Post by: oksoda on August 03, 2012, 06:18:28 PM
Are we approaching Mario fatigue?
http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/editorial/31239
Earlier this week, I wrote a news story detailing the cooperative multiplayer mode in the upcoming (or already released, depending on where you live) New Super Mario Bros. 2. The story highlighted how the mode almost didn’t make the final cut, as the team working on the game didn’t think it would be possible to implement it in the time they had to complete the product. This story spawned a great deal of conversation, stretching from Nintendo’s “laziness” in almost abandoning the co-op mode because it seemed too difficult, to their overall stance on multiplayer gaming, especially online. However, a different topic stuck out to me: whether or not we have too much Mario right now. It's something I felt, too, after this year's E3, when Nintendo announced a pair of 2D Mario games for 2012.
So what’s the problem? There was a time when Nintendo could have announced a new Mario game for each of the 128 Marios in that old GameCube tech video and I would have started counting out the thousands of dollars necessary to buy them all. Are we really suffering from Mario overexposure, or is this apathy (if not worse) for the upcoming games a reaction to the quality of the games themselves?
By the end of this year, Nintendo will have released a total of seven traditional Mario games since 2006: New Super Mario Bros. (2006), Super Mario Galaxy (2007), New Super Mario Bros. Wii (2009), Super Mario Galaxy 2 (2010), Super Mario 3D Land (2011), New Super Mario Bros. 2 (2012) and New Super Mario Bros. U (2012). So that averages to exactly one standard Mario platformer per year over a span of seven years. Now let me stop you right there, guy who is beginning to argue that the 3D and 2D Mario games should be considered in a different light: the games are all platformers, differing only in dimension. Thematically they are the same, and as such, I am putting them together.
So, seven games in seven years. That trails Call of Duty by only one entry, a series that will see its eighth game in that same timespan released later this year. Indeed, Mario games have been coming out like clockwork. But using that figure alone to argue that Nintendo is annualizing Mario as a means to make a quick buck falls flat when you look at the number of Mario games released in the same amount of time during the ‘80s and ‘90s.
From 1985 to 1991, Nintendo released six Mario games (going by the Japanese release date unless otherwise noted): Super Mario Bros. (1985), Super Mario Bros. 2 (Japan 1986), Super Mario Bros. 2 (US 1988), Super Mario Bros. 3 (1988), Super Mario Land (1989), and Super Mario World (1990). That’s six games in seven years, and I don't think anyone would argue those games suffer from coming out too rapidly. The issue, then, wouldn't appear to be quantity.
With the exception of the Japanese version of Super Mario Bros. 2, each of the other five games released from 1985 to 1990 felt drastically different from its predecessor. From level selection screens to the ability to fly, friendly dinosaurs to drivable submarines and airplanes, no two Mario games were the same. They didn’t look or sound the same, either. Each game featured new worlds and unique soundtracks that set them apart from the others. In other words, each Mario game stands on its own as a momentous and noteworthy addition to the series.
The same can’t be said for the recent Mario games, not entirely anyway. The Galaxy games are the shining example of what happens when Nintendo gets creative and defies what is expected of them. Up, down, left, and right are only a matter of perspective as Mario manipulates, and is manipulated by, the gravity of the different planetoids he finds himself on. Nintendo took the familiar and expanded upon it, not unlike during the ‘80s. Even Super Mario 3D Land, which is essentially a marriage between Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Bros., was inventive enough to stand on its own.
New Super Mario Bros., though, as a series, is sort of like a prolonged Metroid game, where Mario has been stripped of all his familiar and most beloved abilities, only to gain them back one by one across four different games. Yoshis; the ability to fly; expansive world maps—New Super Mario Bros. purposefully de-evolved Mario. One could argue that was the point; it wasn't "Super Mario Bros. 4," it was a rebirth of the franchise, a new beginning that could tread its own path. That argument doesn't hold weight, though, as each subsequent game after the original has included something from Super Mario Bros. 3 or Super Mario World as if to say, "Look! We are getting closer to making the game you wanted from the start." (That game being a continuation of 3 and World, of course.)
More egregious, though, are the recycled assets. Each New Super Mario Bros. game looks and sounds exactly the same. The series now spans four different systems, and apart from some anti-aliasing and improved geometry, there is no differentiating between them. Nintendo has picked one style and decided it's all Mario needs. Meanwhile, other 2D platforms, such as Kirby's Epic Yarn, Donkey Kong Country Returns, and Rayman Origins, play with lighting, perspective, and level design in a way that exudes creativity.
New Super Mario Bros., as a series, is stuck in neutral. The games function well enough and there is fun to be had, but if you've played one, you've played them all. That couldn't be said about the games in the ‘80s. That's the problem right there: Nintendo has become complacent, implementing only incremental upgrades from game to game. In the latest Iwata Asks, the team behind New Super Mario Bros. 2 talked about the Mario Cram School, where employees from several different departments come to learn how to create 2D Mario levels. It would appear to me the Mario Cram School needs to offer some extra courses, because the students have been turning in the same assignment for the past seven years. It wasn't that noticeable before, but in a year with two strikingly similar games coming out just a few months apart, it's impossible to ignore.
