Post by: Jonnyboy117 on October 25, 2004, 06:48:57 PM
PlayStation or Xbox?
Post by: MaleficentOgre on October 25, 2004, 07:06:39 PM
Post by: Lokno on October 25, 2004, 07:24:48 PM
Post by: Famicom on October 25, 2004, 08:07:00 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on October 25, 2004, 08:19:46 PM
I certainly didn't like reading that. I mean it's these people's job to be on the ball. If we can see that marketing is their biggest problem and they can't then they're really in trouble. I guess I shouldn't be surprised since they've been doing the same types of ads for the last three years with nothing to show for it. It's hard to think of what would help. I think NOA admiting there's a freaking problem would be a start. They seem to either have no clue they're doing something wrong or don't want to admit it.
One thing that could help is if NOA had more say in what NCL does. NCL really has a Japan-only mindset and that can handcuff NOA. Making Zelda a cartoon and calling the game "Mario Sunshine" and making the console look like a purple toy are all ideas that may work in Japan but have a negative effect in North America. When they make major decisions and games they need to think of how they'll be accepted in Japan and North America and thus try to find a happy medium between the two. Look at the company's online stance. A lot of things they talk about regarding online is based on how things are in Japan. In North America things are different. No online = missing feature = bad image. NCL talks about crap like hot spots in malls as if it's a suitable option. HELLO! That doesn't work in North America! Now NOA isn't off the hook. They haven't figured out that demo discs work better when they're widely available yet so they're not getting my total forgiveness.
In Other Systems I wrote a long post about what Nintendo has to do to win back third parties. A lot of it relates to public perception as well.
Ideally the best thing they could do is try something new. The same dumb "0.001% gameplay footage ads with dorks in costumes" and Fusion tours no one knows about and kiddy Nintendo Power magazine and in store demos haven't worked for YEARS. So ditch them and try something different. Maybe at least try what Sony does since MS has copied them a bunch and it's paid off. At least accept that you have no clue and the current method is completely broken.
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on October 25, 2004, 08:24:52 PM
Lokno, if you're satisfied with the game selection on GameCube and with the prospects of even worse publisher support next generation if Nintendo can't convince consumers AND publishers that they are a real contender, then I guess this editorial isn't for you. I am not satisfied with how GameCube has fared in America, and it does bother me that many games are released on PS2 and Xbox but not on GameCube. I don't want the next system to have these same problems. It doesn't really matter to me whether Nintendo is making money or not. I just want a system that I can play the newest Metroid, ESPN NFL, Burnout, and GTA on. GameCube should be that system, but it's not.
Post by: Pale on October 25, 2004, 08:26:19 PM
Post by: Robageejammin on October 25, 2004, 08:27:26 PM
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on October 25, 2004, 08:30:02 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on October 25, 2004, 08:47:46 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Jonnyboy117
from what I've heard, Reggie is being given unprecedented decision-making power from the execs at NCL. They seem to believe in him and are giving him more freedom to steer NOA's future. I hope that is indeed the case.
Excuse the smallness of my comment, but I like hearing news like this. Some indication of progress.
Post by: WindyMan on October 25, 2004, 08:54:23 PM
Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on October 25, 2004, 09:25:52 PM
Post by: MysticGohan24 on October 25, 2004, 09:48:21 PM
I know the feeling
It's good to hear such progress is being made. It seem's NCL has confidence in Reggie's abilities.
I hope this means NOA will have more power in decision making and bringing stuff over.
it's time to grow ( expanding, which NOA has been wanting/needing )
Post by: Berto2K on October 25, 2004, 10:03:35 PM
As far as games go on the Cube, I am happy. Yes there are games I wanted to come to Cube, and was dissapointed when they didn't. Games that were coming to Cube and then canned. Public image has a huge deal in this as it is a catch 22. More people buy the system, more games come out. More games come out, more people buy the system. Which do you go after first? Personally I think that you have to deliver the games first and the rest will come later. Part of the delivery of the games is the marketing of them. Market wrong, and the game could bomb like Beyond Good and Evil. If NOA and NOJ can cooperate to give Reggie the power he needs to make his magic work, I can see good things happening for Nintendo.
Post by: gally on October 25, 2004, 10:20:21 PM
In a way, Nintendo is also similar in that it was in abundance in the 80s and was doing well, and it was not a niche. If you liked video games, you liked Nintendo, and there were many types of games out there, while people had little prejudice over which types you liked. Nowadays, if you like games, people have their assumptions. I happen to like both Billy Hatcher and Battlefield Vietnam. Both Serious Sam and Zelda: Wind Waker. Can't people, if nothing else, tolerate the unpopular tastes more?
"Nintendo's for kids, isn't it?" someone asked at the pool a couple summers ago, when I mentioned the Gamecube. Not out of malice, but just casually asking. I mentioned that I happened to like it, and he said "that's cool", but you know...that whole "is for kids, right?" is annoying. Nintendo needs to put themselves on the tips of people's tongues again - become synonymous with video games the way they were in the 80s. I remember someone saying that Nintendo shouldn't try to "out-Sony Sony" at their own game, but instead strive for a "neutral" image. I hope Reggie's new marketing ideas help bring about that "neutral" image, without losing the family-friendliness that I think helps Nintendo in certain ways (i.e. various parents buy their systems for their kids). Anyone know if Reggie is behind the DS campaign being started now?
Yup, I feel like a minority all right... And don't get started on my taste in movies. Anyone hear of Jan Svankmajer's Alice? I thought not.
Post by: cartman414 on October 25, 2004, 11:06:26 PM
Post by: ruby_onix on October 25, 2004, 11:11:49 PM
According to recent NPD numbers, the landscape is spread out at about 25 million (PS2) vs 9.8 million (Xbox) vs 7.8 million (GameCube). Yet some people honestly seem to think that the XBox has a shot at beating the PS2, while the GameCube is going to drive Nintendo into oblivion. What's wrong with these people? And that's not even getting into the amazing financial differences between the two consoles.
But then again, this shouldn't surprise me. I remember the hoardes of people ignorantly claiming that the PSone was more powerful than the N64. And before that were the people claiming that the Genesis was more powerful than the SNES, because of it's superior clock speed. Stupidity is a very powerful tool. And Nintendo's favorite "make great games, and wait for word of mouth to spread" advertising technique requires that the masses have brains, so it doesn't always work.
I think one of the things helping the XBox is the fact that it failed miserably in Japan. Yes, I'm saying that actually helped it, at least, it did in America. The XBox got pidgeonholed as "the American console". I've seen intervies with a number of Japanese developers who said the picked the XBox because the games they make are "American-style", so they wanted to make games for "that console that's popular in America". I wouldn't think that Japanese developers could possibly be that stupid, but I guess they are sometimes. I mean, the console that's popular in America is the PS2. Just look at MGS3. This effect isn't helping the GameCube at all, because when a Japanese developer wants to make a Japanese game, they just pick the PS2.
I don't think this "image problem" could ever prove fatal to Nintendo, but if they really want to do better, they have to go all-out in trying to fix things. No half-measures. Nintendo seems to pull it's own punches far too often.
I do believe that as a "third party friendly" company, Nintendo has come a long way and learned a lot, but they're still not what they could be. Like for instance, I'm quite floored that Sega's "Feel The Magic" is going to be a DS launch title, but lets take this one step further. Do I believe that say, Konami will be making a "Tokimeki Memorial" title for the Revolution? Heck no! Gainax's "Princess Maker 4" is being made in Japan, exclusively for the PS2. Could I see a GameCube port happening? Hah! That's a joke.
Right now, I believe that games like Feel The Magic and BMX XXX (which is a bad example because it was garbage) are "token games", and don't reflect on Nintendo becoming an "open" home for a diverse selection of developers. Resident Evil? That was Nintendo not looking a gold-plated gift horse in the mouth.
Hey Nintendo! If you want to change this, you have to do everything in your power to make things better.
By the way, halting your production of the GameCube mere weeks before a price cut, then having major shortages, killing your entire momentum, was just an awesome idea [/sarcasm].
Here's a thought, what would've happened if you decided to risk losing $50 on the price of the Cube back at that price drop? It would've been a mere $50, wouldn't it? Do you think that would've maybe moved a few systems? Oh wait, you were supposedly at your maximum production capacity at the time, weren't you? Do you think it was even possible for you to have beaten the XBox in America, let alone the PS2?
Post by: Bloodworth on October 26, 2004, 12:01:22 AM
However, I think the stigma Nintendo has may not be fully broken for a few generations. I've got a hunch that one of the biggest reasons that Nintendo has the "it's for kids" feel is because that's embedded in people's memories. When you were a kid, you played Nintendo. When you were a teenager you "grew out" of Nintendo. And when you were an adult you picked up a Playstation because the games explored darker emotions. Nintendo has to do something to get people to notice them really, because I think the ones that continue to think that Nintendo's for kids wrote Nintendo off some time ago and simply stopped paying attention to what they're doing now.
Post by: KDR_11k on October 26, 2004, 12:02:25 AM
Post by: Plugabugz on October 26, 2004, 12:45:48 AM
Europe and Australia have a bigger problem then Japan and the USA. The Donkey Konga ads are absolutely awful. I saw a full 1 minute version which just cointained a small video of gameplay followed up with people jumping around and then £89.99: Only for Nintendo Gamecube.
I feel Nintendo should firstly concentrate on more productive ways of using their existing expenditure before they start spending on anything else.
