Post by: Perfect Cell on March 16, 2003, 01:41:13 PM
For your discussion! Is he right? i dont think so. Nintendo isnt the only company that milks its franchises!
Post by: Sean on March 16, 2003, 01:45:03 PM
Milking franchises or not, none of that matters one IOTA unless the games themselves are bad. And in Nintendo's case, almost no one can make a good case that Nintendo's recent "milkings" are lacking in greatness. Sure, whiners out there complain about Mario Sunshine and whatever else, but this gamer right here thinks Nintendo is making the best possible use of their franchises, as seen with the final product.
The worst part? This goes both ways--if Nintendo didn't make sequels, they would be chastised for ignoring lucrative opportunities. Furthermore, the wait between there biggest games has at times been nearly interminable. Now maybe I should go read this article...hahaha...
While this article has much truth within it, and it makes a few interesting points, the writer is actually missing the major point: just because HE is done with Nintendo (and still doesn't QUITE admit it), doesn't mean that Nintendo is flawed or that their terrific first party titles like Mario Sunshine and Wind Waker aren't so terrific. I felt and still feel that Mario Sunshine met my expectations, for the most part--at times I wanted more presentation and a grand fanfare at Mario's RETURN, but in the end, Miyamoto and Co. just wanted you to play the game, get right to it. I'm okay with that.
The advance word on The Wind Waker tells me that Nintendo is ABSOLUTELY JUSTIFYING every day their reason for making sequels. Great games tend to do that.
Furthermore, this guy basically says he's seeing history repeat itself with the GCN going the way of the N64, and THIS IS BOLD-FACED EXAGGERATION. Everyone who's paying attention knows that Nintendo has improved ten-fold when it comes to producing games for their current system, and it already has far more games, to my knowledge, than the N64 had at this point. That little knock about "Nintendo 65" was not well taken.
Good points or no, this article was in fact not a BIASED article, but another example of an older gamer whose outgrown Nintendo. Simple as that.
Many of us still haven't outgrown them, and if you ask me, we're better off.
Edit: To add insult to injury, look what Jeff lists as his most wanted....this is great:
"...Most Wanted: A good Sin & Punishment sequel, some stuff we can't reveal yet..."
On top of that, he's "currently playing" Zelda: The Wind Waker. A sequel, if you didn't know
Now, I realize Jeff isn't saying that all sequels are bad, but he
a) undervalues what Nintendo DOES with their sequels and
b) undervalues or ignores Nintendo's new franchises and (as others here have since noted before me)
c) undervalues the idea that one can't know everything, and Nintendo's probably only begun to really get moving with the GameCube. I think that's safe to say. A little over one year into a system's life is JACK SQUAT, people. Look at the PS2's first year and look where it is now.
Post by: T-Tiger on March 16, 2003, 01:46:31 PM
Nintendo is the best out there. They've outlasted companies like Atari, and Sega in the Hardware buisness and they can very well do the same with Microsoft and Sony. Pretty soon (I can feel it) they're going to make a HUGE comeback...whether it be with games or a new system...
Post by: VideoGamerX on March 16, 2003, 02:20:11 PM
Plain and clear, E3 is supposed to show a number of new franchises. Am I right, or am I mistaken?
Post by: Squall on March 16, 2003, 02:27:04 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 16, 2003, 02:31:43 PM
Post by: Perfect Cell on March 16, 2003, 02:36:51 PM
Hes got an ethical responsability to represent an unbiassed look at gaming. Yet stuff like this is pure biass
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 16, 2003, 02:51:54 PM
And maybe this guy should wake up to the fact that Super Mario 64 pretty much established how videogames operate in 3 dimensions. Ocarina of Time set standards across the entire industry on what a game should be like. Nintendo has a mantra to innovate with every single installment in a series. Sure there’s a bunch of Marios and Zeldas, but each one is different in it’s own way. That’s just how Nintendo makes their games. When a new installment is released in one of their series, almost immediately you start seeing the ideas Nintendo invented becoming commonplace in nearly every game released thereafter. To say Nintendo “rehashes” shows this guy is talking out of his ass. If he seriously believes what he wrote, he really needs to be admitted to a mental institute before he accidentally reproduces.
Post by: BlkPaladin on March 16, 2003, 03:00:29 PM
But this guy just put rose color glasses when it came to the PS2 and the Xbox. He fails the mention that the ratio of innovative games to rehashes or sequals is just as bad on these two console. Especially if you just look at the the first party for each of the companies. Almost 95% of the PS2 first/second party line up are sequels. The only really new games that come to mind are Fanatvision, Jak and Dexter, and ICO. Compare that to Legaia 2, Wild Arms 3, Twisted Metal Black. And on the Xbox all they have really brought in invoation to gaming is Halo (which if I remember correctly is a psuedo sequal to Bungie's other First Person Shooters.) and a they made online play better than Battle.net, which it is roughly based off of.
