, there was a monster collecting game in Sonic Adventure.

 

 

They felt they could do something good with the motion thing. They were right.

They never felt they could do a good racing sim, though. Otherwise, we would've seen it by now.

You're talking like Nintendo was just one team. Nintendo have lots of teams, and in case they don't think they have people who could make a good sim, then they can recruit people that they do know are able to pull it off.

Point is, you can't just ask them to churn out an awesome new IP, creativity doesn't work like that. Even if your opinion was in the majority, Nintendo couldn't answer the pleads, because they simply couldn't make the game they were being asked for.

One of my teachers has constantly said one thing: game developing is 5% creativity and 95% work. If you have good management only the budget decides how good the game comes out. Creativity is not actually a necessity. Why did Duke Nukem Forever take so long to get finished? Bad manegement.

 

When you're a small company, you can't afford to make AAA games and hence you develop something original that hopefully will catch peoples eyes. However, most people do want MORE and BETTER. Of course, no two games are alike, because the team that develops it naturally has their own style. I'm focusing on being a level designer and my levels are unique, just like anyone elses.

 

2. "No risking, no eating" (or so our saying goes) The reason they came out with awesome games in the past was because they tried something new. And to my knowledge, none of the games you criticised pissed you off for doing "same old, same old". If anything, it just shows they listened to criticism, and never made the same mistake twice.

Of course. But as I've previously stated: why won't Nintendo start recruiting a buckload of people? They have the financial resources for sure, and they do seem to be unable to pump out the games they should.

...And you got that from the trailer?

Actually no. But nothing indicated that that game would be easier. The toony graphics actually showed Nintendo were more aiming towards kids (not saying WW actually was childish, just that it was received that way and probably marketed that way as well).

 

 

Seriously, you're studying game development? I sincerely hope not all of you people think in terms of "beaters" to this game concept or that game concept. Otherwise within a few years, large scale game productions might suffer from having even less variation than they already do.

We all have original ideas of our own. And we're all pretty certain we'll never be allowed to make any of them.

There are two things you have to take in to consideration

Why the heck would Bioware give a damn about beating CoD when their whole focus is on making games with elaborate and branched stories? Why would Nintendo give a damn about beating Gran Turismo, when their whole focus is on making accessible games with abstract but very fine tuned mechanics? Even less, as they work with very limited hardware, which clashes with the basic requirements for a good simulation in the context of the current hardware landscape.

What the heck prevents BW from doing exactly that: a modern military shooter with elaborate and branched stories. I for one would be thrilled, as I think that the stories in CoD aren't the slightest bit interresting. That said, the people at BW like to do their own thing.

Nintendo should make a GT beater to start winning back the core and because that'll make the Wii more appealing to more people.

Further more, Gran Turismo is not a simulator, no matter what the games slogan is. It's Need for Speed with over a thousand cars and no cop chases.

Saying, that you want to beat their game, is like a declaration of bankruptcy in terms of creativity. It's like saying: "Our game shall be like their game, only better". Why would anyone do that, as long as they've got their own unique designs to work with?

Because you're wrong. Just because I want to develop a military shooter for example, doesen't mean that I have to make it like CoD. By better I don't mean that it's got better graphics or more levels. It can be that the entire fundamentals of the game have changed. Like instead of taking place in the middle east, it'll take place on the Falklands during the 80's. Instead of being a corridor shooter, the levels will be much more open. And instead of being a lonely elite soldier, you're just a regular private dependant on his platoon.

 

Provided, in the simulation space, that's the only way to distinguish your game from competitors, but true simulations are a niche in the large scale of things.

I've previously said that GT isn't a simulator. However, games that pretend to be simulators, like GT and Forza do sell really well, so it's hardly a niche. GT (along with FFVII and a few others) is what essentially made the PS1 a success.

[Shorty]

Following a de-rail of this topic a little, it's daft to compare GT and Forza to the likes of Waverace, Mario Kart and F-Zero. That's like comparing Rogue Squadron to Microsoft Flight Simulator. Although they all involve racing, they're really not in the same genre. GT is for car enthusiasts, who want to get an idea of what real racing is like. They're not meant to have crazy fun crashes or weapons or anything like that.

 

Whether you think the quality of GT pales in comparison to the fun arcade racers you love is irrelevant. The point darkjak was originally making is that this is gap in the market which Nintendo has never addressed.

 

Back on topic, would it be wrong of me to suggest that this is less Nintendo's way, than engaging and appealing to the fans the way the OP suggests is more of a Western way? You could say the same comments about Square-Enix, Capcom, Konami, Team Ninja and - until recently - Sega. Maybe this is part of why Japanese game developers are no longer the market leaders they once were.

[Jonnas]

I'm fine with original ideas. But when Nintendo start abusing loved franchises rather than just making an evolved version, then that pisses me off. Wind Waker would've been fine, if they didn't try to market it as a Zelda game!

And then we have purely lame stuff like Wii Music which shouldn't even be released.

 

Speak for yourself. Wind Waker was a brilliant Zelda game as far as I'm concerned.

As far as evolving the series, I'd love them to try something different with the dungeon formula, but only Majora's Mask was close. Dungeon formula aside, everything else has been evolving fine, I think. I mean, Twilight Princess was a bit of a step back, but Skyward Sword seems to be anything but.