Post by: Caillan on October 26, 2004, 01:53:26 AM
Regarding image, Ruby Onix is definately right when he/she/it (?) says that it cannot kill Nintendo. Even with the worst image possible, Nintendo's held a financially viable position. The XBox, coolest of the cool kids in the krypts, had a financial deficit of $143000000US in the September quater. Though this might not matter for Microsoft, Nintendo would definately be suffering from a loss like that. Overall, the Cube is roughly equal in terms of sales (give or take a few million) with the XBox worldwide. As there is no way anyone could possibly argue that Nintendo's advertising has any sort of positive effect upon its image, ditch the TV adds/whatever they do over there and just secure the right games. Word of mouth will do the rest.
Post by: JHarris on October 26, 2004, 02:09:07 AM
Nintendo really needs a Halo-like buzz game. The N64 had them in the form of Ocarina of Time and Mario 64, but there have been few of those buzz-games this generation. Wind Waker could have been one but alas, most gamers are, let's be honest, know-nothing jerks who will dismiss something at the slightest excuse. You can argue the day is long that they were wrong to dismiss Wind Waker -- and you'd be right, painfully right. But when all is said and done, they don't *have* to become enlightened enough to find out what they're missing. Unfortunately the coolest parts of Wind Waker were at the end, in that incredible endgame. All you have to do to show a "I am a tremendous clownboat."-spounting know-nothing how actually cool the game is is to let them watch you go down to sunken Hyrule, through the castle, through Ganon's Tower and beat the big bad guy himself with Zelda on support, with those torrents of water flowing all around. It would shut up almost anyone.
One thing Nintendo could do this is to take their shiny U.S. development arm and make a purposely, shallowly trendy game. It's not hard. Something that looks cheap and trashy, probably involving a female protagonist wearing a bikini and with a sword and magic powers or some such, killing demons and committing drive-by shootings or something. It'd at least shatter their family-friendly reputation*. But put some actual gameplay behind it; that's the key. It'd also help if, behind the trashy veneer, there was some sort of subtle commentary on the proceedings.
If the game looks cool enough, people will buy it, and thus the system, just for that. Most people, these days, buy games based solely on how they look in demos and the box art. Most gamers these days are not particularly sophisticated folks. An "introduction" game, made specifically for them, could do wonders for Nintendo's fortunes.
* Yeah, I know Nintendo's not just for kids. I know that Metroid Prime is great, and so is Eternal Darkness. But Eternal Darkness, while very dark, was also not tremendously accessable to Joe Gamer. I loved it to death, but then again I read Lovecraft. Most gamers don't even read ingredients lists.
Post by: Nephilim on October 26, 2004, 02:47:07 AM
Nintendo are doing a good job
on the case of excluding the system, its just normal.
I have often heard people question which is better or even been asked "do you own a ps2 or xbox"
People just need to realize that video gaming isnt mario and sonic anymore
People seem to think that its just new, passing off a machine
they need to remember back in the genesis vs snes days
I remember often being told the fact I own a megadrive is a mistake and snes is 100times better.
The fact is most people at the school had this view.
Does that mean all nintendo fans are the devil? no
Sega gave away 2 games, and a T-shirt and 1 year sub. to there magazine with there megadrive. snes was the unit and a cricket game.
much like today were you get more with the cube, were xbox u just get it and halo or gotham city racing.
didnt make a difference.
Sega spent millions, Nintendo gave away gameboys on a game show and funniest commercials show
You cant force trends
Post by: Kulock on October 26, 2004, 02:56:26 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: DeadlyD
People just need to realize that video gaming isnt mario and sonic anymore
Sorry to just pick out one point, but I really think you should go look up the US sales numbers for the recent Sonic games before making a comment like that. Even though they've done things that have angried some of the fanbase (a fanbase that I'm not sure will EVER be happy with a Sonic game again unless it's published for the Genesis/Mega Drive), the games have still had remarkably high sales, even titles that were presumed to be cheap throw-away efforts, like Sonic Mega Collection. So apparently the buying public still considers at least one of those video gaming. And if Nintendo could ever get around to making a brand new Mario title with some real development effort and polish put into it (I'm sorry, but Sunshine just REEKS of lazyness or poor design in spots, even though there are fun-to-play points)... well, who knows?
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on October 26, 2004, 03:22:41 AM
As far as Nintendo releasing a huge buzz game, that kind of hype is a combination of innovation and marketing. Nintendo can deliver on the first part, but hype doesn't create itself.
Post by: Finnegan on October 26, 2004, 04:29:13 AM
The thing is, Pikmin 2 is a GREAT game. And GTA SA is a GREAT game. But GTA is also the "cool" game. I don't think Nintendo can change that. They are making games for a crowd that has a lot less people in it.
I don't want Nintendo to change in such a way that they aren't "Nintendo" anymore. If they could still have their own style of games and also have the darker, bloodier, "cooler" games then it would help sales a lot (they almost, kinda had a start in that direction with Silicon Knights). Optimistically, if anyone can do it, its REGGIE!
Post by: Frodo on October 26, 2004, 05:48:01 AM
But think about it this way, do we really want these kinds of people playing our good games? I know that Nintendo relies on SALES and everything, but I like the fact that these people stay to their Maddens and their GTAs sometimes. At least at E3 it meant that they all passed over the Nintendo booth and allowed me and my friend to play Metroid Prime 2 multiplayer for almost a full day.
Post by: WhoDey on October 26, 2004, 06:54:07 AM
Nintendo has few sports games on the Cube and would have likely near zero if EA didn't still support it. Thankfully, we do get Madden but everyone knows it's always the inferior version...whether it's because of the huge blocks of memory space needed, lack of online play, or gamers' perception that the Cube controller doesn't compare to the competition for sports games. I realize most gamers don't even play online but knowing that option is there makes it more appealing than the offline Cube version. Nintendo really needs to get Sega's sports games back, especially now that they're selling at $20 a piece. I only own Madden 2002 for my Cube but if Sega's $20 version of their 2005 football game had been available to me, I would have bought it in an instance. Once Nintendo has these games, they need to see about how to make the special so that people will want them. I'm not talking about linking to the GBA, I'm talking about exclusive content for their versions. It would take money and persuasion to EA and Sega but if Nintendo wants to get back in the mainstream, it has to be done.
I just think that seeing Ray Lewis or Randy Moss on and NFL Countdown feature playing Madden using a Cube would be more beneficial to Nintendo that spending millions on commercials that the majority of the gaming public perceives as being targeted to 12 yr olds. Nintendo has to give casual gamers a reason to want to buy their system. I think sports games is the way to start. Not just have them but offer something really amazing in them. Until Nintendo decides to jump online, this will be even harder.
Post by: SgtShiversBen on October 26, 2004, 06:59:17 AM
-Kim Jong Il
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on October 26, 2004, 07:46:08 AM
Post by: JubJub on October 26, 2004, 07:59:02 AM
Firstly, i live in Australia. The cube over here is doing worse than the xbox in Japan. It's terrible. I would slap anyone from Nintendo Australia if i met them.
Here's my thoughts on this whole topic. Ninty should start thinking for the future, not the cube.
I say hold off the realistic Zelda for the next gen and blow everyone away at launch. I say develop the best looking, smoothest playing mario ever and launch that next gen too. Bringing out zelda again on the cube will NOT result in a sales boost and will waste the most anticipated title from nintendo.
Third parties need to be sure they don't lose money with nintendo next gen. I would doubt Capcom is pleased with the sales of Resident Evil on the cube. They'd have to be only 10% of what could be achieved on the PS2. Here's what they need to do: Approach Sega, EA, rockstar, capcom, namco, et al., and say 'ok, we want your big games on our system. We will PAY for your development costs and ensure you make money on your game equivelant to what you would with another platform.' Get the big names and you get the casuals. Get the casuals and you get more software support and more first party game purchases.
A average, run of the mill PS2 game will out-sell zelda on the cube. The biggest nintendo game can't make the overall sales numbers of an average PS2 game. The way to solve this is to increase the install base. The way to increase the install base is to spend money with the popular developers. Ninty would surely make its money back from and losses involved with paying third parties for big name games.
Argh i dunno. I'm rambling.
Post by: Ian Sane on October 26, 2004, 08:16:08 AM
In a way that could be seen as a compliment. It shows that Metroid has the same coolness factor that Halo as. However it exposes the huge problem with marketing. Metroid SHOULD be an amazing killer app on par with Goldeneye. It's an amazing game that provides an experience unlike any game on the market. And it's cool. It stars a high-tech space bounty hunter who fights alien life forms and space pirates. It has amazing graphics and sound. It's the total package and it should have f*cking creamed Splinter Cell and could have made the Cube number two in the US. But it didn't because it's ads SUCKED. They completely failed to alert that public of the qualities of the game. They should have had tons of gameplay footage and "game of the year" quotes from magazines all over the ads but they didn't and that's why there's hype for Halo 2 but not for Metroid Prime 2.
If you think about it Rogue Leader could have been the Cube's Halo. It was the PERFECT Star Wars game. At that point there was nothing that was more accurate. However the game's promotion was limited to a quick cameo in a generic Cube commericial. Easiest game to market EVER and they blew it. Had they just used the trailer they showed at E3 as an ad everyone in America would have talked about the Cube.
"Nintendo needs games as unique and dramatic as GTA or Halo and they really need a solid stream of them. Old franchises are no good, as I think Resident Evil and Metal Gear Solid have probably proven by now."
I agree completely. Although old franchises still sell well killer apps are almost always completely new stuff or in the case of something like GTA3 or Super Mario 64 an old franchise completely revamped into something new. Just look at some past killer apps.
Sonic the Hedgehog - brand new franchise with never-before-seen style and gameplay. Huge seller for the Genesis but didn't help the Saturn or Dreamcast
Street Fighter II - very major killer app for the SNES. Influenced a whole genre. A minor series at best on the Playstation.
