Topic: IGN-Cube's on another Nintendo-rant

[Bill Aurion]

"I think youre missing the point of the article. I think what he's trying to say is that Nintendo is still coming up with great gameplay ideas, but why do they have to stick their old franchises on them? For instance: The gameplay idea for Warioware is to have a lot of rapidfire, fun minigames. Why did they need to slap the Wario name on it, rather than make up a whole new set of fun, original characters for the players to fall in love with?"

Thanks for reading just the last post and assuming everything else was just fluff...FOR THE LAST TIME:  Sure you could stick new characters on a game, BUT IS IT NECESSARY?  Does it change the game?  Does it change the way it plays?  It doesn't, not one bit!  The only REAL reason to add new characters is if the current mascot list Ninty has would not fit it the style of the game they are making(which isn't going to happen)...Your example with Wario Ware:  Would changing the characters do anything to the game?  IT WOULDN'T CHANGE THE GAME, it would just be without Wario...In fact, the idea that Wario is in the game only attracts more gamers that are familiar with the mascot(Noone dismisses a game because it says Mario on it...They do so because they are opposed to its "kiddy looks"  Changing the characters wouldn't do anything since the game would still look "kiddy")...So why would you sacrifice sales just to add new characters to a game that wouldn't change it?  IT MAKES NO SENSE...PERIOD...  

[DrZoidberg]

Let's not forget Namco made Donkey Konga folks

[Mario]

It doesn't change the actual game Bill, but it changes the way it is marketed. These days, more people would be interested in buying an adventure game starring a drug dealing black man than an adventure game starring Mario.

[PZ]

Bill: youre exactly right.  Not having the Wario character in Warioware wouldnt change the game one bit.  The point isnt that the game itself would be different.  The point is that people would percieve it differently.  With or without Wario, people like you or I would still love the game.  However, there are a whole lot of people out there who kinda gave up on Nintendo several years ago, and the only way to change those people's minds is to come up with new franchises, rather than putting the same old characters on all their new games.  I mean, other than Pikmin, off the top of my head I cant think of a single new Nintendo franchise this generation that didnt in some way rely on a well-known Nintendo name to help increase sales.  Look at it this way:  By making the game Warioware, rather than making up new characters and putting them in the exact same game, Nintendo guaranteed themselves that a large chunk of people out there would buy it.  But the vast majority of the people that bought it were already Nintendo fans.  By using brand new characters, maybe some people who arent Nintendo fans would have given it more of a chance.  Nintendo made the decision to go for a large slice of a small pie (Nintendo fans), rather than a small slice of a huge pie (all gamers).  Does that make sense?

[odifiend]

Quote
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
And I am STILL waiting for evidence that new franchises are needed...What is wrong with making a completely new game idea and giving it an extra push with a known mascot?  Does that deter from the game in any way?  That really depends on what kind of game it is, but for games like Mario Tennis and Donkey Kong Jungle Beat it works and adds a charm that just wouldn't be there without them...Without the Mario franchise, Mario Tennis would be what?  Magical New Franchise Tennis?  Why?  It doesn't make any sense...There's no change in the game itself so why is it absolutely NECESSARY for new characters to be made only to then fall victim to obscurity due to lack of consumer recognition?  The only reason is because CubeIGN is a bunch of ignorant casual gamers that don't really care about Ninty's franchises in the first place...They want more "mature" games that would need new characters...They want Nintendo to change what they are...And I don't care for that at all...I'm happy with the way Ninty is thank you very much...