Post by: Mario on March 16, 2003, 03:40:48 PM
Quote
He's basically saying Nintendo isn't innovative.
http://www.planetgamecube.com/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=3&threadid=1982
My article > his
Post by: Jonk on March 16, 2003, 05:28:45 PM
Post by: Reverse_Gecko on March 16, 2003, 06:19:02 PM
He complains how nintendo makes so many sequels but he totally ignores the fact that they are the best games there are.
I would take almost any nintendo sequel over almost any origional ps2 or xbox game.
Post by: The Omen on March 16, 2003, 06:22:17 PM
Quote
Good points or no, this article was in fact not a BIASED article, but another example of an older gamer whose outgrown Nintendo. Simple as that.
If you mean to infer that he outgrew Nintendo and grew 'into' ps2 and xbox , I firmly disagree. That doesn't happen. If he outgrew games in general, then you might have a point. Or if he said he was burned by the N64, and didn't feel the same about Nin, then I could see that. I look at his 'editorial', and to me he sounds like either a kid who grew up loving Sega and hating Nintendo, or he is a freaking fanboy. He could have made some valid points without showing what system he's 'loyal' to, but he showed his hand by bringing up Microsoft innovation. It corrupted his whole article. He did exactly what fanboys always do, pretend they USED to be a fan of a certain system or company, so it has more merit when they bash it. ....Just play which games you like and be done with it. ....By the way, i really like that poll he has on there, too.
Post by: rpglover on March 16, 2003, 06:36:38 PM
"and the success of Nintendo's classic franchises simply isn't as guaranteed as it used to be."
zelda ww is now the most preordered game in history and metroid prime did really well in sales- i am pretty sure nintendo is guarenteed a good profit when they release games
"Microsoft has put most of its rookie mistakes behind it, and the Xbox has introduced some actual innovation into console gaming, online and off."
as i said earlier, what innovation is that? he fails to follow up on it and tell us what those innovations actually are
the whole article focuses on sequels from nintendo- but i do not understand why he doesnt like them
the "sequels" nintendo gives us are games that star the same characters but usually have some innovation in them
zelda with cel shading, metroid fps, mario with a water pack, and all of those games turned out really well
to me it doesnt matter- the reason i bought the gc was to play those nintendo sequels
and even if all of nintendo's games are rehashes- they are the best damn rehashes i ever play
as long as we have nintendo, we will always see innovation and of course good games
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 16, 2003, 09:19:45 PM
No, no, no- you have it all wrong. What a bias is is to think negatively towards a party simply because it is not affiliated with who you are loyal to. This guy doesn't like Nintendo because he's an MS or Sony fan/fanboy. Therefor he makes up things or bends facts to fit his case that Nintendo is "bad". Outgrowing Nintendo is different from being biased to them- someone who has outgrown Nintendo would say their games are well made, they're just not what the person is looking for in a game. THIS guy just flat out lies and says all Nintendo does is rehash, THEN he goes to say that MS is now the innovator (even though MS has released very few 1st or 2nd party games, of which only Blinx really innovated any). THAT is a bias.
Post by: PaLaDiN on March 16, 2003, 09:28:15 PM
They did promise at least one new franchise there didn't they.
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 16, 2003, 10:28:09 PM
Post by: Demonhunter on March 17, 2003, 02:56:48 AM
"....Microsoft....innovations..."
OMG anyone who knows ANYTHING about M$ knows that is the most non-innovative company around. It stole ideas from Adobe, Apple, and even Linux! Windows is just a lame hodgepodge of other peoples ideas. Microsoft innovating? Yeah and I'm George Clooney.
Post by: egman on March 17, 2003, 06:19:46 AM
Also, I think he needs to reevaluate what can be considered "milking." It looks like Nintendo is milking they're franchise to death because their franchises have been around WAY longer than Sony's and Microsoft's. Ironically, Nintendo uses a stratgey similar to Disney's release schedule. Instead of pumping out major productions every year, they wait a long period between new games thus naturally generating hype while keeping the product relatively fresh. They have adhered to this philosophy to the point that fans have complained (which is understandable when Nintendo and only a handful of developers were creating for the N64. The GameCube is ending that).
I mean, look at Mario. People think he has become stale, but really in the space of nearly 20 years, there have only been like six true Mario games, with the last installment coming 6 years after the previous one. There are a lot of PS franchises like Spyro or Crash Bandicoot that have reached half that sum or even a little more than half in a mere fraction of the time Nintendo has used Mario. But this is strictly speaking about sequels. I might be more sympathetic if he talking about being tired of spin offs like the Mario Parties and Smash Brothers or the Mario RPGs, but once again we go back to the idea that only the character is the same while the situation and gameplay are different.