Resident Evil - big killer app for the Playstation. Didn't help the Dreamcast or Gamecube.
Mario - killer app for the NES. Overtaken by Sonic on the SNES. Went into 3D and became killer app for the N64. Complete non-factor on the Cube.
Killer apps are always something fresh and exciting. Pokemon didn't sell millions of Gameboys because it was a proven franchise with a big name. Nintendo has really stuck to their franchises this gen and it hasn't paid off. Mario and Zelda are the types of games that sell well to an existing userbase but they don't bring in new buyers. Two of the Xbox's biggest games are Halo and Splinter Cell, both completely new franchises. Sure in terms of gameplay they weren't that unique but they have that new character and setting and that draws people in if done right. The oldies shouldn't be abandoned but they're not going to be the system sellers.
Post by: KDR_11k on October 26, 2004, 08:22:49 AM
Post by: CHEN on October 26, 2004, 09:25:43 AM
Post by: Kairon on October 26, 2004, 10:01:04 AM
Refer to the October 18, 2004, Newsweek, U.S. Edition, By N'Gai Croal With Kay Itoi in Tokyo, Fall of the Video King newsweek article on the decline of Japanese Game Developers (Link unavailable because a subscription is required to view Newsweek archives, please check your local library).
Since you probably don't have the above-mentioned article at hand, it shows how EA has come to virtually dominate the American Top 10 charts whereas a few years ago, Japanese develops did. It has Namco executives talking about how they need to pursue sports licenses and movie licenses. It starts off with Nintendo's E3 2004 showing of Zelda, and commenting on the reduced effectiveness of mascots like Mario or Link. It's driving point is that Japanese developers are less culturally relevant to the US gaming market (and thus less relevant to US gamers) compared to American developers like EA.
The answer why Nintendo isn't nearly as omniprescent as Sony or Microsoft is just that: cultural relevance. Nintendo's strength is all based on Miyamoto's game design, and concentrated in the Japanese EAD development studios. And as high-quality and critically-acclaimed as Nintendo's games are, they aren't in step with the rapidly mutating American culture, and perhaps also the vapidly consumeristic and trend-driven Japanese culture too. Nintendo represents the one-man integrity of a traditional Japanese master craftsman, recalling subtle yet complex Japanese gardens and lifetimes in the pursuit of perfection. The world today is a rapidly mutating rat race through a concrete jungle where realism and market forces are valued over ideological preservation. Sony and Microsoft are good at this game.
Nintendo is not, because if they were to become culturally relevant to the vast horde of American consumers and public mindset, that would mean their games would have to drastically change nature from Miyamoto-crafted individual works of art to the sports/movie/shock/trend/cool-driven products of today. For Nintendo to become culturally relevant is for Nintendo to sacrifice it's greatest and possibly only strength, the value of it's culture and Japanese developmental roots, and to have to impossibly reinvent itself to catch up to the developed machinery of Sony and Microsoft.
This brings up an interesting dilemma for any Nintendo fan: Nintendo at it's purest and most valuable form is Mario 64 and Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Nintendo is NOT Jak and Daxter, nor is it Grand Theft Auto. And as long as that is true, Nintendo will never be as culturally relevant, nor as successful, as international conglomerations like Sony or Microsoft. But, if that were not true, if Nintendo ditched it's Miyamoto legacy and made Rachet and Clank or Blood Rayne, then Nintendo would lose it's only bargaining chip in the game industry, it would lose it's only strength, and replace it with mediocre weakness.
The problem for Nintendo fans like you and I is this:
Are we stuck with them? Do we still value Nintendo-style games, or would we rather be playing Metal Gear Solid?
It looks like the rest of the world has made up its mind and has helped propel Electronic Arts to the pinnacle of relevance and success. It's only Nintendo fans who stubbornly want to have their cake and eat it too.
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Basically put: Nintendo, it's games and it's style and it's values, are a relic of a bygone age. Because of this, they will never be as appealing to the casual, modern consumer of today.
(Moderator's note: I removed some redundant text that had been pasted twice in your post.)
Post by: Pale on October 26, 2004, 10:17:42 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on October 26, 2004, 10:52:57 AM
So this raises a question. How well would Nintendo do in North America if they had a console that was as Japanese in game content as the Xbox is in American content? I think that would do reasonably well because it would target hardcore gamers without losing the existing Nintendo fanbase. Nintendo rather niche right now and this realistically would expand their niche market. Instead of Nintendo fans it's Nintendo fans and Japanese game fans. They certainly wouldn't do worse than they are now.
Such a console would also do better in Japan which would attract third parties like Capcom, Sega, Namco, Konami, and Square Enix. Those aren't EA but they still pack a big punch in North America. And unlike Xbox which struggles in Japan a largely Japanese game lineup would be succesful in both regions. It wouldn't put Nintendo on top of North America but it would satisfy the fans and the third party problem would be solved for the most part. And due to it's uniqueness it would be hard to be ignored. However while the games could be Japanese the marketing, promotions, hardware design, online plan, etc would still have to be North American.
Of course doing so would be hard since Sony has a pretty firm grasp of the Japanese market. The best way to do this would be to be more friendly regarding localization. Sony is currently limiting which games can come from Japan to North America. They're putting in all sorts of restrictions regarding 2D games or non-traditional art styles. Nintendo obviously wouldn't have that kind of restriction which could help. Nintendo may in fact be going for a more Japanese console already. The DS for example has attracted more interest out of Japan due to it's innovations. In theory the Revolution could have the same effect. American publishers care less about innovation so making innovative hardware is something that's going to target Japanese publishers first.
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on October 26, 2004, 11:19:49 AM
Post by: suspend on October 26, 2004, 12:18:54 PM
1. Nintendo should call its next consol "Nintendo" sort of like Atari and Playstation. Nintendo switches names too much for their consols It gets too confusing the Joe Public. We can keep up, but hey, we rock.
2. Regie might also be the cure. Its already been discussed, I have nothing to add.
3. Sports is key.
4. Ditch purple, for the love of god. No guy wants to play a purple consol. It looks less than lovely by the receiver et al.
5. Dumb down the adds and promos for Joe again. XBOX and PS? commercials are aimed at idiots, ie the general public, Nintendo's are high brow. Take it down a notch. Even though we all want to live in a shiny plastic future of blue hues, we are nowhere near there yet.
Post by: Frodo on October 26, 2004, 12:32:28 PM
Post by: Thrakkerzog on October 26, 2004, 01:09:10 PM
Post by: Golden Maven on October 26, 2004, 01:22:30 PM
I don't want Nintendo to change their ways. I don't want Nintendo to submit to the mainstream culture. I want them to keep doing what they do best, and that's release quality products. They aren't n.1? So what? IMO, that just shows the poor tastes most people have. But it doesn't matter. Who says they have to be n.1 or be at Sony's level of success? For that, they would probably need to change and adapt to the tastes of your casual gamer, and I don't want that to happen. Stop worrying about Nintendo not being the most successful in America. It doesn't surprise me one bit. As long as they are profitable and stay in the game, that's all I care about.
I have a PS2 - most of the games I tried sucked.
My bro has an XBox - a good chunk of the games I tried sucked, or don't hold my attention for very long.
My bro has a Gamecube - I like most of the games I tried. In the end, that's all that matters.
Post by: VideoGamerJ on October 26, 2004, 01:40:20 PM
"If you wear Nintendo merchandise, you are considered cool. If you own a GameCube, you are considered not cool."
I work at GameStop and there we have 15 used GameCubes, 5 used Playstation 2s and 0 used Xboxes. People have come in to buy a console and eliminated GameCube as their choice because it had the highest stock and because of it's price. They figured, it must be cheap and people didn’t like it so they returned it. This is simply ridiculous. However, this is completely appropriate because a large majority of the mainstream market will rely on these type of methods to find out what works.
In my opinion, it doesn't really matter, as Golden Maven also said, I'm not trying to fit in with the mainstream market, I'm fitting in with my personal tastes and favorites, and thus I choose Nintendo Gamecube and will choose Nintendo DS. Those who would undoubtedly like GCN more than other consoles, but are drawn to the others suffer. It's their mistake. They need to stop following the trend, and discover for themselves what is best. Nintendo isn't losing any money, in fact last year (I believe) they made the most because of their wise (or unwise, depending on how you look at it) advertisement spending.
Post by: ssj4_android on October 26, 2004, 01:40:32 PM
Post by: VideoGamerJ on October 26, 2004, 01:44:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ssj4_android
To answer the question, Xbox. What I think would be really sweet is if Microsoft's Xbox division and Nintendo combined. Microsoft's innovation + Nintendo's innovation = great. Like Donkey Konga would have been perfect with Live.
No thanks. I hope the day when Nintendo joins forces with Microsoft (makes games for them) is the day they stop making games. Hmm, familar quoting.
Donkey Konga would have been just as good over warppipe in my opinion, no need for people to pay fees.
Post by: Ian Sane on October 26, 2004, 02:06:44 PM
I hope the day when Nintendo joins forces with Microsoft is the day they buy Microsoft. Nintendo Windows has a nice ring to it.
Post by: Bartman3010 on October 26, 2004, 02:13:03 PM
Second, Nintendo needs to quit with these gimmicky ideas. GCN to GBA? Like that'll help sell the system. All we ever got was a map on the GBA, the 3rd parties are to blame for this, but if Crystal Chronicals and Four Swords+ didnt have those features, it might've helped the game. Though that would've required quite an overhaul of the gameplay...
It still makes me laugh when someone said the N64 was a failure of a system.