More franchise are needed for more playable characters in Super Smash Bros. 3 .  Seriously though, Nintendo has entered the point of no return and is trapped in a vicious cycle of sorts.  As somebody was saying, if they don't use their mascots the game won't do well, but if they do many are starting to dismiss the games.  
Mario Tennis was a bad example, Bill, and you know it.  A game like Zelda: Four Swords, however, is in essence a mix of cooperative and competitive play.  The game is fun and new and it would have been an opportunity to create new characters because it was justifiably different from its root franchise.  The same could be said for Donkey Konga.  I personally do have a problem with giving an idea an extra push with a known mascot.  It is kind of a cheap ploy and it is a crutch that Nintendo has been using frequently as of late that gets less effective every time.  They adapt an original idea to fit into a preconceived world which in many cases wouldn't be necessary if Nintendo had the ability to market.
As for charm being absent, I think your standards for Nintendo must have fallen to think there can only be charm in a game only if you are familiar with the characters.  Honestly as a gamer you are not gaining any personality at all if a Nintendo mascot is in the game.  In the Mario universe, dialogue is kept to one liners and exclamations, and in Hyrule and on Zebes your main character doesn't talk.  Nintendo could make a new mascot that speaks and is not confined to short, Terets-like outbursts.  That alone would be a different experience (well from Nintendo anyway).

[Bill Aurion]

"These days, more people would be interested in buying an adventure game starring a drug dealing black man than an adventure game starring Mario. "

We aren't talking a different style game...We are talking about replacing the known characters in a Ninty game with new ones...

"By using brand new characters, maybe some people who arent Nintendo fans would have given it more of a chance."

There's no evidence to support this...People who don't buy Nintendo games don't buy them for a "reason" and that reason is that the games are "too kiddy."  As I have already stated, adding in new characters won't change the game...The only way a new round of characters would be justified is if Ninty made a game that would actually NEED new characters(an M game, for example) and I don't see Ninty making a game like that...Perhaps a 2nd party, but not in-house...

[odifiend]

"There's no evidence to support this...People who don't buy Nintendo games don't buy them for a "reason" and that reason is that the games are "too kiddy.""
Actually the reason is probably that they don't own a gamecube.  Jak & Daxter and Sly Cooper were 'kiddy' as well.
"The only way a new round of characters would be justified is if Ninty made a game that would actually NEED new characters(an M game, for example) and I don't see Ninty making a game like that...Perhaps a 2nd party, but not in-house... "
How about an original story as a reason?  Nintendo has never made a mature first party game, you are right.  But yet they still have quite a few franchises.  I guess it is good that in the past they didn't wait until they NEEDED new characters to make new characters, eh?

[Bill Aurion]

"Jak & Daxter and Sly Cooper were 'kiddy' as well."

Sony did everything they could to make them as "cool" as possible...*points at J&D2* =P

"How about an original story as a reason?"

Stories don't change games, sorry...I am talking on a purely gameplay basis, since we play games, not read/watch games, right?  RIGHT? *looks over at Squenix*

"I guess it is good that in the past they didn't wait until they NEEDED new characters to make new characters, eh?"

Whoa, HARDLY a fair comparison...Nintendo needed to make franchises because they didn't have many...Say you have an empty room, and start filling it up with furniture...As you add more and more you begin to add less and less as you begin to run out of space...There IS a limit to how much furniture you can put in that room just as there is a limit to how many franchises you want to support...

[MaleficentOgre]

Quote
Originally posted by: Hostile Creation
Seems to me the Gamecube has plenty of fighting games.  Bloody Roar, Soul Calibur 2, not to mention SSBM which kicks both their asses (standard fighting game or not; if you bitch about needing new franchises and turn around to say it's not a fighting game, your opinion drops to zero validity).  Those are the ones I have played, which is a lot, considering I do not enjoy fighting games and seldom play them.  Only fighter I played for N64 was Clayfighter.  SNES was Killer Instinct and Mortal Kombat.  Oh wait Gamecube has Mortal Kombat, too.  Really, how many fighting games do you need?  It's got enough in that genre to satisfy someone who likes those games.  I've never met anyone who owned more than two or three fighting games, nor anyone who bought fighting games exclusively.

No its not.  I enjoy fighting games and cube has crap.  It also has no racing games, no sports games, and no rpgs.  Lets play a game.  Ready, its called lets name all the fighting games worth playing cube doesn't have.  Lets start.  Guilty Gear #2 reloaded, Marvel vs Capcom 2, Street Fighter Anniversary Collection, Capcom Fighting Jam, Guilty Gear Isuka, MK deception (the port won't include the only reason to buy the game), SVC Chaos.  And you come with this bloody roar crap.  Give me a break.  You can do the same thing with racing games, sports titles and RPGs and RPGs.  And for those of you that keep pissing on EA, know that without them the cube would fall even lower into obscurity than it already is.  EA is the only company bringing sports games to cube.  Hell, without them, ubisoft, and namco the gamecube wouldn't exist right now.

