Topic: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?

[Spak-Spang]

Pokemon is gaming perfection...which is why it is hard to challenge the formula.  Tweak it yes, but changing it is hard.

Everything from the limited move sets for Pokemon and sacrificing some moves for others to the turn based game play of the game.  To the Pokemon themselves and such are so carefully crafted it is hard to change that...yet the basic structure of the game is stale, even if the game is still fun.

Everyone wants a Pokemon MMO, but usually MMOs need action based gameplay and not turn based.  I guess that gets tricky with the basic structure of the game.  So I am not sure how to change or reboot Pokemon at all.

[alegoicoe]

Starfox comes to mind, maybe even Platinum   can take a stab at it

[nickmitch]

The only thing that's coming to mind that might qualify is Pokémon. I don't know if I necessary want a complete erasure of everything and starting anew from the ground up, but this series has just gotten too convoluted and formulaic for my taste. When I have felt like replaying a Pokémon game, I instead played the next newest one in the series, that's how samey they are to me. I've never liked any of the new stuff they added since Gold/Silver, such as the EV/IV stuff, natures, abilities, etc. I'd like to see the series made simpler and more user-friendly. I'd also like to see more done with the story, I think there's a lot of interesting things they could do with this world, but it's always about simply becoming a champion because it's the cool thing to do, with a little bit of random bad guys or legendary origins thrown in here or there, which is usually stupid.

Now that said, I haven't played Black/White yet, and of course X/Y is due out soon. So I can't speak on those, no idea if they are getting closer to what I want.

Honestly, BW/B2W2 do a LOT more with the story than the other games. In BW, you become the champion because the bad guy is trying to become the champion, and you want to stop that from happening. In B2/W2, I almost felt like getting badges and the like was completely secondary to moving through the story. Like, the game was all story and you earned badges because why the hell not. So, it might be worth a look for you, even if core mechanics haven't been altered.

Everyone wants a Pokemon MMO, but usually MMOs need action based gameplay and not turn based.  I guess that gets tricky with the basic structure of the game.  So I am not sure how to change or reboot Pokemon at all.

Honestly, I think a Pokemon MMO would suck. Number one reason: People. Playing Pokemon with your friends is great it's like playing Halo or CoD. Playing Pokemon with "people" would be more like playing CoD or Halo online. I know Nintendo would somehow keep out the racial slurs and dicks (both figurative and literal), but you're still gonna run into people with all level 100 Arceus (or other legendary) teams, FEAR Pokemon, and dudes that just IV breed/EV train/level grind the best teams and aren't fun to play against. Regular Poke-Joes wouldn't really fit it. It'd turn into the competitive scene, which has pretty large barriers to entry.

[alegoicoe]

Golden Sun reboot for WiiU. I have played the GBA games but lost interest in the series after the second installment. A good comeback would be welcomed.

[Plugabugz]

Lets just turn them all on their head entirely.

Mario Wind Waker (the art style)
Zelda Galaxy (Zelda platforming elements in the style of the Galaxy series)
Star Fox Prime (this one is obvious)

Please.

[Adrock]

Wait, how are we defining the word "reboot?" In terms of videogames, there are two off the top of my head: story and gameplay.

In terms of story, every Nintendo IP that Nintendo created in the 80s that they still attempt an ongoing series plot line could use a reboot. That means, Zelda and Metroid, not Mario (since the whole "Save the Princess" thing is more of an in-joke now). Kid Icarus Uprising was practically a reboot. It's almost the Metal Gear Solid of the series where it continues the story, but practically ignores everything about it except for quick and dirty plot points. It also has the benefit of being MIA for nearly 20 years which is 20 years not needing to retcon things.

Earthbound is essentially the only Nintendo franchise that intelligently continued its story and we can thank Shigesato Itoi for penning each game. Even then, the series is over, its story very neatly wrapped up. The problem with Nintendo's older franchises is that they were created when plots were basically a few screens of text. When they brought back a villain, no one really cared back then. Once technology allowed more freedom, they were tasked with coming up with explanations for things they never thought they needed before. In Zelda, I prefer the whole each-game-is-the-same-legend-retold-for-new-generations theory than what Nintendo actually came up with which is the biggest mindfuck ever. For my own sanity, I pretend there is no timeline because the plotholes are glaring and annoying when I think about them.