Post by: Pale on October 26, 2004, 02:24:27 PM
Post by: InfinitysEnd on October 26, 2004, 02:56:05 PM
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on October 26, 2004, 03:49:58 PM
Post by: Hostile Creation on October 26, 2004, 03:54:13 PM
Quote
Nintendo needs games as unique and dramatic as GTA or Halo and they really need a solid stream of them. Old franchises are no good, as I think Resident Evil and Metal Gear Solid have probably proven by now
Grand Theft Auto is hardly a new franchise. Not as old as some, but probably about the age of Resident Evil. Less games in the franchise, yes, but they're starting to push for that, too. And it hurts to hear someone says that GTA and Halo are unique. I haven't got anything against the games, really, but they certainly lack in that category.
In large part, I need to agree with Robageejammin.
I'm not interested in playing GTA, or very many third party games at all, for that matter. A few games I regret missing, but there are other Nintendo games that I would buy that I couldn't before I bought those anyway. So I'm not concerned about what Nintendo is getting.
I'm merely concerned about the image they have, and I wish more people acknowledged their greatness. I wish GTA and such games would come to Nintendo systems for your sake, if not mine. I know that I don't know how this can be done, but I can see that Nintendo's reputation is picking back up. Sure, Xbox and Playstation are still the most commonly known, but I'm seeing more and more recognition for the Gamecube as time goes on. For now, I'll sit back, hope, and continue to buy Nintendo games.
Post by: JonLeung on October 26, 2004, 04:13:26 PM
I own a GameCube (well, who here doesn't?) and a PC (again, who here doesn't?). What I find amazing is that several of the best PS2 and Xbox games I don't miss out on, because a good deal of them also come out for the PC. And who, in this day and age, doesn't have a PC? Whether or not it's a gaming PC doesn't matter, if you can wait - in a few years any default PC would be able to play today's games. It may not play tomorrow's games, but there's the absolute guarantee that anyone in a few years can play SW: KOTOR, GTA III, GTA: Vice City, MGS2 Substance, etc. etc. etc. Given the fact that the overrated Final Fantasy VII never seems to leave people's minds, people aren't averse to playing something one generation back, and why not on a piece of hardware that's inevitably going to be in your home? The most logical choice in my mind is, get a GameCube for exclusive games you can't get anywhere else, use your PC for the Xbox and PS2 games.
Of course, no matter how RATIONAL or FACTUAL I can outline my opinions about Nintendo or any other thing for that matter, a lot of people go with what's "cool". If you can make a useless gizmo look cool, people would want that over the most equipped Swiss Army Knife. That's just the sad thing about this world. No one likes to think. And moreso, everyone's too concerned about their image. Super Mario games may be fun, Pokemon games may be deep and involving, Zelda may have well-crafted worlds, but since they're too colourful, I know several people that are averse to playing those games.
People are hypocritical sometimes when it comes to "cool" stuff. They want a PS2 because it's the most popular, but then when the GameCube has almost always been ahead of Xbox sales worldwide, they want an Xbox. If what's "popular" is "cool", then the GameCube should be "cooler" than the Xbox. Hypocrites.
Nintendo CAN be cool. It starts with the marketing. And, unfortunately now, it means one-upping Sony (and Microsoft). Of the people I know, it seems like a lot of people fell out of gaming in the 16-bit days (a shame, those were some of the best times I had). This would be late junior high/early high school for me, when people have the greatest insecurities and gaming was still nerdy. When they saw how "cool" gaming could be at the start of the 3D era, when the PSX became "cool", I think they felt that Nintendo couldn't keep up as well, and most of those casual gamers have a preference for the PlayStation consoles and seem resistant to Nintendo becoming cool again. It's like if they were the first to say, "Hey, Nintendo's cool again", people would think they were out of step. So no one's the first to bravely say that Nintendo's cool, and it never could be because no one seems to say so. I have no doubt in my mind that some of those who did play games before remember a time when Nintendo was cool, and I've noticed that they're actually the ones who adamantly seem to be the most against Nintendo. As if they cling to the PlayStation name to assert that they're cool. Sheesh.
Post by: A Letter to God on October 26, 2004, 04:19:48 PM
Also, as a few people have said, Nintendo may not have done it with the best marketing, but they took the leap, they were the First Penguin; we would not have the games we do today with out Mario, Zelda or Metroid. Let's examine Mario, this series is one filling every nook of the industry due to it's staying power and constant originallity. Mario is able to do more then run and jump, and the hardcore players know that, it's just your GTA and Madden college dorm kids that have forgotten it, and they are really who PS2 and Xbox aim for. Nintendo needs to do that more, they need to become rated M, but with Nintendo's typical class, not going to "just kill 'em all with what ever ya want".
Let's examine the Legend of Zelda series. Believe it or not, this series is why you have your GTAs and other free roaming games, and you massive worlds. Back when we had Legend of Zelda: Occarina of Time, yes, we all complained about the tedium of crossing Hyrule Field, but really think about the significance of that, and the ability to go where ever you want from the get go; the first place I visited other than Kokiri village was Lake Hylilia. But we forget that that world is why developers realized there was something to that massive area.
Now onto Metroid, in America, that was a killer app for the Nintendo, in Japan it wasn't as much, but Nintendo stuck to it, and it's payed off, since the Metroids (from Fusion to now) have been good selling games, with high acclaim from American gamers.
It is my belief, and you may correct me if I'm wrong, that Nintendo is bound to the industry, since we will lose the games we first played (for my generation, at least). Nintendo was really what started the industry we have now, all thanks to a plummer named Mario, and I think, personally, that Nintendo will be there when it ends, since they provide the most original gaming (Halo isn't that original, it's a mesh of all FPS's, but Metroid Prime is), and they are always among the best games, with high critical acclaim. But NCL must also let NOA regulate it's marketting alone, and allow them to put some appeal to the low-brow cassual gamers that polls like this are geared to; as well as make their own Live, it's not like they couldn't use one of the many Nintendo catch phrases for something interconnecting to give it the Nintendo glow.
Anyway, this is my opininon, agree or disagree.
Post by: nickmitch on October 26, 2004, 05:27:07 PM
Post by: seen33 on October 26, 2004, 05:35:29 PM
I have been a nintendo fan for life but the gamecube is like the last straw.. I was much more impressed with the N64s offerings.. Now with todays advanced features (onliune, hard drive voice etc) I just feel that my "n64 with better graphics" (aka gamecube) just doesent cut it.
I still own my GC and i wont sell it (i need it to play MP2 and zelda
) but thats the problem.. I (and thousands more) only bought a gamecube to play the marios zeldas and metroids.. we feel no need to play any other type of game on the GC... i mean.. thats what my xbox with more features is for?Personally I know alot of nintendo fanboy would hate me for this.. but I think Nintendo and M$ should merge or M$ buy out nintendo. M$ showed interest i remember a while back of a buy out but of course nintendo would never sell. Im hoping that nintendos "revolution" will fail horribly and put nintendo at so much a $ loss that they will be forced to sell to M$. Then with nintendos great Everyone and 1st party support.. combined with M$ older gamer audiance, 3rd party games and use of lattest technology (specifically thier strong online stance) , it would be the greatest system ever and Would finally bring that Sony down to second (I dont like sony). Of course something like this would take another 2 gens and sony is gonna win the next gen.. peoples opinions dont just change the next generation unless sony screwes up and chooses to ignore the lattest technology and switch to some sort of unwanted game format limiting game Features. Sony is here to stay (as #1) unless some1 takes them down.. and its not gonna be nintendo or M$ alone unfortunetly... PS3 will reign supreame next gen i can garuntee. Of course lots will argue with me.. but Ps is just too powerful in the market
Well any way.. im looking forward to playing halo 2 online 16 players with my smart joy frag keyboard and mouse adaptar.. I suppose i can take a break from halo for a day or 2 to beat metroid Prime 2.. shelve it.. and get back to my halo 2. I just wish nintendo would stop focusing on profits and focus on the fans. I know thier a company and need profits... but I say just sacrafice a few $10s of millions of dollars profit (like xbox with live etc and sony did) to please the fans. This actually helps in the long run. I mean.. its just stupid small things nintendo does to make money that gets on my nerves like create GBA NES games for $20 each when u can clearly fit Every single NES game out on 1 damn cartridge. Remember Mario all-stars for SNES? Instead of porting that they port all the marios speratly to make more $.. err. Another example is the GBA headphone adaptar u need for the GBA SP... Just more profit for big N and another way to get me angry.
Post by: Ian Sane on October 26, 2004, 06:08:51 PM
That's a terrible idea. MS buying Nintendo doesn't mean Nintendo with online and third party support. It means Microsoft making crappy games using Nintendo's licences. I, and most fans, like Nintendo because of the games they make. If someone buys them they would be someone else and would no longer make the types of games we love them for. If MS bought them Nintendo would be like Atari, a NAME and nothing more.
Post by: Bartman3010 on October 26, 2004, 06:09:13 PM
Post by: VideoGamerJ on October 26, 2004, 06:15:36 PM
Post by: Golden Maven on October 26, 2004, 07:03:11 PM
As for 3rd party support, sure, it would help. But again, I think Nintendo are doing fine. They may not be n.1, but that's because times change. People want "mature" games now (gameplay comes second), and it's all about being cool and having the right look. I guess playing a game a kid could play is too much for some people. Talk about insecurity. These days, people look for realism - (I don't know why, I play games to escape reality, not play something that tries to mimic it) - and look for gore/violence, cause it's "cool" and part of "the real world" (funny, gore and violence ain't part of my world, I avoid it as much as I can and every other civilized person should do the same)
Maybe the next era will be different and be on Nintendo's side, who knows... But if it ain't, no big deal, they are still profitable and will always have supporters, i.e. the people who care about gameplay and enjoy the lighthearted/fantansy oriented games. Nintendo isn't going anywhere, and I personally don't care if I don't go for what's mainstream and "in".