[Savior]

it's like trying to argue with an automatic bot programmed to say one thing over and over and not give any logical reasons why.



LOL Whatever...

Just look at Nintendos Market Share. It slips each year. The Xbox is smoking Sony now. You dont think Nintendo could?


Im not satisfied with Nintendo as a distant third place. I want Nintendo up Front. Thats the Difference.  

Making Mario Pinball, and Mario Party 112, and Pokemon Pinball and Pokemon TV, and Pokemon Race are not new ways to play games, or new franchises.

Nintendo is stagnant, the DS seems like it might finally kick things up a notch, but like the article says, only Segas game seems new and fresh.

Whens the last time Miyamoto delivered a hit after Pikmin? Im waiting for Buzz, and for the Dog game and the other promises that Nintendo has given us... Im wating for a new Nintendo.

Nintendo could certainly learn from its competitors. You dont have to make GTA Mario, just to sell games.  

[Bill Aurion]

"The Xbox is smoking Sony now."

It only looks that way because the Playstation 2 has hit market saturation...

"Nintendo is stagnant, the DS seems like it might finally kick things up a notch, but like the article says, only Segas game seems new and fresh. "

Oh, and Kirby Magical Paintbrush, Another, Yoshi Touch 'N Go, Nintendogs, etc aren't?  I get it now...

"Whens the last time Miyamoto delivered a hit after Pikmin?"

Wind Waker

"Nintendo could certainly learn from its competitors. You dont have to make GTA Mario, just to sell games. "

Just guns and lots of blood...

[Hostile Creation]

Quote
No its not. I enjoy fighting games and cube has crap. It also has no racing games, no sports games, and no rpgs. Lets play a game. Ready, its called lets name all the fighting games worth playing cube doesn't have. Lets start. Guilty Gear #2 reloaded, Marvel vs Capcom 2, Street Fighter Anniversary Collection, Capcom Fighting Jam, Guilty Gear Isuka, MK deception (the port won't include the only reason to buy the game), SVC Chaos. And you come with this bloody roar crap. Give me a break. You can do the same thing with racing games, sports titles and RPGs and RPGs. And for those of you that keep pissing on EA, know that without them the cube would fall even lower into obscurity than it already is. EA is the only company bringing sports games to cube. Hell, without them, ubisoft, and namco the gamecube wouldn't exist right now.

Pff, give me a break.  I made it pretty damn clear I don't like fighting games and know little about them.  I'd listed the ones I'd played or knew of.
By the way, racing games, sports games, and rpgs are not fighting games.  Why bring those into the equation?  I own three racing games and I don't even play racing games, but OH WAIT THEY ARE NOT THE COOL CAR I lose.
RPGs?  I don't play those either, but I'll still be getting Paper Mario 2.  Yeah, the Gamecube does lack many RPGs.
Sports games are also uncommon, but you have one good basketball game and you have them all.  If you buy two basketball games, you're just retarded.
The Gamecube would exist.  I'm sure all the people who bought their Gamecubes bought them for EA sports and not Nintendo games.  Psh, please.  The Gamecube would be doing just as well as it is now, or very nearly so.

[odifiend]

"Stories don't change games, sorry...I am talking on a purely gameplay basis, since we play games, not read/watch games, right? RIGHT? *looks over at Squenix*
You were originally saying that only a mature game would justify Nintendo creating new characters. I say that story and atmosphere along with it should also be a reason.  I disagree, the story of a game can have an effect on the gamer's expericence and therefore can change the game.  Gameplay does come first, but a story can really complement its game.
The furniture analogy could further be extended...  "That piece of furniture we've had in here since 1981, why don't we give it a rest and stop sitting on it for a while?"  The article's point is a dependence on the same characters to the point where we are seeing original games and ideas adapted for these same characters.  I really don't see a need for this.  What really irks me is that it doesn't have to be so blatant.  If you're going to adapt a game for a franchise, why not use a less used franchise?  I am a huge fan of revivals (which really is sort of hypocritical but i like what i like ).  And who says Nintendo has to continue supporting a story with new characters?  It is sad that is definition of the industry now.  Games must have sequels whether it is waranted or not.