With Metroid, I think the plot works better if we pretend the Prime series exists within its own separate universe like Yoshio Sakamoto seems to. It also work better if Other M was ignored because Fusion is still a better Metroid 4.

In terms of gameplay, I think it's hard to change it without making the games feel completely foreign. At that point, why even reboot a series? Just create a new one. For example, a Metroid reboot where Samus collects guns and ammo instead of having an arm cannon while mowing through waves of enemies is distinctly not Metroid anymore. If Nintendo were to reboot any series, start with the core of the gameplay, be mindful of its tone, and expand it from there. Very few Nintendo IPs require a total gameplay reboot. Kid Icarus Uprising was. Outside of shooting arrows and limited flight, it has next to nothing in common with its predecessors. Nintendo's major franchises like Zelda, Metroid, Mario etc. have pretty good foundations in terms of gameplay. I wouldn't want to see everything thrown out just to feel new.

What I would like to see is Nintendo challenging their own formulas. What if a boss dropped out of the sky or emerged from the ground right in the middle of Hyrule Field while you thought you were simply headed to a new location to collect the next plot coupon? What if Zelda actually died instead of her coming back inexplicably in the 11th hour of Twilight Princess? Those kind of surprises keep players on their toes. I don't think Nintendo really needs a reboot for these things to happen, but I don't think they need to avoid one either. It depends on what they want to do with it. Nintendo has been bending the rules a lot. There are cameras and robots and trains in Hyrule. A reboot would allow Nintendo to settle on what they want a series to be.

If Nintendo were to reboot Mach Rider or Ice Climbers, there's very little there to build off of in a modern context. They would probably need a Kid Icarus Uprising style upgrade.

I still advocate survival horror Ice Climbers. And I'd turn Star Fox into a comedy... with Jason Bateman as the voice of Fox and Bryan Cranston as Andross. Hmm, I was joking when I started typing that, but now I actually don't think that's a terrible idea.

[Mop it up]

Everything from the limited move sets for Pokemon and sacrificing some moves for others to the turn based game play of the game.  To the Pokemon themselves and such are so carefully crafted it is hard to change that...yet the basic structure of the game is stale, even if the game is still fun.

That's why I said I don't want a complete overhaul. I like the game being turn-based and the strategy of the limited moves, but there are still ways to make it all easier to manage. For example, there should be no limit to the number of moves a Pokémon can learn, just make it so that you must "equip" four moves for battle and only those four can be used. Then you don't have to deal with all the Move Deleter/Relearner nonsense every time you want to try out a new setup, and it can actually make for more strategy and make moves with narrow uses more worthwhile to have as you switch out moves for your next battle.

This is but one idea I have, but it's a big one that would really make the game a lot better for me.

Honestly, BW/B2W2 do a LOT more with the story than the other games. In BW, you become the champion because the bad guy is trying to become the champion, and you want to stop that from happening.

Yeah, I've heard a few things about that, so it may be a step in the right direction. The problem is that it sounds like the story may still be too simplistic/stupid, but even if so, at least they tried, I s'pose. Regardless, I actually already have a copy of Black and Black 2, but it may be a while before I get to them as I'm still tired of Pokémon right now after having finished with HeartGold about 6-7 months ago.

I totally don't want an MMO though, I can say that. That even already exists as a hack for the ol' Game Boy ROMs, so it's already available for people who want it, just not legally.

[Stratos]

Custom Robo and Eternal Darkness. We need new entries for those series.

[Spak-Spang]

Adrock:  I think you bring up a good point.  I think we need not look at each Nintendo game as a continuation story of the previous game.  Zelda did not need to be a continuation story. 

Personally, when I was a kid I just figured NES-SNES Zelda was a remake.  Basically the same story with better graphics and gameplay.

The same is true with the Metroid series and Star Fox. 

We had limitations and it prevented developers from making the games they originally envisioned, and later technology allowed their true visions to be created.  Super Metroid is a masterpiece, but Metriod?  Not so much. 

In the end, I am not stressing at all about story in my games.  I want a good story, but I am happier with a better game.

[Luigi Dude]

Adrock:  I think you bring up a good point.  I think we need not look at each Nintendo game as a continuation story of the previous game.  Zelda did not need to be a continuation story. 