PS - Don't change, Nintendo!
Post by: Caillan on October 26, 2004, 07:38:26 PM
With all the bullshit people are gobbling up now, the games industry will either gradually deflate (see Acclaim's bankruptcy) or crash. When it does crash, its not going to be Nintendo who are it the hardest.
Post by: Procession on October 26, 2004, 08:44:14 PM
Their frigid reaction to onine gaming seriously hurts too - I can't help but fell they are being very short-sighted in that respect, thinking only about profit in the short-term, as opposed to the long term.
Nintendo also needs to develop some new franchises. Mario being pimped in every second game isn't good, because it means all people think when they think Nintendo is Mario, as opposed to great games.
Nintendo would also do well to make their next system an all in one. The reality is the Gamecube was $50 more than the competition rather than $50 less. Why? Because consumers looked at the opportunity cost - for only $50 more they could have a DVD player, instead of buying one for $100 extra and a Gamecube. Revolution should be Blu-ray or HD-DVD, 802.11b built-in and internet capable (not neccesarily WWW) so I can share my game saves with friends, stream music from iTunes to my stereo, movies from VLC to my TV, etc. The Revolution should not be a games only console, but a complete digital hub - download photos from digital cameras, movies from DV and perhaps even basic editing functions. It's all about VALUE and it's all about connectivity, but not in the way Nintendo have been advocating.
Post by: Hostile Creation on October 26, 2004, 08:51:18 PM
Post by: ChaNoKin on October 26, 2004, 09:22:30 PM
Now, in the other hand you have developers, Nintendo's slogan with'em should be, your games wont suffer piracy with us, and also they should really keep improving their bussiness relations, give more accessible licences, even if it means some really bad bad games, it also increases the chances to get one of those magic games we see once in a while.
Marketing should change, the times are not the same. Demo discs are awsome, no need to buy a crappy game if you can test it first, and NOT making them copy-proof would easily improve mouth-to-mouth publicity. I think its time to put out the swords and go to war, make innovative agressive publishing.
Post by: Nephilim on October 26, 2004, 09:27:02 PM
Cube magazine comes close with there cheat cd's (which harf the time dont work)
But we have been spoilt with demo's back in the psx era
I remember playing some of the demo's for hours, the same stage over and over
Post by: Golden Maven on October 26, 2004, 10:26:44 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Procession
Nintendo would also do well to make their next system an all in one. The reality is the Gamecube was $50 more than the competition rather than $50 less. Why? Because consumers looked at the opportunity cost - for only $50 more they could have a DVD player, instead of buying one for $100 extra and a Gamecube. Revolution should be Blu-ray or HD-DVD, 802.11b built-in and internet capable (not neccesarily WWW) so I can share my game saves with friends, stream music from iTunes to my stereo, movies from VLC to my TV, etc. The Revolution should not be a games only console, but a complete digital hub - download photos from digital cameras, movies from DV and perhaps even basic editing functions. It's all about VALUE and it's all about connectivity, but not in the way Nintendo have been advocating.
No. I want a gaming machine, not some all-in-one entertainment device. Although it would be nice, think of the price. I applaud Nintendo for keeping the Gamecube hardware at a lower cost.
As for Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, I personally don't care. As long as there are no (or very short) loading times, I am happy. But I would never submit to having loading times for extra space that they mostly use for crap anyway (FMVs, voice acting, licensed music, etc.). So I also applaud Nintendo for going with these MiniDVDs, since they have the shortest loading times for this generation. And 1GB is plently for a quality game. You don't need more than that, unless you want all that crap I mentioned above.
Post by: Kairon on October 26, 2004, 10:26:57 PM
To restate, I believe that Nintendo simply will never be able to be in the "Playstation or XBox" question simply because Nintendo games are different. The style they're made in, the effort put into them, even the values that drive them, make Nintendo games among the highest quality, and most culturally insignificant videogames of our time.
Sony and Microsoft, even in their japanese game divisions, and along with a great many third parties, apparently keep up with modern culture. They make games about sports, warfare, sexual themes, movies, violent emotions and underground racing. They make games that the average American (or increasingly, Japanese) consumer can look at, and immediately correlate with a million other experiences they've encountered in their own life or through the media.
The rest of the industry makes games that are culturally in tune with the times:
cynical anti-heroes fighting terrorist nuclear armageddon (compare: 9/11),
Sexualized depictions of women (compare: Desperate Housewives on TV, Sex in the Movies, Maxim magazine),
Satyrical humor (compare: the Daly Show(god I love that show!), Bowling for Columbine, The Onion)
Sports (compare: The Boston Red Sox, The Super Bowl, Nekkid women playing beach volleyball a.k.a. Olympics)
etc.
Nintendo, god bless them, makes the best games in the world but doesn't make games that address our lives, and thus, is easily overlooked by consumers who need to shift through thousands of data points, and would appreciate something that they recognize more than something totally alien to them. The most culturally relevant thing that Nintendo's made is about ant-like creatures that run around a rural garden setting... But with the urbanization of our world, who has time for gardening? Who's even seen a plot of cultivated soil in the inner city?
This isn't bad. I don't blame Nintendo for making games that address our lives. In fact, it's probably the only way that Nintendo can focus purely on the artform of making the game, avoiding all the distractions of the modern world in order to create totally abstract, yet brilliant gameplay. And at the same time I don't blame people like my office co-workers for not knowing Nintendo exists, or my neighbors. Plumbers aren't relevant to their lives, Seinfeld and CounterStrike and romances are. There's absolutely no blame.
But that still leaves Nintendo lying squarely in the field of cultural irrelevance due to the very nature of their brilliant Nintendo games. Miyamoto and EAD create games that are so focused on amazing gameplay that they seem abstract and irrational and simplified from the viewpoint of modern culture.
And I don't think we can ask Nintendo to change that. Because to ask Nintendo to become culturally relevant, you'd destroy the legacy and style and quality of Miyamoto's work. How would Miyamoto or EAD develop a football game? There are already too many rules in football to follow, too much arcane trivia, too much obsession with glitz and pizazz. How would Miyamoto, the man who watches the ants in his garden, try to sell us a game where we're supposed to drive around a city stealing cars and commiting crimes? How would Miyamoto, the humble, salaried, family man, design a game that is focused on beautiful women and the fashion of wearing next to nothing? How would Miyamoto, who's always given us steadfast, straightforward heroes, give us a Max Payne? A Blood Rayne? A Daxter from Jak and Daxter? And doesn't he bike to work? How could we even expect Nintendo to give us a decent import car racing game then!?!
No, they would almost definitely fail. And they wouldn't be Nintendo anymore, because they'd have thrown away all their ideas about what videogames are about and how to make them. They'd have sacrificed their only strength, the only thing that makes them unique in this gaming industry, and they'd have exchanged it for a place at the bottom of the food chain being preyed upon not just by Sony and Microsoft and Electronic Arts, but also Midway and Atari and Tecmo.
And the thing is, as long as Nintendo's games stay culturally irrelevant, third parties will never, NEVER, make up the gap between the big N and the competition. They'd give Nintendo a few scraps, ports, an exclusive here and there, but it'd be lip service because anyone who actually wanted to sell to the market as a whole, the market that has a modern and evolving and inward-looking culture, would be on the PS3 or the XBox2. And Nintendo can wrestle as many exclusives from third parties as they want, but they'll never catch up that way. Viewtiful Joe 2 is coming out on the PS2: Nintendo's hard fought-for Capcom agreement is now moving over to PS2 territory.
It isn't about marketting. It isn't about technology. It isn't about corporate culture. That's all important, but they aren't the problem that keeps Nintendo out of the "PS2 or XBox?" question. The issue here is Nintendo's relevance to modern culture, modern times, and modern lifestyles. It's about people nowadays having the luxury to choose between a game inspired by gardenning, or exploring caves, or racing go karts and a game inspired by a sport, or a movie, or violence, and choosing the later.
I think it's time to face it. Nintendo's time for marketshare leadership has come and gone. They resurrected the gaming industry, they made it profitable, they made it international, they made it revolutionary. Now, it's time for other people to give the gaming industry what it didn't need in the 80's and 90's, but what it needs now.
But that still leaves each Nintendo fanboy his own dilemma.
Have my tastes changed? Am I now a modern gamer? Do I want to play Need for Speed Underground? Do I want to play The Guy Game (actually, I played The Guy Game recently... it rocked! The double-layered scoring system and the best 4-player minigames I've played in years! Even if it featured naked fat men I'd love it!)? Do I want to play Metal Gear Solid? Do I want to play Halo 2? Do I want to play GTA?
That's a personal question. Let me recommend this: Play Tales of Phantasia, then play Paper Mario 2. Compare. Play Mario Sunshine, then play Jak and Daxter 2. Compare. Play Harvest Moon, then play Animal Crossing. Compare. Play Yugioh, then Play Pokemon. Compare.
If, after you compare all those games, you think that you can live without Nintendo, you're a better man than me. Because I tried playing Dark Cloud 2, and it felt nauseous because I compared it to Windwaker. I just watched Jak and Daxter and had less fun than being crushed under the weight of a 260 pound friend of a friend of a friend (which happened that same night in fact).
For me, a gamer who can't afford two systems, and can tell if a game is Nintendo developed or not depending on the feel of the game control (for example: I hated F-Zero because it felt like a friggin Sega game...I want my F-Zero X back!)... for a person who's so attuned to Nintendo that I cannot enjoy 70% of the games out there in the market because I feel as if the developers were lazy and cheap and did little better than trained monkeys...