Post by: Pixelated Pixies on August 03, 2012, 07:00:12 PM
Post by: C-Olimar on August 03, 2012, 07:13:55 PM
I never owned the first two NSMB games (borrowed 1 for a short time, only played Wii twice), so I'll be getting 2 and probably U, but if there's another near identical games, they can forget aboot it!
On a side note, there needs to be a Wario Brothers game. We've had Land 1-4 and Shake Dimension, as well as World, so I want Bros. next! Waluigi needs more attention.
Post by: Eyothrie on August 03, 2012, 07:19:53 PM
Post by: Pixelated Pixies on August 03, 2012, 07:38:13 PM
I really enjoyed the DS and Wii versions, but to me the "new" series should have probably ended after the Wii version. As big of a Mario fanboy as I am, I'm really having a hard time getting excited for NSMB2. I've never had this feeling before in regards to a Mario game.
Same here. Not to be a downer, but this will probably be the first Mario game that I don't buy at launch. I might pick it up in a sale (although that's not very likely given that these games tend to retain their price point for years) but certainly not for full price.
Post by: Caterkiller on August 03, 2012, 07:39:00 PM
NSMB for the DS really did nothing for me at all, aside from the koopa shell power up. I culdnt even breing myself to finish it.
Now NSMB2 and U are coming and as much as I am looking forward to them I do agree with the points about all of them looking and sounding too similar. I will give a little credit to U though, it does have at least some unique looking back grounds and enemies. But why do they all share the same main theme? I would think they would create something else to differentiate it from the past games. When I looked at Galaxy 2 screens shots, if Yoshi was not present, I could not tell the games apart. But when Galaxy 2 released it blew my butt away and I was pleasantly surprised.
When I look at NSMB2 if a massive amount of coins aren't present or the Tanooki suit, it really does look like the past 2 games. I really hope it surprises me with content, but I know it won't be as zany or fulfilling as DKCR. I don't expect expect super crazy complex level design from either of these games at least until the lone special world is unlocked.
All I hope for is that these 2 2D Mario games are the only ones for this generation, leaving more anticipation for the next title in 5 or 6 years on the Wii Z and 4DS. 3D Mario can show up next year with a sequel a couple years after, no worries there.
Post by: HeyItsMe on August 03, 2012, 07:52:25 PM
Post by: Caterkiller on August 03, 2012, 07:56:36 PM
Post by: Luigi Dude on August 03, 2012, 08:22:17 PM
Oh and once again the 2D and 3D Mario are completely different gameplay wise so it's beyond idiotic to count the 3D with the 2D games just so you can compare Mario platformer's to Call of Duty. Just because they're both platformers doesn't mean sh!t when they're both played completely different vs Call of Duty were all the games play the exact same.
Post by: Pixelated Pixies on August 03, 2012, 08:39:52 PM
Oh and once again the 2D and 3D Mario are completely different gameplay wise so it's beyond idiotic to count the 3D with the 2D games just so you can compare Mario platformer's to Call of Duty. Just because they're both platformers doesn't mean sh!t when they're both played completely different vs Call of Duty were all the games play the exact same.
I don't know. For me, the Galaxy games and 3D Land gave me the same kick that I get from 2D Mario games. They were expanded in scope, sure, but they're still linear platformers which involved bopping stuff and jumping. Are 2D and 3D Mario platformers exactly the same? No, but they're certainly similar enough that people might feel fatigued from playing them.
I have done nothing but praise the Galaxy games and 3D Land, but even I am feeling a little...I don't know...wearisome of the Mario series right now. It's not even just the platformers. It's everything. The Karts, the Partys, the Olympic Games, the Tennis, the New, the Old. They're all different from each other, yes. But, they're all exactly the same as what has went before. Mario 3D Kart is a Mario Kart game. Mario Tennis Open is a Mario Tennis game. NSMB 2 is a NSMB game. For me, this is a larger problem. I used to get excited for the release of a new Mario game. Now? I'm kind of over it.
Post by: HeyItsMe on August 03, 2012, 10:24:36 PM
I'm only assuming you mentioned too many lives as in it makes the game easier. Lives really mean nothing in Mario anymore aside from starting form a check point. Yoshi's island is tough and by the 2nd world you can easily get 99 lives. It hardly makes the game easier. The fact that we can save up to the current level makes lives absolutely worthless. They are basically around since it's tradition.It's just weird to me collecting a lot of lives. It really doesn't make the game any easier. I don't remember how much times I died to get the (very) final star in Super Mario Galaxy 2 but it seriously took over 6 hrs. ARGHH RAGE..
Post by: Ceric on August 04, 2012, 12:00:11 AM
Post by: Luigi Dude on August 04, 2012, 12:23:19 AM
Just going to pop in and say the Super Mario Land stole tons of assets from Galaxy games.