But the Zelda games don't have a continues story.  Each game is a stand alone story that doesn't require the player to have any knowledge of the previous game.  This is why most of the games star a completely different Link in completely different settings then the others.  Hell, even the games that star the same Link's usually don't require any knowledge of the previous game either. 

Yeah there's a timeline to the whole series, but most games are very loosely connected anyway with only a few references to previous games.  The games themselves though are still designed around being a standalone experience that anyone can play for the first time without any knowledge of the previous games.

[Adrock]

Zelda does but doesn't have a continuous story. While each game is meant to be understood independently for the purpose of accessibility, Nintendo has a canon that they adhere to and there are mostly minor references to other games in the series that are meant to enrich the experience for long-time fans (the more obvious ones being the Triforce and things like the stained glass windows in the Master Sword shrine in Wind Waker). Unfortunately, Nintendo does this worse than other companies and Zelda is worse because of it. To compare it to another Nintendo franchise, take a look at Earthbound. Each game can be understood as standalone games, but you get more out of understanding them together as a collective whole.

I think that's the problem with most Nintendo series. They're so poorly handled story-wise that seeing them as part of a series is more frustrating than anything. There's a lot of lost potential. Story should never take the front seat to gameplay, but it can be important to immersing players into the game's world.

If we're just supposed to ignore the inconsistencies and chalk everything up to "they're standalone experiences!" then Nintendo shouldn't even bother calling it a series or making the games part of one at all. I'd advocate a reboot if it meant Nintendo would get its act together regarding each respective series' canon.

[Ian Sane]

I think a lot of games need a "gameplay supervisor".  Essentially the person's role is to make sure that the story isn't overwhelming the game to the point where you're watching all the cool parts instead of playing them and that the game is still a videogame and not a glorified movie.  "No, Mr. Kojima you can't have a 30 minute monologue in the middle of the game."  Miyamoto would be perfect for this role.

But Miyamoto needs a "story supervisor" who makes sure that a story is not made incoherent by gameplay ideas.  They keep track of plot holes or inconsistent canon.  "No, Mr. Miyamoto you can't have a world altering flood and place it in the middle of a timeline in which there has never been any mention or hint of such a thing occuring."

Wouldn't every major company benefit from a supervisor that specializes specifically in what the company sucks at?

[Luigi Dude]

If we're just supposed to ignore the inconsistencies and chalk everything up to "they're standalone experiences!" then Nintendo shouldn't even bother calling it a series or making the games part of one at all. I'd advocate a reboot if it meant Nintendo would get its act together regarding each respective series' canon.

And what are these inconsistencies that seem to bother you so much?  Every game in the different Zelda timelines works just fine with each other.

[Adrock]

And what are these inconsistencies that seem to bother you so much?  Every game in the different Zelda timelines works just fine with each other.

Really? Fine, I'll entertain this before my nap. A Link to the Past should be at the end of one of those forks, but it isn't. It's at the beginning of a time-split that doesn't even make sense to the begin with. If that's the case, all of these games should have have a "Hero is defeated" split and maybe they do which means we should stop following the canon because that would be F-ing ridiculous.


And then, according to Nintendo's own timeline, the Oracle games happen and you defeat the Ganon with the Master Sword, so...


There's also the whole Seven Maiden's being descendants of the Seven Sages. Seven human maidens who inherited their magic from their ancestors of which a couple of whom were decidedly not human. Interspecies erotica must have been popular in Hyrule in the how ever many years are between Ocarina of Time and A Link to the Past... except the Zoras show up in A Link to the Past.

Oracle of Ages sneaks in an explanation that the hostile River Zoras and the friendly Sea Zoras are different even though the Sea Zoras in Ocarina of Time all live in Zora's River. Nice try. They just retconned the Zoras because of an inconsistency.

That's just A Link to the Past scrutinized against like two other games in the series. I don't even want to get into how much of a haymaker to the brain Skyward Sword is.

And I wasn't even talking about just Zelda. Other M punches the entire Metroid series right in the face. I've written so many posts on that so you can dig through my post history if you're interested. Here's a fun one though.

If you listen closely, you can hear Samus shitting herself.

[Ceric]

Confused about the Other M part.  They already had PTSD Ridley flashbacks before the actual fight.

[Adrock]

Confused about the Other M part.  They already had PTSD Ridley flashbacks before the actual fight.