For a Nintendo fanboy like me, I couldn't care less whether other people even take the time to consider Nintendo when asking me what videogame system I play. Because the fact of the matter is, I've just come to care more about the games than Nintendo's prominence in the marketshare rankings, or their prominence in the mindset of a mass of unnamed teenagers and 20-somethings and whatevers out there. All I care about is that Nintendo keeps making Nintendo style games, Nintendo quality games, and Nintendo quality systems.
So yeah... Nintendo doesn't figure in the minds of others. Nintendo isn't culturally relevant. Nintendo games don't have complex and mature and cynical themes.
But given the choice between playing only Nintendo games vs. never playing a Nintendo game again, but playing anything else...basically, without Nintendo games, console gaming would be dead for me.
So I guess I've finally made my choice. My dilemma as a Nintendo Fanboy is over. I'm sticking with Nintendo, even if their as culturally irrelevant as a Japanese mastercraftsman in a world of slick businessmen and brutally efficient product cycles.
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: idgaf on October 26, 2004, 10:27:16 PM
While this is completely pointless, I agree with Procession, Nintendo really should make the revolution a multipurpose console. The consumers like to think they're going to be able to watch dvds on the console regardless of the likelyhood of usage. People like to think they're somehow outsmarting the system. They'd like to think they can easily pirate games( and even if they do, it doesn't seem to be hurtting game sales ie. ps, xbox). Let the audience think they're getting a great deal without telling them.
Nintendo's dev kit sucks. They don't even have an official dev kit for college gamers to play with. If they're not going to reach out to third party devs, at least let the kids online try to make something good. Nintendo needs to release their revolution dev kit now, much earlier than the release date of the revolution. If not, at least they should spend the time to develop a configurable, customizable game engine so that thrid party game makers can license it and cut development cost. Then Nintendo would be flooded with games (like counter strike built as a mod of half life). Imagine if a company was offered the chance to make a game based off the metroid engine or the zelda engine, they'd jump at the chance. May be nintendo is just too narrow minded, or may be i'm living in a dream world. At the very least I think nintendo can offer to split advertisement costs of third party games if the game is going to be big and boost console sales.
P.S. it'd be great if someone can point me to a method for getting sales figures of games so I can settle the bet with my co-worker.
Post by: Kairon on October 26, 2004, 10:42:32 PM
1. If you can't match modern culture. MAKE IT. Nintendo's done this briefly before, with Mario 64's revolutionizing of the 32/64-bit scene. And they did it again with much more permanence with Pokemon.
How do you make modern culture? You pre-emp it, you become the trendsetter. You don't follow others and set out in your own direction that no one's ever thought of before, and hope you're right. You could be wrong. You could be misguided. You could make a Virtual Boy. Or you could be the first and coolest and most relevant entity in a brand new market where all the rules are changed according to what you've done. Innovate.
This is a possibility, but is very, very, very hard. While the DS is likely to be a success, it probably won't be able to shift the paradigm enough to leave everyone else scrambling to catch up. Will the Revolution do it? Is it even possible?
2. Team up with someone else who IS culturally relevant and who can add reputation to your group. This would mean that Nintendo could continue to do it's own thing, but would have a partner, or partner's, who'd concentrate on their specialty: cultural relevance. And these partners would have to be a big name, and good enough and prolific enough to cause a massive shift in the market's power structure. But the games your partner would make would have to be as numerous as the games Nintendo makes, at least.
This would go beyond having small second parties to do your dirty work: Retro studios simply can't produce games fast enough to change Nintendo's image. Silicon Knights and Rare couldn't be depended upon. Third parties aren't the way either: RE failed to make much of a splash. We're getting too little too late from Namco and Capcom and Square.
It would need to be major exclusivity from a major name.
Compare: Ponderings of Nintendo and Microsoft teaming up: Nintendo can keep doing it's thing, while Microsoft can bring street cred, cultural relevance, and enough games to trick consumers into thinking that Nintendo's a company after their own hearts. EA would be an interesting pairing, but not only is that impossible, but EA has stated that they like having three systems alive and fighting in the market. Another avenue would be that Nintendo needs to discover some new blood that can scale up quickly to the big time, as in discovering another Rareware... but hopefully this time a Rareware that can make games in less than 3 years.
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Ian Sane on October 27, 2004, 07:47:17 AM
Yesterday I went into Willow Video to browse. Willow is a local store that is by far the best place to get games in my area. They had a little sign in the front window about a midnight madness sale for Halo 2. "Big deal" you say "tons of stores are doing that." You don't understand though. This store NEVER does stuff like that. They don't even take pre-orders. They get most of their new releases a few days later than everyone else (but at a lower price which is why they're the best). The fact that Halo 2 is a hyped up enough title that this store is straying from their normal practice is significant. Now realistically what makes Halo 2 cooler than Metroid Prime 2? Both have cool space themes. Both are mature. Both have great graphics and sound. Both are sequels to criticly acclaimed games that are considered by those in the know as the best game for their respective consoles. The difference is that MS has good marketing and Nintendo doesn't.
Metroid Prime should be bigger than it is. Rogue Leader should have been the most hyped game of 2001. And to take things beyond the "mature" market Pikmin should be like Pokemon. It appeals to kids and it has some of the best character designs ever. Pikmin lend themselves incredibly well to toys. Yet Pikmin is a niche game. The "kids" market is supposed to be Nintendo's area. This shows that Nintendo doesn't have to change their games. They're making great games and ones that appeal to both adults and kids. They're just doing a sh!tty job of getting people to notice these games.
They don't have to change their games and we don't want them to. They don't have to do something insane like teaming with MS. They just have to change their marketing strategies.
Post by: KDR_11k on October 27, 2004, 09:41:57 AM
Post by: Hostile Creation on October 27, 2004, 10:31:20 AM
I personally love Nintendo ads. Almost all of them are really cool. Inventive, interesting, hip, awesome, and intruiging. Of course, I know about almost all the games they're talking about, so I never have a problem with that. So Nintendo could add in some game clips, maybe, but I really like how their commercials are now. The Who Are You commercials actually have a pretty good balance of cool/gameplay, though it could tip a little closer to the gameplay side.
Post by: vherub on October 27, 2004, 11:16:34 AM
Marketing is really the only way to fix nintendo's image, and it needs to be fixed because it is slipping towards irrelevance. Sometimes you have to make sacrifices, and if that means catering to the tastes of the audience so that some other damn good games can be made, so be it. I would rather see that than Nintendo fade into Atari.
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on October 27, 2004, 12:59:32 PM
Seriously, great posts all around. Our readers are some of the smartest gamers I know.
Post by: nickmitch on October 27, 2004, 03:48:46 PM
Post by: ssj4_android on October 27, 2004, 04:09:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: VideoGamerJQuote
Originally posted by: ssj4_android
To answer the question, Xbox. What I think would be really sweet is if Microsoft's Xbox division and Nintendo combined. Microsoft's innovation + Nintendo's innovation = great. Like Donkey Konga would have been perfect with Live.
No thanks. I hope the day when Nintendo joins forces with Microsoft (makes games for them) is the day they stop making games. Hmm, familar quoting.
Donkey Konga would have been just as good over warppipe in my opinion, no need for people to pay fees.
When I said it would be perfect for Live, I was refering to paying to download new songs. Instead of having to buy a new disk for more songs, just download them. And try playing Burnout 3 on live and then try to play MK
D over warp pipe. I haven't tried it, but I don't think I'd enjoy it. The problem with MKD is that it's very tunnel unfriendly. Playing Nintendo games online (truely designed for online) would be sweet, that's why I'd like Nintendo having at least some online service like Live. I like Xbox for the modding and for the hard drive. My GCN is in sucky condition now. It gets lots of disk reading errors, sometimes it won't even launch a brand new game. And the controllers wear out too easily. They mess up with things like the stick not being centered correctly on startup, forcing me to have to X+Y+Start. I'm not playing Paper Mario 2 right now because it just stops working as I'm playing it. But I'm rambling and these problems may be more specific to me. The Gamcube really needs the new Zelda game. And online.
Post by: ssj4_android on October 27, 2004, 04:21:34 PM
Post by: Kairon on October 27, 2004, 06:18:26 PM
No, the fact is that even if Nintendo did advertise better, they'd never be able to have the mindshare of Sony or Microsoft specifically because Nintendo games, the only guaranteed reason to buy a Nintendo system, AREN'T relevant to today's consumer culture. Nintendo's very strength is an irrelevant issue to the vast majority of today's gamers.
That's just the way it is, and I don't think it's something that Nintendo fans should obsess over. The game industry has changed, and styles have changed. Heck, if I made games, my games would differ VASTLY from nintendo's style, and my games would probably be better off on the PS3 or XBox2. But despite the climate for videogames having changed, and despite my own differences in personal game design, I'm still buying Nintendo systems and games exclusively. Why? Because as culturally irrelevant as Nintendo games may be to everyone else, they're the only games I want to play.
There's no question that advertising could help Nintendo gain mindshare. No question at all. If you throw enough money at the problem, you can get people to acknowledge that "yes, Nintendo exists." But will this result in people buying a GameCube over a PS2? No, because no matter how much marketting exists, the PS2 would have a vastly superior library of culturally relevant sports titles, movie-based licenses, games with mature and complex themes, and import racing titles.
Sure, with better marketting the GC would perform a little better. But Nintendo innately lacks the cultural relevance that will make the masses of modern gamers of today choose the GC over the PS2. That's why even with great marketting, the question would only change to: "I know that the GC exists, but still: PS2 or XBox?" All the marketting in the world can't make people buy things they don't want to buy (and what self-respecting inner-city football fan would buy a game about controlling ant-things in a garden?), and marketting can't sell games that don't exist.