Why should Nintendo give up it's characters or constantly create new ones for each game? Nintendo, like Disney, had established it's own kind of universe and aesthetic. Nintendo's is a specific idenity, and fans are partially drawn to Nintendo because they are so well defined. That's something you cannot find in the other, 3rd party dominated consoles.
Post by: Perfect Cell on March 17, 2003, 06:38:55 AM
Post by: PIAC on March 17, 2003, 07:58:22 AM
dead or alive : xtreme beach volly ball
cant get a more milked franchise than that
Post by: bamf226 on March 17, 2003, 09:53:40 AM
Other than the Resident Evil series, are there any actual sequels for the Gamecube? Metroid Prime and Zelda: WW are sequels in a sense, but both games take a well-known character and add a new dimension. This is what gaming has been missing over the last few years. Take alook at PC gaming. This year, gamers are seeing more and more rehashed crap. How many more fantasy MMORPGs does one need? Why does every game that sold a decent amount of copies need a sequel this year? Most developers are just afraid to take a chance. Nintendo is willing to take that chance and most of the time succeeds.
I think Zelda: WW is the best example. Pre-sale numbers for Zelda: WW are astronomical. Yes, it's your standard Zelda game, but the graphics are so much different than any Zelda (or any video game that I know of). It's not just a graphic tweak (i.e. this graphic engine now allows 10% more polygons) but a major graphics style change. It's something different if only in graphics.
Considering that the author of that article is also playing Zelda: WW currently, doesn't he basically kill his argument? Maybe if he bothered to look at Xbox and PS2 catalogs, he would notice the massive amounts of sequels. Did the console community really need Grand Theft Auto: Vice City? What would his tune be if GTA4 or Mortal Kombat: Blood Soaked Ground were available for PS2 and XBox only?
Post by: The Omen on March 17, 2003, 09:57:44 AM
Quote
dead or alive : xtreme beach volly ball
cant get a more milked franchise than that
Hey, c'mon! It did get a rating of 9.2 from IGNXbox! LOL
This guy mentions rehashes, but states he wants a 'true' Sin and Punishment sequal. I guess if you say 'true', it's not a rehash? Moronic
Post by: Squall on March 17, 2003, 10:04:02 AM
I've been thinking a little about the sequels thing while reading this topic. I think it's easy to be frustrated with Nintendo for using the Pokemon and Mario licenses so much. The License Revoked editorial here are PGC was great. I believe somewhere in the article they talked about licenses or franchises taking the pressure off the developer to make a really great game. And Nintendo does do that. Super Mario Sunshine should've been a brand new game. The presentation was sloppy and the idea of using water could probably have been expanded much further had it been an original character. But Mario would sell, so they slapped Mario in there (much like they put Star Fox into Dinosaur Planet). Mario Tennis and Golf are also like this (I don't include Kart or Party since I haven't played much of those series). Do the Mario characters really add that much to the gameplay? No, I don't believe so (SSBM on the other hand, I find uses the licenses very well). Of course, those games don't need to have much of a presentaion anyways, so it's not so bad. Really, what I'm trying to say is Nintendo do sometimes hide behind their franchises. Put a little more money into getting the word out on games (and their actual gameplay!). But that's another topic.
Post by: The Omen on March 17, 2003, 10:17:11 AM
Quote
I don't agree with all the MS bashing going on here. MS have done some great (and new) things, like the harddrive and Xboxlive. Blinx was a good idea, bad execution.
Thats exactly the point. Nintendo games, if anything, execute perfectly. To me, just having a good idea is not innovative if it fails to deliver. Countless great ideas have ended up in the toilet, with nothing more to show for it. While at first , it would seem NIN hides behind it's characters, I would argue that each incarnation adds many unique, and yes, innovative elements to it. SMS gets bashed, but I really enjoyed it. Look what it had to live up to.
Although Zelda , Metroid, Pokemon, and Mario can always be counted on, they've introduced Animal Crossing, Pikmin and Luigis Mansion (seriously, I would like another installment) just this past year. How many companys can you say that about?
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 17, 2003, 10:28:26 AM
The hard drive was good- XBox Live was nothing new. Sega;s the one that innovated online console gaming.
"Blinx was a good idea, bad execution. Halo introduced the 2 weapon system, didn't it?"
Blinx had a great idea. About Halo- are you referring to it limitting you to two weapons? Hardly innovative- just a limit on how many weapons you can have at a time (which SUCKED in my opinion- screw realism, I like to hold a lot more than 2 guns)
"I think it's easy to be frustrated with Nintendo for using the Pokemon and Mario licenses so much."