Wow, Nintendo really does have a time machine.
Post by: NWR_insanolord on August 04, 2012, 12:39:06 AM
Post by: ThomasO on August 04, 2012, 01:10:41 AM
I don't remember how much times I died to get the (very) final star in Super Mario Galaxy 2 but it seriously took over 6 hrs. ARGHH RAGE..6 hours? Took me around 12 minutes. :P
Post by: DonnyKD on August 04, 2012, 01:50:16 AM
Once again, Nintendo only releases one 2D Mario per system now. Since both NSMB are coming out this year for the 3DS and Wii U, there won't be another one til at least 2017. So no we aren't getting to many 2D Mario games since after NSMB U this Fall, they'll be at least a 5 year gap before we get a new one.
Oh and once again the 2D and 3D Mario are completely different gameplay wise so it's beyond idiotic to count the 3D with the 2D games just so you can compare Mario platformer's to Call of Duty. Just because they're both platformers doesn't mean sh!t when they're both played completely different vs Call of Duty were all the games play the exact same.
This. I can't believe people can cry so much just because a bunch of platformers with Mario in the names are released.
I'm also going to post this:
Quote from: Me from IGN
Oh, and by the way, I didn't see anyone bitch that we got SMB (1985), SMB:LL (1986), SMB2 USA (1988), SMB3 (the same year), SML (1989) and SMW (1990), so why bitch now?
What's even worse is that, all of the games I listed? They're all 2D platformers.
Know what's funnier? Unlike the NSMB series, which only appears once a console, the 6 games listed? Yeah, 4 of them are on the SAME CONSOLE.
Nobody f***ing cried then!
Quote from: Pixelated Pixies
Mario 3D Kart is a Mario Kart game. Mario Tennis Open is a Mario Tennis game. NSMB 2 is a NSMB game.
Yeah, Mario Kart 7 should have been a football game and NSMB2 a Mario Party game!
Once again, you're crying that the games have "Mario" in them.
Post by: NWR_insanolord on August 04, 2012, 02:29:07 AM
The original NSMB wasn't great in terms of gameplay, but the Wii version blew it out of the water and brought greatness back to 2D Mario. Do we ignore the great game design because they used the same art style? I'm really excited for NSMB2 after playing it, because it has great level design and the coin mechanic is something very new to the series that excites me a lot as a high-score junkie. I'll admit, I'm not crazy about NSMBU, and it was easily the weakest game in Nintendo's booth in my opinion, but I'll still probably end up buying it.
I'm not saying Nintendo shouldn't be more creative with the visuals and the music, but they're creative where it counts, in the gameplay and level design, so I let it slide.
Post by: Chocobo_Rider on August 04, 2012, 02:47:47 AM
Why? All the reasons people have already listed in this thread.
Good luck with your molehill, other people.
Post by: broodwars on August 04, 2012, 03:05:09 AM
As for the common go-to excuse by some that "well, the NES had THREE Mario games" and so on, the Mario platforming franchise was brand-new on the NES. Much as it really doesn't bother me that new-to-this generation franchises like Uncharted; Gears of War; or Resistance have had 3 games on one console, it really didn't bother me that there were 3 Mario platformers on the NES. It was a new franchise with new worlds to explore and characters to see, and it felt like a fresh experience (especially in comparison to the usual crap that flooded the NES' software library). Then Super Mario World pushed the boundaries of that world further and showed us things we hadn't really seen before, and Yoshi's Island made a radical departure to do the same.
However, the Mario platforming franchise is over 25 years old now, and it feels every day of it now with its reliance on outdated mechanics; the same old music; the same visual design; and formulaic structure. The New Super Mario Bros. series in particular feels like a soul-less, derivative, nostalgia-reliant, designed-by-investors, creatively bankrupt product. "'New' Super Mario Bros., indeed. While there have been admirable attempts to push the series in potentially new directions (some purely cosmetic), they just haven't been enough to make the series feel "new" and "fresh" to me. I recently finished Super Mario 3D Land, and while it is a very well-made game there isn't a single aspect of it that excites me. Playing the game still feels like I'm going through the motions, and that's the feeling I've been getting from Mario for quite some time. And because Nintendo whores out the Mario characters to so many spin-off franchises (Mario Kart, etc.), I never get the chance to miss them and in the end I just end up wishing they'd all go away. I don't get the same feeling from franchises like Zelda or Metroid because their characters generally don't appear outside their respective games, with the exception of Smash Bros. and Soul Calibur 2. Perhaps so many wouldn't feel franchise fatigued over Mario if it wasn't Nintendo's go-to franchise whenever they're in a financial jam.