Marketting simply can't change the fact that the time for Nintendo games to be culturally dominant in the videogamer's mindset has come, and gone.
Again, not a good thing or a bad thing, it's just that the world is an ever-changing place.
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: nemo_83 on October 27, 2004, 06:32:45 PM
Nintendo doesn't get that they are not being successful at all in their aim to play to the masses and make games for everyone. The most obvious things missing are the ORIGINAL mature titles (coupled with heavy advertising campaigns). But the solution I believe lies in Nintendo making games for everyone that can be advertised and sold to everyone. They have been making their games easier on the Cube. The hardest games they ever made, like Super Mario Bros which sold 80 million copies (oh, they have fallen far) could be just as hard to a six year old as they were to a twenty eight year old. At the same time the six year old could plausibly stomp the twenty eight year old's butt at the game. That is how accessable old Nintendo was. Now games are difficult due to complicated combat and camera (instead of keeping combat simple and limited by the buttons developers have tried to simulate combat through complex button combos when they should have just waited for the next innovation, like gyration, to translate straight forward character actions without complicated digital commands). Games are difficult in this way now because Nintendo changed. Nintendo did change. They put 'space' in their games. Games like Mario and Zelda that before never had space. In Zelda before, you could see in every direction because gameplay was heavy on fighting on ground level. There was no vertical in the combat of Zelda before 3d. Why do you think now they are going to have the camera more like the old 2d games in the new Zelda coming out. They can take the space out of things so that the game is easier to control and easier to look at. It makes the visuals and lighting more graphic when the camera is backed away from the back of your character's head. The limits of 2d games provided developers with answers, 3d games make problems and give developers too much rope, enough to hang themselves with. Look at how Mario has been simplified down to this easy scavenger hunt game. Mario was once 2d and there was no turning left or right or falling off the left side of a platform. There was forward, backward, up, and down. The view took out the space and allowed gamers to control the character acurately. Look at Mario Kart though. It is basically 2d in gameplay. There is forward, backwards, left, and right; but no up and down aside from the hills in the courses which don't affect your control. The behind the character view is best for games like Mario Kart, not games like Mario Bros or Zelda. Now Zelda has so much sculptural 3d space that people can't play the game without having to lower the camera so they can see the horizon or look up so they can aim their arrows. Couldn't this be solved with Link automatically, like in the 2d games when something was flying and we couldnt aim up or down only left and right, doing the work of the vertical axis of aiming so we dont have to go in first person mode or something? I know what your saying to yourself probably, lock on, but I said automatically. In other words without having to lock on either. Ive also wondered for a long time what Zelda would look like right now if on the N64 it had stayed 2d. Im sure the game wouldn't have stayed in stamp style but rather it would have evolved into something with backgrounds that looked like Mana on the PSX.
I dont know if I can believe that NOA actually believes there is nothing wrong with their advertising though. We always say in America, oh its because the Japanese section of the company holds them back. If they really dont have a clue that their advertising has sucked aside from say some of the suits commercials and that one Mario Bros 3 commercial for GBA then someone does need to get fired. The MP2 commercial blows and it is better than the MP commercial. They think they can sell it to us with flashy graphic design and zipping camera work and they are totally wrong. Look at the epic GTA commercials. The GTA commercial elicits nostalgia for the decade and the past games for those who love them. Nintendo has a problem of not taking advantage of its thick heritage in the industry. Music is one strong suit they have with themes from Mario and Zelda for example. It is just like the best Star Wars commercials don't show much gameplay but rather play off of the Star Wars history and music. For example I was sold Shadows of the Empire on the N64 with the music alone. That was back when Star Wars hadn't had many underwhelming titles under its belt.
Nintendo's passiveness has only lowered their place in the chain every year. You can't launch a console on the market giving away the impression from the word go that it is a secondary console because then it becomes the third choice or less. In order to get second you have to put out the perception that you are going to win or at least come close. You cant just say, "Well we're not competing with them." That lets MS say, "Look they aren't even serious about this. They aren't even trying to go against Sony let alone us. They're giving up. How can they provide you, the complicated American consumer, with what you want. They're kiddy. They're a sinking ship!"
Lets get serious, MS is Nintendo's competition and Nintendo thinks Nintendo is its own competition. Something is fishy. MS knows it can't beat Sony without outing Nintendo first. Same way Sony knew they couldnt take on Nintendo until they blew away Sega. Nintendo though doesn't even want to play ball with MS let alone Sony.
Post by: seen33 on October 27, 2004, 07:03:27 PM
Halo2 is gonna be way better then MP2. WHY? cause halo 2 will still be played online 16 players after 1 week. MP2 will be played once through by me.. maybe 10 mins of multiplayer if i can convince my sister to play it and never again (well maybe 5 years later when i get into my classic games phases. see as an older gamer i dont have friends who come over and play xbox or gamecube. My friends are always working/busy and if they do get a free moment they want to go out and meet girls.. not play games. I myself like games tho (well girls too heh).. so online play is a huge factor for me cause it keeps a game going
although I must admit.. mp1 single player was WAY better then halo1 SP and i have no doubt MP2 will have a better SP then halo2. But unfortunetly.. Sp only lasts a short while and i dont like games that make u play through it again to unlock stuff. So in the end mp1 had about 20 hours of gameplay total in it for me and halo 1 had over 2000... thus u can see which one is more worth the $. I am still gonna buy both games however.
Post by: Ian Sane on October 27, 2004, 07:11:26 PM
I loved the Shadows of the Empire ad. It showed tons of in-game footage (and that game looks like crap compared to Cube titles) and had this cool voice over from the main character. The voice over talked about the main characters experiences, experiences that the player could have. You would see that ad and say "wow that sounds cool and I can do the same thing in the game." That's the type of ad that creates hype. Nintendo during their peak used to always shill key features in their ads. Remember the ad for Yoshi's Island that made a big deal about "morphmation"? What the f*ck is that? Who cares I'm going to buy that game. The current ads don't say ANYTHING about the game.
Post by: idgaf on October 27, 2004, 09:26:36 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
idgaf: Do you even know what an engine does? You cannot provide an engine for everyone, every type of game requires a different engine and you cannot expect Ninty to offer an engine for every thinkable type of game for free, especially since these things go from a few hundred thousand to a few million dollars.
Yes, I do know what an engine, I've written a couple of basic ones myself. I did not suggest that a single engine can be used for all games which is why i suggested a few big title games such as metroid (for fps) and zelda for (third person adventure type games). I did not suggest that the engines are to be offered for free either. While counter strike got to make their game for free by adding on to the half life engine, several games use the quake engine beneath the surface, and they DO pay for it. I said they should license out the engine, not only would this be another oppertunity to make money directly, they would likely increase the number of games developed for nintendo, and hopefully increase the install base.
Post by: idgaf on October 27, 2004, 09:46:13 PM
Not sure about what MS thinks now, but when i worked for them a couple of years ago, they said their competition is Playstation, and did not mention Nintendo at any point either. I do agree with you about the GTA commercials, I thought they were great commercials.
Post by: Gackt on October 28, 2004, 08:15:15 AM
Post by: MaleficentOgre on October 28, 2004, 07:04:46 PM
And after the appocalypse happens and nintendo returns everyone will say. THANK GOD! It may not seem like it now, but without nintendo there is no industry. Sure they're not the big dog in the game anymore, but they are the most important part. If sony stopped making games we'd be okay, if microsoft stopped making games we'd be okay, If nintendo stops making games we'll say we're okay, but we won't be.
Post by: Ian Sane on October 28, 2004, 07:18:12 PM
They sort of did with the N64. They released Mario Party 3 in May 2001 and didn't release another console title until the Cube launch in November. This made the transition between consoles very difficult and it really allowed the PS2 to build up some momentum. People don't miss Nintendo when they're gone, they forget about them. Nintendo has to stay in people's minds.
However I do think they should give Mario a year off. They did this with the SNES in 1994. As far as I can tell no Mario themed SNES titles were released that year. This gave DKC a bigger focus and that certainly turned out well. In 1995 they released Yoshi's Island which was a Mario but not quite since it was Baby Mario. Adult Mario didn't return until 1996 and that built up HUGE hype for Super Mario 64 and Super Mario RPG. Mario CAN'T build hype right now because they release like 4 Mario themed titles a year. To the average person Super Mario Sunshine was not a big deal because in their eyes Mario released a title only a few months before.
I think "taking a break" would be a good idea for a lot of Nintendo's major franchises. They've just been cranking out too many sequels lately. If each franchise takes a break for a year or two (not at the same time) it would give Nintendo a chance to make some brand new stuff and would create more interest in the franchises when they return. Part of why Ocarina of Time had so much hype was that it was the first Zelda in five years. I say they shouldn't release any more Mario titles on the Cube so thus his debut on the Revolution will seem like a really big deal.
So a year off is good but just for the major franchises, not Nintendo themselves.
Post by: cryforlife on October 29, 2004, 08:11:08 PM
Gamers aren't stupid, they know when a company pulls a Disney on them, constantly recycling the same ideas and or characters for years. Unless they know they have a chance at getting something completely new and fresh on a regular basis, they just wont bite. They want original mature games... or even original family games for that matter, but for gods sakes they want some new content. Good luck trying to reach new markets with the DS when everything is plastered with the same stale nintendo characters (and stigma) that they can find in almost every other game nintendo releases. Nintendo has flooded the market with its beloved characters to the point where many people no longer care anymore.