[KDR_11k]

Ogre: You forgot Virtua Fighter, One Must Fall 2097, Destruction Desire, Dogma, Eternal Fighter Zero, Melty Blood, Mind Arms, Valkyrie Fight Tag (I'm aware that half of those are freeware titles) and many others. Seriously, though, listing games a system does NOT have means nothing, there will always be a whole lot of games a system does not have. Hell, except for Virtua Fighter none of the games I just named are on any console, they're PC-only titles (well, Melty Blood has been ported to the Arcade but that doesn't really count)!

Bill: So if someone would make a game where you run from room to room killing zombies and solving the occasional easy puzzle without any form of story you'd hold that as high as Eternal Darkness? Story creates emotion and emotion is a part of the gaming experience. Take Ico. I don't believe that game got all of its praise for innovative gameplay, it's praised for the experience it delivers. Realize it, themes and stories have a tangible effect on how a game is perceived and with entertainment perception is reality.
Creating a new franchise means discovering new things. Discovery is fun. I'm one of those people addicted to absorbing information (yes, seriously, you can get addicted to the substances released when you learn something). Reliving an experience is nice once in a while but without new material it becomes less fun.

Also, you shouldn't act solely out of necessity. Nintendo doesn't HAVE to create franchises, hell, they could use stickmen as their characters, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't do it nonetheless. Acting upon necessity makes you only take the minimum effort required and that's what Nintendo is often blamed for: They make a memory card, sure, but it's only 59 blocks. But hey, it's a memcard, right? You can save stuff on it so it's enough, right? They put their old NES games on GBA carts and they sell, why do anything more than the bare minimum? Hell, they gave third parties the option to make online multiplayer games, right?
Sometimes the bare minimum isn't enough. Well, "sometimes" is an understatement.

[Ian Sane]

Nintendo's problem isn't so much that it is relying too much on franchise characters.  The problem is that they aren't making enough new content.  There's a difference.  Mario Kart: Double Dash isn't just a rehash.  It has this new dynamic revolving around having two characters in the kart.  You can now play through the game with a friend as a team.  That's something that hasn't really been done before in a racing game.  Mario Party 5 however is a rehash because it plays the same as Mario Party 1-4 (Mario Party 6 is adding the mic so I'll let it off the hook).

Games like Mario Party 5 are the problem.  They're redundant games.  They're sheer product and have no artistic reason to exist because they don't do anything that hasn't been done before.  The original Mario Party was an innovative title and created a sub-genre of sorts.  Putting Mario characters in that game was a good idea because a lot of the charm of the title were all the Mario themes.  Releasing a Mario Party title each year with no real changes or improvements was bad.

And no using original characters instead of Mario doesn't make it okay.  Camelot shouldn't have used new characters in Mario Power Tennis.  They shouldn't have made the game period because Mario Tennis for the N64 nailed it perfectly and thus the sequel is redundant.  Camelot should have used the time and effort to make something completely different.  What's the more relevent title: Mario Power Tennis, Generic Character's Tennis game, or completely original Camelot game?

Warioware is good because it's new.  Warioware for the Gamecube isn't because it's a glorified port.  The new Wariowares for the DS and GBA are good because they're doing something different, they're doing what the Mario Party games should have been doing this whole time.

Nintendo's legacy is built around innovation and quality.  That's why I became a Nintendo fan.  But they seem to think right now that it's based around their franchises which is false.  The NES wasn't a hit because it had Mario games.  It was a hit because Nintendo made games that were unlike anything else at the time.  Nintendo has to stop releasing titles like Mario Pinball because they offer nothing new and rely solely on a familiar face to sell them.  They have to stop releasing so many damn ports.  The rule should be that every game has to have an artistic reason to exist.