Are the Mario games consistently good? Yeah, for the most part. For as much criticism as New Super Mario Bros. 2 is receiving for being just another New Super Mario Bros. game, it's still garnering fairly decent scores from reviewers. But I can't help but think that 10-15 years ago the announcement of a new Mario game would have made me ecstatic, whereas nowadays I just shrug and think "yep, it's another one of those. I'm pretty sure I know exactly how it will play out. That will make the investors happy. Now where are the more interesting games?" :-\
However much it would anger the investors, I think the Mario franchises need to take a break for a while. Let us start to miss them again, and give Nintendo's designers a chance to rejuvenate their creative juices working on other projects. Hey, maybe we'd even get a new IP or two out of it, and in the end would that be a bad thing?
Post by: NWR_insanolord on August 04, 2012, 03:16:57 AM
Speaking of EAD Tokyo, I think the odds are pretty good that they're going to be showing off a new 3D Mario for Wii U at next year's E3, so I don't think we're going to see Mario take a break too soon.
Post by: broodwars on August 04, 2012, 03:23:09 AM
Speaking of EAD Tokyo, I think the odds are pretty good that they're going to be showing off a new 3D Mario for Wii U at next year's E3, so I don't think we're going to see Mario take a break too soon.
I don't think we're going to ever see Nintendo take a break from Mario either because he does make Nintendo such ridiculous amounts of money in his various franchise incarnations, but I really wish they would from a purely creative standpoint. It's pure fantasy, of course, so long as our generation is so driven by nostalgia, but it's a nice fantasy. It's nice to imagine a world where Nintendo doesn't churn out a new Mario game because the Investors started whining for one.
Post by: NWR_insanolord on August 04, 2012, 03:33:33 AM
Post by: motdelbourt on August 04, 2012, 04:38:48 AM
Post by: NWR_insanolord on August 04, 2012, 04:52:20 AM
Post by: Pixelated Pixies on August 04, 2012, 05:03:04 AM
I'm also going to post this:Quote from: Me from IGNOh, and by the way, I didn't see anyone bitch that we got SMB (1985), SMB:LL (1986), SMB2 USA (1988), SMB3 (the same year), SML (1989) and SMW (1990), so why bitch now?
What's even worse is that, all of the games I listed? They're all 2D platformers.
Know what's funnier? Unlike the NSMB series, which only appears once a console, the 6 games listed? Yeah, 4 of them are on the SAME CONSOLE.
Nobody f***ing cried then!
The article aknowledges that in fact the quantity of Mario games being released is not the issue. The problem lies with the fact that whereas Super Mario Bros 1 - 3 were relatively different from each other, each NSMB game is pretty much identical.
Quote from: Pixelated PixiesMario 3D Kart is a Mario Kart game. Mario Tennis Open is a Mario Tennis game. NSMB 2 is a NSMB game.
Yeah, Mario 3D Kart should have been a football game and NSMB2 a Mario Party game!
Once again, you're crying that the games have "Mario" in them.
You completely missed my point. I'm not 'crying' because these games have Mario in them. In fact, I'm not 'crying' at all. I was merely making a point, one which surely everyone would acknowledge as being true. That Mario 3D Kart is a very traditional Mario Kart game. That Mario Party 9 is a very traditional Mario Party game. That NSMB 2 looks to be very similar to the two games that went before it. It's not exactly a controversial statement, lol.
Neither am I suggesting that Nintendo should do anything as drastic as change a Kart racer into a football game. All I was saying is that all these games are incredibly similar to their predecessors. If you would just read my post again you'd see that I was trying to explain why I am feeling a little exasperated with the whole massive Mario behemoth. All these different branches of the Mario tree are separate from one another, but for me they're all suffering from the same problem, which is that they're not evolving fast enough and in some cases not evolving at all.
I appreciate that because each of these series are only seeing one release per system, that for some people they might not feel Mario fatigue, and for you that's great. For people like myself, however, who play every release, surely you can admit that fatigue might be a suitable reaction to the release of NSMB 2. It might be the third NSMB game released, it might be on a different system, and it might have Coin Rush Mode, but the glacial speed at which these games are evolving has meant that some people, myself included, now view them as being more of the same.
Post by: MagicCow64 on August 04, 2012, 01:37:02 PM
Rayman Origins certainly looks better, but I'm not sure it's better from a gameplay perspective. I definitely liked what I played of Rayman Legends better than NSMBU, but that may just be because I really didn't like NSMBU. I'm definitely more excited for NSMB2 than Rayman Legends, though.
Yeah, I'm with you there. Origins looked great, but there was a cog missing somewhere that kept it from reaching NSMBW's level, despite the latter game's conservative visuals.
Post by: oksoda on August 04, 2012, 02:25:10 PM
Are you experiencing Mario fatigue right now? Why or why not?
I centered my post around the shortcomings of New Super Mario Bros. as a series, but feel free to address any aspect of Mario in your answer.
Post by: Mop it up on August 04, 2012, 02:57:35 PM
Maybe that's why Nintendo are keeping the games the same, so that the more casual players don't have to relearn the game every time.
Post by: LudicrousDa3ve on August 04, 2012, 06:35:33 PM
I do really hope we get a new 3D one on WiiU by '14, though. :)
Post by: DonnyKD on August 04, 2012, 07:50:16 PM
Quote from: Pixelated Pixies
The problem lies with the fact that whereas Super Mario Bros 1 - 3 were relatively different from each other, each NSMB game is pretty much identical.