They do this because nintendo has become a risk averse company, having made some serious screwups in the 32/64 bit generation they have never fully recovered, in many cases going the safe route of endless sequels. Now nintendo doesn't remember that taking risks is what keeps a company vital and fresh. Theyll say they took risks with Eternal Darkness and it didn't sell well, but its easy to figure that one out, the system had already been pegged as a kids toy from launch. One game isn't going to change that, because almost no one buys a system for just one game that doesn't come from an established franchise when every other game for the system turns their stomach. Nintendo needs to go beyond halfhearted attempts, saying things akin to "oh yeah, we've got that one game coming out, so we're covering all the bases", Metal gear solid and resident evil remakes of 5 year old games dont cut it either. Don't get me wrong, i love nintendos classic characters, but for gods sake, OVERKILL people!
Nintendo needs a concerted effort to make original, cutting edge first party content, and they need it quick! Star Fox Adventures was an insult, as Dinosaur Planet it would have been somethng new and fresh, but the way they tacked on Star Fox seemed forced from the start. RARE may have taken forever to make their games, but by letting them slip thru their fingers, Nintendo helped kill the golden goose, as now that Silicon Knights is gone all they have is Retro Studios. Problem is, all this is a moot point by now, as these things need to be factors AT LAUNCH, when the hype machine is at its highest and public perceptions are conceived.
Now we have Metroid Prime 2 coming, which undoubtedly has a huge potential cool factor along with it despite its classic nintendo status because the fresh take on the series is very modern and cutting edge, unsurprisingly this is being developed by Retro Studios in America, where Nintendo's developers arent addicted to mario and donkey kong like crack cocaine as they are in japan. It will sell reasonably well, but still underperform in the grand scheme of the industry because the Nintendo name is a pariah to anyone who wants to be taken seriously by their peers.
Then we have Geist, which looks like it has majorly serious potential, but you ask anyone beyond nintendo fans and i bet dollars to donuts they havent even heard of it. Then there's resident evil 4, which could be a massive seller, however i fear that the mainstream public has moved on, at a certain point (somewhere around code veronica i think) people got over shooting zombies in the same way they got over Lara Croft's mammaries. It will probably sell phenomenally well for a gamecube title, but still underperform by any serious industry standards.
The #1 problem with nintendo is a lack of percieved cutting edge innovation, that sounds like a marketing thing, but marking doesn't begin with the marketing department, marketing starts with the developers. If you ask me, Nintendos marketing is TOO good, they believe their own hype, and talk about "leveraging properties" and "demographics" more than they do about fun new games. No matter how many ads they run in Maxim and Blender, Nintendo DS will never reach its highest potential, simply because the launch lineup is too kid oriented. BALANCE people!
This having been said, maybe nintendos marketing department could do better than pasting mario faces on peoples heads in their ads and trying to be cool if they actually had something to work with. Even the most cutting edge gameplay ever devised in the history of videogaming won't sell if it's got Barney the Dinosaur on the box.
Post by: Mario on October 30, 2004, 09:56:37 PM
In a way though, Nintendo are "taking time off". In the publics eye they haven't had a massive hit since Super Mario 64, OoT or Goldeneye, and they've kind of faded into the shadows without that "killer app" for either GC or GBA. if Nintendo have a massive hit up their sleeves, and it's good enough for people to take notice, they'll think "hey, this reminds me, Nintendo makes good games!", when it comes out. I would suggest the next Zelda had the potential to do that, but with the milking that series has gotten, it won't make that much of a splash. A revolutionary new Mario platformer is all I can think of that would do the trick. I'm not suggesting that the GC lineup of games is lacking, because it certainly isn't, GC is my favourite console of all time, it's just that in the publics eye, there is no defining game that makes them want to pick up the system like Grand Theft Auto or Halo.
Also, I think all this "kiddy" and "cool" stuff is bullshit, that isn't why Nintendo is behind. If someone calls a Nintendo game kiddy, it's just their way of saying it's a crap game.
Post by: Famicom on October 31, 2004, 05:23:12 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
if Nintendo have a massive hit up their sleeves, and it's good enough for people to take notice, they'll think "hey, this reminds me, Nintendo makes good games!", when it comes out. I would suggest the next Zelda had the potential to do that, but with the milking that series has gotten, it won't make that much of a splash. A revolutionary new Mario platformer is all I can think of that would do the trick.
While I have no doubt a return-to-the-roots Mario platformer would be a huge killer-app for Ninty, I wouldn't count Zelda out exactly. Despite the "kiddie-fied" Wind Waker (which I enjoyed BTW), if the internet traffic surrounding any new newsbit about the next Zelda game is any indication, Zelda still has tons of drawing power and respect from the gaming community. With a steady stream of good hype from Ninty (or maybe even without it?) it'll easily be the best selling GC game ever, but I agree it won't be a mega splash on the mainstream like a new GTA or Halo could produce. Although I'd HATE it, it would probably be in their best interests to hold it back and retool it for the launch of the Revolution, but that's highly unlikely and feasible at this point.
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 31, 2004, 05:30:27 AM
(And despite all the angst around WW, it sold a LOT...So there are many Zelda fans, cel-shaded or not)
Post by: Ian Sane on October 31, 2004, 08:09:09 AM
Considering that each Cube Zelda game is quite different I think it might still make a big splash. It looks completely different from Wind Waker and Four Swords Adventures. Plus unlike Mario it's not like 4 games a year. I think Zelda (as well as Metroid) has been milked too much lately but it's not like Mario which has basically turned into Mega Man.
The new Cube Zelda has one thing that most Cube games don't have: hype. It's been created pretty much by accident. Nintendo created massive hype for the title when they "switched" the Spaceworld footage with Wind Waker. We're all aware of the huge backlash that resulted. Sure Wind Waker was great and sold well but it has always been in the shadow of what could have been. Deep down there's been a long desire for the realistic Zelda. The fact that we didn't get it has made it a more desired title. I've talked about Nintendo taking a break from their key franchises. In a way they have with Zelda. They've taken a break from the style seen in Ocarina of Time for a couple of years and now it's coming back. It seems entirely accidental but it's created hype.
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 31, 2004, 08:28:32 AM
"I think Zelda (as well as Metroid) has been milked too much lately"
These two contradict each other...The fact that each game is completely different gives reason to their existence...
Post by: KDR_11k on October 31, 2004, 08:49:01 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on October 31, 2004, 08:56:07 AM
In reality yes. However most Mario games are quite different and they still come across as stale to the general public. That's because if you don't play them they look like the same stuff over and over again. I'm talking about public perception and how it will affect sales.
Plus as different as most of Nintendo's franchise games are I don't see the need to release them so frequently. In theory if they release a Zelda related game every year they're going to run out of ideas faster.
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 31, 2004, 09:25:25 AM
Completely different in a Zelda sense...If you make a "new franchise" it would just be Zelda with different characters, which kind of defeats the purpose making the new franchise in the first place, as well as sees decreased sales due to lack of consumer recognition...Ninty saves new characters/franchises for new gameplay, as they did for Pikmin and Animal Crossing, and as they are doing with Another (DS)...
"That's because if you don't play them they look like the same stuff over and over again."
That didn't stop people from buying Vice City and San Andreas...
Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on November 01, 2004, 09:50:22 AM
On the flip side, we have games like Mario Pinball, where the franchise just limits the included bosses. Mario Party needs to be killed. And although I'd love to see another golf game from Camelot, they've done everything they can with Mario and should create a new golf franchise.
I wouldn't call Mario a "Mega Man"--most games Mario appears in are at least decent. I have no problem with the Zelda games. Except for Navi's Trackers, which was ditched in the U.S., each modern Zelda game I've seen fits perfectly with the series. That new Minish Cap game will finally give the 2D series a graphical overhaul, which will be nice.
Post by: Hostile Creation on November 01, 2004, 05:54:03 PM
Metroid is showing signs of getting out of hand, what with Hunters coming out. But that's mainly because of the long gap and the remake of the original. Besides, the side-scrolling and 3D Metroids play very differently.
Some examples of franchises that are not out of hand:
Kirby
F-Zero
Earthbound
Ice Climbers (bring em back!)
Fire Emblem
Pikmin (I think a DS version of Pikmin could be absolutely awesome)
Thing is, despite all these games, I still feel like I'm playing pure, unmilked Nintendo whenever I actually play all of them. So I can't complain too much
Post by: Ian Sane on November 01, 2004, 06:02:43 PM
What? You would keep Mario Party but not Mario Kart?
I disagree about F-Zero since it's going to have THREE GBA games in total which is absolutly ridiculous but I will agree that that rest of those franchises mentioned are not out of hand.
Post by: Hostile Creation on November 01, 2004, 06:45:08 PM
You're right, that is too many.Egads, Mario Kart. That's why I left room for extras, I guess, because I knew I'd forget something. Yeah, a Mario Kart per gen is fine, too. But between an excellent Mario Party game and Mario Kart, I'd probably go with Mario Party (if it were one per generation, taking time to make it excellent, all the best qualities of the different party games without all the crap). But it'd have to be a better Mario Party than any of those that exist so far.
They need a Mario Party compilation that takes all the not crap minigames and puts them together. They wouldn't even need the board game, if they didn't feel like it. Just give me those games and I'll play for hours.
Post by: xts3 on December 03, 2004, 11:29:47 PM
The fact is they need their former heavy hitters back like Konami, Square enix, etc. Without them they will wither and die a horrible, horrible death. I've seen brand new games going into new territory, brand new franchises invented from the ground up on PS2. Nintendo is still re-hashing games based on properties it made a long time ago. They can't support the ship themselves because games take enormous amounts of money and time to make just one.