What are you confused about? It's inconsistent no matter where in the game it is. Samus has fought Ridley like 37 times.

[Ian Sane]

I like how Luigi Dude says it all fits in perfectly and then posts this incredibly complicated diagram that looks like Bart and Milhouse charting out the correlation between the Saucer People and the Reverse Vampires.

Even if one can find a way to explain it all, the very need for some kooky split timeline suggests that the whole thing is made up on the spot and rationalized later.  The story just isn't interesting enough for this kind of complexity since each game is pretty just "dur, stop the bad guy".  Zelda is so fucked up they had to come up with a split timeline based on a hypothetical scenario where the hero failed just to explain it even though NONE of the games in that timeline mention it.  Couldn't "Link failed" create an alternate timeline off of EVERY Zelda game?  Or for that matter every decision in any game?  If I just make up random **** that is never even once hinted at in an actual game I could fit the CD-i games and Soul Caliber II and SSB in here too.  They come from an alternate timeline where Link's uncle doesn't fail and is the real hero of A Link to the Past.

[Luigi Dude]

Really? Fine, I'll entertain this before my nap. A Link to the Past should be at the end of one of those forks, but it isn't. It's at the beginning of a time-split that doesn't even make sense to the begin with. If that's the case, all of these games should have have a "Hero is defeated" split and maybe they do which means we should stop following the canon because that would be F-ing ridiculous.


And then, according to Nintendo's own timeline, the Oracle games happen and you defeat the Ganon with the Master Sword, so...

Actually you don't need the Master Sword to defeat Ganon in the Oracle games.  He can be defeated with the Noble Sword if you use spin attacks.  Yes you can get the Master Sword in those games, but it's completely optional and has no function to the overall story.  So if the Zelda canon is that big a deal to you, kill Ganon with the Noble Sword and then the Master Sword still sleeps forever.

There's also the whole Seven Maiden's being descendants of the Seven Sages. Seven human maidens who inherited their magic from their ancestors of which a couple of whom were decidedly not human. Interspecies erotica must have been popular in Hyrule in the how ever many years are between Ocarina of Time and A Link to the Past... except the Zoras show up in A Link to the Past.

Well we don't know just how far in the future Link to the Past takes place.  Considering thousands of years could have taken place, yes, there easily could have been interspecies breeding.  Hell, considering Princess Ruto had the hots for Link and wanted to marry him, it's not hard to believe she could have ended up with a different human male and her descendants would end up more being more human then Zora after many generations if they kept getting it on with humans.  So once again, hardly a problem to the storyline.

Oracle of Ages sneaks in an explanation that the hostile River Zoras and the friendly Sea Zoras are different even though the Sea Zoras in Ocarina of Time all live in Zora's River. Nice try. They just retconned the Zoras because of an inconsistency.

Ages takes place in Labrynna, not Hyrule.  So it's not an plot hole, when in Labrynna the hostile Zora's do live in the river while the friendly ones in the sea.  Plus even if the game did take place in Hyrule, Ages takes place well in the future anyway, so it doesn't matter if the friendly Zora's used to live in the river when in Ages they clearly don't anymore.

[/size]And I wasn't even talking about just Zelda. Other M punches the entire Metroid series right in the face. I've written so many posts on that so you can dig through my post history if you're interested. Here's a fun one though.

PTSD dude, read about how it works.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_stress_disorder


Ridley killed Samus mother right in front of her as a child.  Samus thought Ridley was dead for good after the events of Super Metroid since you know, the entire planet his remains were on was blown up, with all the Space Pirates as well so he had absolutely know way to be revived again.  Not hard to believe that suddenly seeing Ridley again after she thought he was gone for good this time would set it off again since this would be a huge shock.

[pokepal148]

[Wah]

Metriod and Zelda both need to look into as there hasn't been a good metriod game in ages and zelda's timeline is all other the place.
 

[Adrock]

So if the Zelda canon is that big a deal to you, kill Ganon with the Noble Sword and then the Master Sword still sleeps forever.

Seriously? Nintendo breaks their own continuity and you justify it by saying telling me to ignore it and play the game a different way. It may be optional, but it's still in the game. How about they just not include the Master Sword to begin with? It wouldn't be the first time either. I don't believe the Master Sword is in the original Zelda. In fact, the entire story surrounding the Master Sword is pretty inconsistent. Sometimes you need the Master Sword to defeat Ganon and sometimes you don't.