You keep telling yourself that Lost Levels is different from SMB. And you keep telling yourself that SMB2 USA is a Mario game. Hey, at least the NSMB series never reskinned another game.
Quote from: Pixelated Pixes
All these different branches of the Mario tree are separate from one another, but for me they're all suffering from the same problem, which is that they're not evolving fast enough and in some cases not evolving at all.
What the heck is your definition of "evolving"? Being an entirely different game, except that you drive/party/jump around? What the hell else are you going to do with a platformer? The only reason SMB3 is that different from SMB1 is because the latter is heavily limited. You only move forward, you only have 2 power-ups, few enemies, repeating levels, extremely linear gameplay, primitive sound quality, only four tracks in the entire game, so really, yeah, SMB3 "evolved" from SMB1, but that's like comparing a 1 minute game to Uncharted.
And remember when everyone else said that SMW was "SMB3 in 16-bit"? Yeah.
Post by: Pixelated Pixies on August 04, 2012, 10:03:24 PM
Quote from: Pixelated PixiesThe problem lies with the fact that whereas Super Mario Bros 1 - 3 were relatively different from each other, each NSMB game is pretty much identical.
You keep telling yourself that Lost Levels is different from SMB. And you keep telling yourself that SMB2 USA is a Mario game. Hey, at least the NSMB series never reskinned another game.Quote from: Pixelated PixesAll these different branches of the Mario tree are separate from one another, but for me they're all suffering from the same problem, which is that they're not evolving fast enough and in some cases not evolving at all.
What the heck is your definition of "evolving"? Being an entirely different game, except that you drive/party/jump around? What the hell else are you going to do with a platformer? The only reason SMB3 is that different from SMB1 is because the latter is heavily limited. You only move forward, you only have 2 power-ups, few enemies, repeating levels, extremely linear gameplay, primitive sound quality, only four tracks in the entire game, so really, yeah, SMB3 "evolved" from SMB1, but that's like comparing a 1 minute game to Uncharted.
And remember when everyone else said that SMW was "SMB3 in 16-bit"? Yeah.
I give up.
Post by: NWR_Lindy on August 04, 2012, 11:37:57 PM
I can't even remember the last time Nintendo themselves launched a truly new console IP in a genre other than party game or fitness. I honestly can't think of the last time that happened. You could maybe say Endless Ocean and Excite Truck/Bots on Wii, but those weren't even developed by Nintendo. Probably Donkey Kong Jungle Beat, which is cheating a bit as it's using an existing IP. Ugh.
Really, you'd have to go back almost to the dawn of GameCube, with Luigi's Mansion, Pikmin, and Wave Race. That feels like the last time Nintendo was really putting out consistently new games that we'd never seen before. They've been recycling franchises for over a decade now.
Post by: TJ Spyke on August 05, 2012, 12:04:30 AM
I can't even remember the last time Nintendo themselves launched a truly new console IP in a genre other than party game or fitness. I honestly can't think of the last time that happened. You could maybe say Endless Ocean and Excite Truck/Bots on Wii, but those weren't even developed by Nintendo. Probably Donkey Kong Jungle Beat, which is cheating a bit as it's using an existing IP. Ugh.
Xenoblade says "Hi".
Post by: Kairon on August 05, 2012, 12:23:45 AM
Post by: MegaByte on August 05, 2012, 12:37:48 AM
Really, you'd have to go back almost to the dawn of GameCube, with Luigi's Mansion, Pikmin, and Wave Race.Huh?
Post by: Chocobo_Rider on August 05, 2012, 01:40:42 AM
In the earlier days, the definition of a Mario game had not been fully formed. They could fearlessly experiment.
These days, especially with the nature of "fans" on the internet, changes have to be made in drips and drabs. If there were ANY sweeping changes made to the franchise?
(http://www.marrettcounseling.com/siteimages/Anger%202.jpg)
So, we'll get high quality games that gradually evolve over time. Drastic changes will take place every so often in the form of new sub-series ("New," "Galaxy," etc.).
I, and millions of other gamers, will gladly take it.
Post by: famicomplicated on August 05, 2012, 01:48:55 AM
Heck, if Mario 3D Land didn't exist, anticipation for the latest couple of games would be exponentially more methinks.
After playing the first couple of worlds and a bit of the **spoiler removed** I can confirm that my fears were unfortunately realised, at least at first.
I definitely got that "deja-vu" feeling I've not felt before, which is not to say I'm not enjoying it, it's just....I wish i was playing this a year later, maybe with more features *cough* online multiplayer *cough*.
Post by: DonnyKD on August 05, 2012, 12:03:24 PM
Quote from: NWR-Lindy
I can't even remember the last time Nintendo themselves launched a truly new console IP in a genre other than party game or fitness.