Pokemon yes, since it's pretty much the same game. But MARIO? Mario is synonomous to innovation. Mario has revolutionized gaming more times than ANY other series, and that hasn't let up. Mario is ANYTHING but a rehash.
"they talked about licenses or franchises taking the pressure off the developer to make a really great game. And Nintendo does do that. Super Mario Sunshine should've been a brand new game. The presentation was sloppy and the idea of using water could probably have been expanded much further had it been an original character. But Mario would sell, so they slapped Mario in there (much like they put Star Fox into Dinosaur Planet)"
Are you BLIND? SMS was built from the ground up with the water gun in mind- it wasn't an idea they "slapped" Mario onto- get that out of your head. And how was the presentation sloppy? SMS was one of the BEST platformers I've ever played- maybe not the best Mario game but MUCH better than 99% of games out there. It's easily one of the funnest games I've ever played. How was it sloppy?
"Mario Tennis and Golf are also like this (I don't include Kart or Party since I haven't played much of those series). Do the Mario characters really add that much to the gameplay?"
Tennis and Golf do benefit from the Mario license, yes, but that doesn't mean they're damn fine games. And Kart and Party are almost completely based around the Mario World- while MP 2 and 3 didn't offer much new, at least 4 did and Kart always offers something new.
I'm not saying every single one of Nintendo's games revolutionizes the industry, but Nintendo is more revolutionary than pretty much every other developer combined. I can understand if people are irked that Pokemon never changes, or with similar cases, but to say MS is MORE innovative is just talknig out of your ass. Besides the fact MS doesn't even make games themselves, the only really innovative idea they've published was Blinx and the developer really screwed up with that game.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 17, 2003, 10:32:07 AM
The truth is most people who say that Nintendo milks their franchises or rehashes their sequels are the same people who own and love every Final Fantasy game, play every version of Street Fighter imaginable, and thought GTA: Vice City was the best game of last year. The general rule with many reviewers is game series they don't like are milked and ones they like aren't. The same reviewer will mark one game a lower score because "it plays too similar to the original" and give another game a great score with a comment like "sure you've played it all before, but so what".
The main reasoning people use to back up this ridiculous accusation is games like Mario Party and Mario Golf which are games featuring the Mario franchise that don't really have to use it. Personally I think Mario Kart and Mario RPG should be the only spinoffs but if Nintendo can get better sales by adding the Mario franchise to more games then I don't really blame them for doing so.
A general problem is that a lot of these people use new content as the basis for innovation instead of new gameplay. Mario may constantly be adding new gameplay additions to each game but each game still has the same characters so it's not innovative. Meanwhile Halo may play like every console FPS ever made but it has a new character so it's innovative. Same with Final Fantasy which has new characters in every game. FFX-2 will probably be critisized as being rehashed.
Most "innovative" games are just Malibu Stacy with a new hat.
Post by: Squall on March 17, 2003, 10:54:59 AM
Quote
Are you BLIND? SMS was built from the ground up with the water gun in mind- it wasn't an idea they "slapped" Mario onto- get that out of your head. And how was the presentation sloppy? SMS was one of the BEST platformers I've ever played- maybe not the best Mario game but MUCH better than 99% of games out there. It's easily one of the funnest games I've ever played. How was it sloppy?
I'm not saying it was a bad platformer, it was tons of fun. I said the PRESENTATION was sloppy, and that if it hadn't been Mario it might've opened up new gameplay possibilities. For example, if it hadn't been Mario the water-pack may have been used in better ways (I would've liked to see the water shooting out of the hover-pack expansion play a role, and the Yoshi thing seemed very forced). I'm sorry for the way I phrased it, I know it was always intended to be a Mario game. I simply meant the Mario name wasn't needed. I could go much deeper into things I would've liked to see changed, but that's another topic. My point is I think the game would've worked better with new characters.
I have no problem with sticking to old franchises to make a game sell, as long as the gameplay remains completely unaffected.
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 17, 2003, 11:15:52 AM
Post by: thecubedcanuck on March 17, 2003, 11:19:14 AM
As for rehashing old games, all 3 are guilty.
Post by: Sir Pinch-a-Loaf on March 17, 2003, 11:19:23 AM
www.gamespot.com will also work, so waste time and bandwidth at work as much as you want!!
Post by: Ian Sane on March 17, 2003, 11:41:31 AM
"I saw nothing innovative about SMS, having to use the water gun the whole game sucked, and all in all it was frustrating, repetitive and lacked fun"
Well it doesn't matter whether you liked it or not because that's not the issue being discussed. The water gun was still innovative. SMS doesn't suddenly become a rehash because you didn't like the new stuff it had.
Post by: Squall on March 17, 2003, 12:00:19 PM