And the Zelda canon should be a big deal to Nintendo, that's the point here. If they insist on having a canon, then make it count. The way they had to split the timeline just to have some semblance of continuity is pretty indicative that they had no real plans for one. The "Hero is defeated" split is a total cop-out. Stories have never been important to Miyamoto's games and that's why things like this happen. If Nintendo were to reboot Zelda, they could prevent all of this.

Hell, considering Princess Ruto had the hots for Link and wanted to marry him, it's not hard to believe she could have ended up with a different human male and her descendants would end up more being more human then Zora after many generations if they kept getting it on with humans.  So once again, hardly a problem to the storyline.

Really? It's not hard to believe that? And the Gorons did that exact same thing too? And there are no Zora/Goron people waltzing around? The course of this fork of Hyrule's history followed the absolute slimmest possibility and eliminated all traces of the other genetic traits. If that's not hard to believe to you, I really don't know what to say. I find that to be incredibly hard to believe. It's far more believable that Nintendo just shrugged their shoulders because they wanted different races in Hyrule when developing Ocarina of Time and didn't think of it when developing A Link to the Past.

Ages takes place in Labrynna, not Hyrule.  So it's not an plot hole, when in Labrynna the hostile Zora's do live in the river while the friendly ones in the sea.  Plus even if the game did take place in Hyrule, Ages takes place well in the future anyway, so it doesn't matter if the friendly Zora's used to live in the river when in Ages they clearly don't anymore.

It's more likely that Nintendo retconned Zoras and tried to cover their tracks, poorly I might add. And if you're going to use the "not Hyrule" explanation, then there's no currently explanation for Hyrule Zoras.

PTSD dude, read about how it works.

I'm aware of the PTSD argument and if you're going to use it, then it needs to be consistent, but we'll get to that. Nice condescending tone though. You even posted a wikipedia link...

Not hard to believe that suddenly seeing Ridley again after she thought he was gone for good this time would set it off again since this would be a huge shock.

On the contrary, it's pretty hard for me to believe that Samus thought Ridley was gone for good that time specifically when, even if you ignore the Prime series and the three additional times she defeats some version of Ridley like Sakamoto does, Ridley already came back once before Samus fights him again in Other M. I know she blows up Zebes, but you're assuming that the Space Pirates kept everything on that one planet. "There's absolutely no way Ridley can be revived this time." That's sloppy at best. And if cowering in fear is how Samus reacts when she sees Ridley, there's no way she fires a single shot on the Ceres Space Station. I'm not even really convinced she would have made it out of their fight on Zebes without anyone to save her if she becomes practically catatonic at the mere sight of Ridley. That's poor characterization and even lazier storytelling. Besides having four major missions near the beginning of the series that never get referenced again, Metroid generally made sense before Other M wrecked it all. Stop messing with prequels and interquels and there won't be these issues.

It just sounds like you're okaying and accepting everything Nintendo does. Most of your explanations rely on conveniences and happenstance. You preface your explanations with "It's not hard to believe" when what you're saying is pretty hard to believe.

[Mop it up]

Stuff like this is why I just take Zelda stories at face value, it's a lot easier that way and far more entertaining if I don't think about how everything fits together. The opening of Wind Waker is neat in that it tells an actual legend, finally befitting the game's title of The Legend of Zelda. I don't want to ruin that by trying to figure out its inconsistencies with past games.

[Stratos]

Anyone remember how NOA tried to tell us that they were all the same Link at the launch of Wind Waker and they just said he was warped through time?

[Ian Sane]

Anyone remember how NOA tried to tell us that they were all the same Link at the launch of Wind Waker and they just said he was warped through time?

I remember that.  They said that Link's Awakening took place while Link was sailing between East and West Hyrule in Zelda II which I'll admit was a creative idea that no fan had every thought of.  It seems unlikely to me that Nintendo actually has a real Zelda timeline when the first "official" one revealed doesn't match the current one.  I guess NCL could have not known what NOA was doing but it seems like something important enough to keep straight between branches.  They're either making up the Zelda timeline as they go (my theory) or they care so little about it so as to not keep NOA in the loop.