 

As for Wii Music, I don't see why it shouldn't have been released. Yeah, it wasn't successful, but you couldn't know that before release. Let's face it, any argument that can be made as to why Wii Music shouldn't have been done can be applied to a dozen of games that went on to be successful.

 

Do you really consider Excitebots an evolution over Excitetrucks? For gods sake, it's not original, it's just a rehash of Excitetrucks with pwetty wobots in it.

 

Now, I haven't played ExciteBots, but from what I've seen, it has much more content than Excitetruck, and much zanier style, which means, yes, it's an evolution, because evolution isn't just about "do the same, but better", but also "see how many different approaches can this concept handle". If it wasn't, there wouldn't be a Metroid Prime, and Metroid wouldn't have evolved beyond 2D. There wouldn't be a Wind Waker or Donkey Kong Country, either.

 

Well yeah, if Nintendo were listening to their fans they'd know that New Zelda= Best Game EVAH!

 

You missed my point: Nintendo can't just snap their fingers and come up with a new Zelda that'll be universally accepted as the best evah. They came up with Wind Waker, which is the best evah for me, but not for you. And Twilight Princess is the best evah for some, but not for me.

A series can't be perfect because someone wills it to be.

 

Yes. They brought out multiple games instead of just launching one game. Hence it's like Pokémon.

 

*facepalm*

 

The point in different versions in Pokémon is that you'll have a good excuse to trade with your friends, to form a community around the games and the collection aspect. The games are identical, aside from a few minor differences that motivate you to seek another version to complete the pokédex.

 

The point (the original one, anyway) behind the Oracle games was to create an epic adventure, spanning 3 different, distinct lands, with the connection between the 3 being that there was some underlying conspiracy uniting the 3 different plots.

The number was reduced to 2, but the point remained. Each game has their own distinct plot, independent from the other one, each with their own villain, world, bosses, dungeons, items, races, etc. Connecting both games will only fill the missing piece in the plot(s), and offer you another final boss (and also a bunch of minor stuff, like two different characters from different games knowing each other, but that's irrelevant)

 

So, no, their connectivity is nothing alike. Comparing the Oracles to Pokémon is like comparing Halo to Metroid.

 

What games didn't make those mistakes?

 

Like what? When it comes to for example the portable Zeldas, I've not heard that much positive being said about them.

 

Ah, so you didn't actually play them. For the record, the portable games use midis as well (though expecting otherwise would be silly), and the lack of voice acting is a bit of a Zelda trademark (not even Smash Bros. gives them lines). I can't see them breaking away from that.

 

The portable games do provide well made, explorable worlds, instead of pretending to be huge while actually inexplorable. In fact, these worlds are bigger then they look, complete with a "central town" where most sidequests happen (unlike in TP, where barely anything happens in either town)

And I am including the GB and GBA games.

 

The Oracle games are tightly done games, each of them separately being worth the price of a single game, Minish Cap is pretty much devoid of flaws, Phantom Hourglass was a good introduction to a touch-screen based adventure, but Spirit Tracks perfected it in every way (though some people prefer the boat to the railtracks)

 

But the most important thing is: you shouldn't be badmouthing games you never played. Just because someone (and it had to be someone, because most reviews praise these games like there's no tomorrow) told you they're mediocre, you shouldn't take that as fact, much less use it as argument.

 

You're talking like Nintendo was just one team. Nintendo have lots of teams, and in case they don't think they have people who could make a good sim, then they can recruit people that they do know are able to pull it off.

 

I concede this point. They could fund a western team to do it for them.

 

But could they do this at the time? Finding some western team who wanted to do a realistic simulator and give them a better offer than other companies? Or can they do it now, when it isn't nearly as important, that is, when the sim driving fans are already in other platforms, anyway?

 

One of my teachers has constantly said one thing: game developing is 5% creativity and 95% work. If you have good management only the budget decides how good the game comes out. Creativity is not actually a necessity. Why did Duke Nukem Forever take so long to get finished? Bad manegement.

 

...Watch'you talking about, Willis? Creativity creates the game's concept, without creativity, no concept. No concept, no budget or management will save you if you're just told to "churn something out".

 

You're right that development is 5% creativity, because you spend more time and effort giving life to the concept than you do envisioning it, but those 5% are still part of the whole. If Nintendo can't find a studio willing to do a racing sim, no (good) racing sim will come out.

 

When you're a small company, you can't afford to make AAA games and hence you develop something original that hopefully will catch peoples eyes. However, most people do want MORE and BETTER. Of course, no two games are alike, because the team that develops it naturally has their own style. I'm focusing on being a level designer and my levels are unique, just like anyone elses.

 

More and better of the original concept, right? Because more of and better than a random AAA game you're thinking of is such a creative rut. You strive to compete with others, not to BE like others.

 

Actually no. But nothing indicated that that game would be easier. The toony graphics actually showed Nintendo were more aiming towards kids (not saying WW actually was childish, just that it was received that way and probably marketed that way as well).

 

Nothing indicated the game would be harder, either. And there are so many things wrong with the rest of that paragraph, I won't even answer it.

 

 

But Shorty's right, this is getting a bit off-topic. Let's just come to the conclusion that I think Nintendo's fan interaction could be better, so could the connection with western (especially European) audiences, but otherwise, they're doing fine, while you think that Nintendo is wasting their potential by not reaching for every sort of audience.

[Adthegreat]

I get the feeling that this thread has the highest words per post ratio on this whole forum

Not that I'm complaining, there are some great discussions.