Steel Diver, Sakura Samurai, Pushmo, Xenoblade, and technically, Project P-100.
Welcome to 2012.
Post by: HeyItsMe on August 05, 2012, 12:04:40 PM
Really the very last star. The 242 star. I played it for 6 hrs. straight trying to beat that damn level..I don't remember how much times I died to get the (very) final star in Super Mario Galaxy 2 but it seriously took over 6 hrs. ARGHH RAGE..6 hours? Took me around 12 minutes. :P: :
Post by: HeyItsMe on August 05, 2012, 12:15:49 PM
Post by: broodwars on August 05, 2012, 12:25:22 PM
Let's also remember one important piece of information ...
In the earlier days, the definition of a Mario game had not been fully formed. They could fearlessly experiment.
These days, especially with the nature of "fans" on the internet, changes have to be made in drips and drabs. If there were ANY sweeping changes made to the franchise? *rage photo*
From my experience, that's only been the reaction when the changes have been blatantly bad. Even Other M, a game that is fairly widely derided now for the things that it did, did not receive such a reaction until people had played the game and saw that the new elements were badly implemented. But as I've constantly said, I'm glad they tried to change things up, and I'd be quite open to them making another, better attempt in the future. I'd rather companies tried new ideas with their franchises and failed than keep a series stagnant because they fear the risks.
Not changing things because you're petrified that people will revolt at the slightest provocation is why we have still regurgitated **** like the Dynasty Warriors games, which (apparently) have not substantially changed in over a decade. To me, throwing new ideas into spin-off series instead of revamping the core experience is cowardly and shows a distinct lack of faith in your game designers.
Post by: Pixelated Pixies on August 05, 2012, 12:38:43 PM
Really the very last star. The 242 star. I played it for 6 hrs. straight trying to beat that damn level..I don't remember how much times I died to get the (very) final star in Super Mario Galaxy 2 but it seriously took over 6 hrs. ARGHH RAGE..6 hours? Took me around 12 minutes. :P: : :
I got every star but that one. It was just too frustrating for me.
Post by: oohhboy on August 05, 2012, 12:49:23 PM
Nintendo really needs to look out the window as these corrections are going to get worse and worse each time they make them. The 3DS price issue hit had them hard and the correction they had to make was costly, but necessary. It's embarrassing how obvious these mistakes are.
Post by: Chocobo_Rider on August 05, 2012, 01:09:23 PM
You ALMOST have a point there but you're neglecting a key element that makes the Other M situation entirely unique. The issues some people have with that game deal with characterization and consistency with some mythical prior experience. In other words, in that case, it is something that couldn't be experienced before playing most of the game.
The gameplay itself reflects my point about substantial yet gradual evolutions. Yes, there are new and exciting tweaks, but it is built on the Super Metroid model and even manages to control largely with NES-style inputs. Which, again, accomplishes something "new" without reinventing itself.
Ultimately, you make part of my point for me. Of course people don't mind change when it's "good," the problem is that a lot of gamers fear change just as much as Nintendo fears alienating them. Gamers want game changes to reflect the ideal IN THEIR HEAD. When the result is different (as is the overwhelming statistical likelihood)? "rawr." "this change was BAD."
That's why I mentioned new sub-series, or whatever you want to call them. THAT's where companies like Nintendo who have looooong standing franchises can take risks because people don't have the same expectations. They can't "rawr" if there were no expectations to be cognitively dissonant about. Think of the PKMN Ranger series. People liked the games but not as much as the flagship titles. Imagine if one of them was called PKMN Black/White instead.
@oohhboy
It couldn't have anything to do with how some gamers/journalists have tried to crucify Nintendo in recent years for not having enough Mario games towards the beginning of a platforms cycle, could it?
Post by: oksoda on August 05, 2012, 01:14:04 PM
I can't even remember the last time Nintendo themselves launched a truly new console IP in a genre other than party game or fitness.
I know that, to us, it isn't on par with more traditional games, but Wii Sports was a new IP and sold a whole lot of Wiis. It shouldn't be overlooked.
Post by: oohhboy on August 05, 2012, 01:35:54 PM
It couldn't have anything to do with how some gamers/journalists have tried to crucify Nintendo in recent years for not having enough Mario games towards the beginning of a platforms cycle, could it?
Yes and no. Having a Mario game is good for a launch. They are just far too similar to each other. If the WiiU game was a 3D Mario they would have gotten away with it since Golden Showers is alternating from a 3D Mario. They could have launched with a 2D Mario, but they would have had to hidden GS's existence and launching that later. Any backlash would have been relatively isolated to GS instead of both. A 3D WiiU Mario would have had enough of a wow factor to overcome the issues facing these two games.
Post by: Shaymin on August 05, 2012, 05:03:04 PM
I can't even remember the last time Nintendo themselves launched a truly new console IP in a genre other than party game or fitness.
I know that, to us, it isn't on par with more traditional games, but Wii Sports was a new IP and sold a whole lot of Wiis. It shouldn't be overlooked.