I had a good timeline in my head when there were only six games but Wind Waker's flood screwed it up so much I just gave up on the whole concept.  It's a new game, I'm Link, she's Zelda, the bad guy is likely Ganon.  One nice thing about Zelda's approach to story is that since they don't really directly reference the other games much if they had a really bad game in there it would easy for the fans to just pretend it never existed.  Metroid is connected tightly enough that Other M might permanently infect the series from here on out.  Fans can't ignore the shitty games if the later games blantantly reference it.  Metroid will require the creators to pretend Other M doesn't exist but Zelda will probably remain largely self-contained, allowing the fans to conveniently remove any potential Other Z.

[Wah]

So if the Zelda canon is that big a deal to you, kill Ganon with the Noble Sword and then the Master Sword still sleeps forever.

Seriously? Nintendo breaks their own continuity and you justify it by saying telling me to ignore it and play the game a different way. It may be optional, but it's still in the game. How about they just not include the Master Sword to begin with? It wouldn't be the first time either. I don't believe the Master Sword is in the original Zelda. In fact, the entire story surrounding the Master Sword is pretty inconsistent. Sometimes you need the Master Sword to defeat Ganon and sometimes you don't.

And the Zelda canon should be a big deal to Nintendo, that's the point here. If they insist on having a canon, then make it count. The way they had to split the timeline just to have some semblance of continuity is pretty indicative that they had no real plans for one. The "Hero is defeated" split is a total cop-out. Stories have never been important to Miyamoto's games and that's why things like this happen. If Nintendo were to reboot Zelda, they could prevent all of this.

Hell, considering Princess Ruto had the hots for Link and wanted to marry him, it's not hard to believe she could have ended up with a different human male and her descendants would end up more being more human then Zora after many generations if they kept getting it on with humans.  So once again, hardly a problem to the storyline.

Really? It's not hard to believe that? And the Gorons did that exact same thing too? And there are no Zora/Goron people waltzing around? The course of this fork of Hyrule's history followed the absolute slimmest possibility and eliminated all traces of the other genetic traits. If that's not hard to believe to you, I really don't know what to say. I find that to be incredibly hard to believe. It's far more believable that Nintendo just shrugged their shoulders because they wanted different races in Hyrule when developing Ocarina of Time and didn't think of it when developing A Link to the Past.

Ages takes place in Labrynna, not Hyrule.  So it's not an plot hole, when in Labrynna the hostile Zora's do live in the river while the friendly ones in the sea.  Plus even if the game did take place in Hyrule, Ages takes place well in the future anyway, so it doesn't matter if the friendly Zora's used to live in the river when in Ages they clearly don't anymore.

It's more likely that Nintendo retconned Zoras and tried to cover their tracks, poorly I might add. And if you're going to use the "not Hyrule" explanation, then there's no currently explanation for Hyrule Zoras.

PTSD dude, read about how it works.

I'm aware of the PTSD argument and if you're going to use it, then it needs to be consistent, but we'll get to that. Nice condescending tone though. You even posted a wikipedia link...

Not hard to believe that suddenly seeing Ridley again after she thought he was gone for good this time would set it off again since this would be a huge shock.

On the contrary, it's pretty hard for me to believe that Samus thought Ridley was gone for good that time specifically when, even if you ignore the Prime series and the three additional times she defeats some version of Ridley like Sakamoto does, Ridley already came back once before Samus fights him again in Other M. I know she blows up Zebes, but you're assuming that the Space Pirates kept everything on that one planet. "There's absolutely no way Ridley can be revived this time." That's sloppy at best. And if cowering in fear is how Samus reacts when she sees Ridley, there's no way she fires a single shot on the Ceres Space Station. I'm not even really convinced she would have made it out of their fight on Zebes without anyone to save her if she becomes practically catatonic at the mere sight of Ridley. That's poor characterization and even lazier storytelling. Besides having four major missions near the beginning of the series that never get referenced again, Metroid generally made sense before Other M wrecked it all. Stop messing with prequels and interquels and there won't be these issues.

It just sounds like you're okaying and accepting everything Nintendo does. Most of your explanations rely on conveniences and happenstance. You preface your explanations with "It's not hard to believe" when what you're saying is pretty hard to believe.

look at the offical timeline it spilts all other the place!