I think he's taking that into account, though I have to ask which of "party" or "fitness" Wii Sports would fall under.
Post by: AnGer on August 05, 2012, 06:01:21 PM
Despite that, I fail to understand how people are annoyed by the large number of Mario games coming out. Yes, it is a cash cow and yes, it appears to be the same game all over again (at least the "New" series), but then again, Nintendo can (and will) most likely pour the money into other projects which will maybe not sell like hotcakes.
Post by: Kairon on August 05, 2012, 07:23:57 PM
Post by: Luigi Dude on August 05, 2012, 08:35:08 PM
Yes and no. Having a Mario game is good for a launch. They are just far too similar to each other. If the WiiU game was a 3D Mario they would have gotten away with it since Golden Showers is alternating from a 3D Mario. They could have launched with a 2D Mario, but they would have had to hidden GS's existence and launching that later. Any backlash would have been relatively isolated to GS instead of both. A 3D WiiU Mario would have had enough of a wow factor to overcome the issues facing these two games.
But once again, it's only one 2D Mario per system and they have huge legs. Most of the audience for the 2D Mario games will be buying them over the next several years since Mario platformers are the prime definition of ever green titles.
People have to remember after NSMB U comes out this fall, it'll be at least 5 years until a new 2D Mario is released. So even if NSMB 2 and NSMB U are too much for some people because of how close they are, any sales one game takes away from the other this year, will be made up in the next several years since the other game is the only other new 2D Mario for a long time.
Post by: NWR_Lindy on August 05, 2012, 09:00:55 PM
"Nintendo themselves"
"console IP"
"party game or fitness"
I was specifically talking about console games that aren't Wii Sports, Rhythm Heaven, or games of that ilk. New IPs on handhelds have never been an issue for some reason.
Xenoblade is developed by Monolithsoft, and they're owned by Nintendo, but eh...not really Nintendo themselves creating that game. And hell, they really didn't even want to release it in NA.
Nintendo's internal console teams have either been on the party game/fitness wagon or churning out sequels/spin-offs to existing console IPs for a looooong time...welcome to 2012.
EDIT
Don't get me wrong they have been doing a great job recently with Kid Icarus, Pikimin and many more. Or maybe create a new IP all together.
My point exactly. Nintendo, CREATE A NEW IP FOR YOUR CONSOLES THAT ISN'T A PARTY GAME, FITNESS GAME, FRANCHISE SPINOFF, OR SOME OTHER BLUE OCEAN WHATEVER-YOU-WANT-TO-CALL-IT.
Just a new, traditional console IP. kthnxbai
Post by: Chocobo_Rider on August 05, 2012, 09:17:02 PM
I love ya like a brother, but those are some pretty stringent qualifiers.
Xenoblade, mothatrucka. Xenoblade.
Post by: Luigi Dude on August 05, 2012, 09:30:24 PM
Xenoblade is developed by Monolithsoft, and they're owned by Nintendo, but eh...not really Nintendo themselves creating that game.
Monolith Soft is owned by Nintendo which makes it a first party internal studio. So yeah, Xenoblade was Nintendo themselves making it since it was made by a studio they own.
Post by: Ian Sane on August 07, 2012, 01:22:27 PM
I used to see Nintendo as a company that defined themselves with new ideas. Redundant or unessential Nintendo titles seemed rare and now I feel like I can skip practically ANY Nintendo title and I'll never truly miss out on something special. But I was naive. I'm old enough to remember when the NES was new and Nintendo didn't have many IPs to milk. They were creative out of a necessity and now they don't have to be, so they aren't. Now they have enough established IP to just stick to the same old thing, so they do. Would they have done that back then if they could have? It's hard to say for sure though I do find that Nintendo became more IP dependent when Iwata took over. Is it the change of leadership or is that timing just a fluke and Nintendo was inevitably going to go this way? Whenever I point out that Sony ironically is better at creating new IP these days the response is often that they have to because they lack the established IP Nintendo has. Though what bugs me about that response is that it suggests that that is okay, like the only appropriate time to be creative is when it is necessary. Anyway I don't know if my view of Nintendo and what the stood for was ever accurate or that they were only the way I thought they were out of necessity. Though if THIS Nintendo is what they always were then I guess I never really liked them, but rather what they coincidently resembled.
I got sick of Mario in non-platform games a long time ago. Now I don't care about him at all. One problem is that Mario has always been so lazy with storyline and setting. Every game you jump on Goombas and Koopas and defeat Bowser. Yawn. It's one of the WORST series to become formulaic because at least with other series you can tell a new story with existing game mechanics. No one plays a Mario game to find out what happens next in the Mario epic saga. Though I think NSMB is the true source of the problem. Take those games out and Mario is not nearly so overexposed. And NSMB is the series with more casual appeal. The curse of the non-gamers continues. Nintendo can't be a truly exciting or creative videogame company while appealing to that audience.
Different people like different things though. I like it if each game in a series does enough new with the concept that every title is essential. My brother likes to find a good gameplay model that works and just wants new levels for it. I think my brother would prefer the NSMB model. Though in the past I felt that enough companies did the cookie cutter thing that those that want that can find that with Capcom or EA and those that don't always had Nintendo.
I wonder if some of this is a result of Mario Sunshine and Wind Waker backlash. In both cases Nintendo tried to do something new and it did not go over well. But I would argue that it was just the specific ideas that didn't go over well, not the concept of trying new things (there was no backlash when Super Mario 64 or Ocarina of Time tried new ideas). To have these so close to each other is bad timing and it might has spooked Nintendo into being less daring. Twilight Princess in particular comes across as a the work of a company afraid to offend with change. You try something new and sometimes it goes over well and sometimes it doesn't but that shouldn't discourage you from trying something new. Other M doesn't suck because it did new things but because those specific new things SUCKED. Metroid Prime did new things but those specific new things didn't suck and that game kicks ass as a result. So pick up the pieces and try again.
Post by: broodwars on August 07, 2012, 01:50:26 PM
I also don't think their initial reveal trailer was terribly well-done, especially the very Looney Toons-esque bit at the end with Link swinging on a chandelier with the Moblins doing a Wile E Coyote routine in the air. It set a tone that was goofier than the actual game, and Link's eyes just looked weird until they later tweaked them for the final version.
Post by: Ian Sane on August 07, 2012, 02:07:37 PM
Post by: TeaHee on August 09, 2012, 10:14:51 AM
Post by: broodwars on August 09, 2012, 11:18:04 AM
Isn't this as much a problem for the whole industry and not just Nintendo. Pretty much everything produced is either a sequel or a game that is highly derivative of a popular genre. There are very few new and innovative IPs across the various platforms. The one place this doesn't hold true is small independent download titles, but for retail games everyone, not just Nintendo and Mario, is banking on established franchises to insure a profit.
To give Sony some credit, though, most of the franchises they've "banked on" this generation have been IPs new to this generation (Uncharted, Resistance, LittleBigPlanet, Heavy Rain, The Last of Us, Beyond: Two Souls, PSAS Battle Royale), and they've done quite a bit of backing independent studios on new IPs for PSN exclusives.
Post by: Ian Sane on August 09, 2012, 01:00:52 PM
Activision is the worst offender this gen and they just outright killed the golden goose in Guitar Hero and they treat Call of Duty like a sports game. Last gen Rockstar would have been accused of milking GTA but this gen we've only gotten one console GTA out of them. MS clearly milks the crap out of Halo, but Gears of War was a new IP this gen. I love Capcom but they are the masters of milking something until it's dead. SIX Mega Man games on the NES? Come on! Anything more than a trilogy is complete overkill.
Post by: oksoda on August 11, 2012, 11:10:10 AM
Post by: Urkel on August 11, 2012, 05:05:25 PM
"Xenoblade doesn't count. It's not by EAD."
Post by: NWR_insanolord on August 11, 2012, 05:32:11 PM
EDIT: To get back on topic, though, and to be a bit more upbeat, yes, there have been a lot of Mario games recently, but they have been, for the most part, great. All four of the Mario platformers released in the last five years (Galaxy 1&2, NSMBWii and 3D Land) would be in my top five games in the series, alongside Mario 3. If they keep up that kind of quality I don't care how often they release them.
Post by: Urkel on August 11, 2012, 06:12:56 PM
As much as people like to talk up Sony's willingness to create new IPs, at the end of the day it doesn't do much to sell systems. Sony may be making new IPs like Gravity Rush for Vita, but it's not selling Vitas. And that will ultimately lead to less third party support, and possibly even the death of the platform.
Nintendo turned 3DS sales around with Mario, creating a healthy platform that (Japanese) developers are willing to support. So because Nintendo is "milking" Mario, you're getting a more diverse software library because the system will actually, you know, EXIST. The only reason Nintendo is releasing two Mario games so close together is to make sure it stays that way.
And this whole obssession with new IPs is stupid since it means that games like Kid Icarus Uprising "don't count" because it uses a few characters from a 25 year old game. The fact that it's a big budget "core" production with new content and fresh gameplay unlike anything Nintendo has ever made gets dismissed because of this.
Post by: NWR_insanolord on August 11, 2012, 06:19:59 PM
Post by: Kairon on August 11, 2012, 06:47:57 PM
Post by: NWR_Neal on August 12, 2012, 01:27:17 AM
Actually, I'd count Kid Icarus Uprising as a new IP, because for all intents and purposes it is one. I'm kind of upset Sakurai's doing Smash for the next couple years, because I'd love to see another big, original game from him. He's one guy within Nintendo that really seems to want to go nuts and do something new, but now he's stuck doing the same old thing again.
Follow what Sakurai's been saying about Smash. It'll be big and ridiculous. I have a feeling this new one might be a bigger change than most people think. Remember, he was thrust upon Brawl. Him and Iwata seemed to be on the same page at the outset of this upcoming one.