There's also the problem with perception.  I think Nintendo is releasing redundant rehash titles but even if they weren't they would still give the public that perception if every year five Mario games were released, even if they were all different.  So aside from just making an effort to make original content they also have to space out their franchise games better.  Super Mario Sunshine had a reason to exist.  It was the first Mario platformer in nearly six years and it had a new water pack dynamic (which I didn't really care for but I'll give them credit for trying something new).  It should have made a bigger splash than it did.  The problem is that the general public couldn't tell this was a new Mario platformer because they didn't notice that none had been made for so many years because there was a least one Mario related game released each year since then.

Plus not everyone identifies with the existing franchises so they have to be more selective when deciding if a game needs a franchise attached to it or not.  Some times a franchise fits really well.  The Mario theme makes Paper Mario a better game.  Part of the thrill of it is that it's an RPG with Mario.  Star Fox Adventures however is an example of a shoehorning a franchise into a game where there's no need for it.  Actually Nintendo hasn't been too bad with this as they tend to make good choices in regards to adding a franchise to something.  The important thing is that it makes sense to use the franchise.  A Zelda Fighter would be a poor use of the franchise.

I'd say the best thing Nintendo could do for the Revolution is to beforehand not release any Mario titles for at least a year and then make a brand new (none of the this Mario 64 DS stuff) Mario platformer for the Rev launch.  And then compliment that familiar title with something completely different.  Something that's completely unique that plays unlike any other Nintendo game and features unique themes and characters.  Something that targets an older demographic than Mario and focuses on a genre Nintendo normally doesn't make games for.  Two major launch titles both providing completely different experiences but both with the Nintendo quality of gameplay.

[Ian Sane]

My post above is a response to what people have been saying in this thread.  I've now read the N-Sider article and I think that for the most part the author is right on the money.  His opinion on what makes a title original is based more on story and setting than mine is and I sharply disagree with his opinion regarding Soul Calibur II but otherwise he's right.  Nintendo is playing it too safe.  His opinion of the early DS lineup spot on and I couldn't agree more on his opinion about Star Fox Adventures.  He's right in that having Sega and Namco making Nintendo games isn't as valuable as having them working on their own games for Nintendo.  He's also right in that even if Nintendo does make original games if they use a familar franchise often they're going not going to be noticed as such.

Nintendo just doesn't take as many risks anymore and that's really turning them into an old fuddy duddy.  I didn't become a fan of "play it safe" Nintendo.  I became a fan of "pushing the envelope" Nintendo.  It's rather ironic that playing it safe is in fact more dangerous to their future.

[Bill Aurion]

"I disagree, the story of a game can have an effect on the gamer's expericence and therefore can change the game."

And since when have Nintendo-deved games been story-driven?  We are talking about Nintendo here, and taking into account their "gameplay first, story tacked on later" attitude let's think in that direction...My point was that making a new franchise doesn't really make a difference on Ninty's game philosophy...

"So if someone would make a game where you run from room to room killing zombies and solving the occasional easy puzzle without any form of story you'd hold that as high as Eternal Darkness?"

In my opinion, you take away ED's story and that's what you get...It wasn't a very fun game for me...Story adds very little for me if the game isn't fun...

"Something that targets an older demographic than Mario and focuses on a genre Nintendo normally doesn't make games for"

Which will most likely be done by a 2nd-party...Don't look forward to in-house games of that sort...

Blah, I'm done ranting...Anything more I'd say would just be further repeating of my previous posts...

[Ian Sane]

"Which will most likely be done by a 2nd-party...Don't look forward to in-house games of that sort..."

That's fine.  I liked it when Nintendo had 2nd parties like Rare and Silicon Knights.  They had some more variety then.  And what do you mean by inhouse?  I don't expect EAD to make that but I wouldn't be surprised to see that sort of thing come from Retro Studios.

Plus part of my point is that we should be getting some different stuff like that from Nintendo's inhouse teams.  The fact that they always make the same stuff is the problem.

[Bill Aurion]

Ah, sorry...I meant EAD...(And seeing "different stuff" from other Ninty teams would be nice, but it wouldn't be the kind of "mature" game that a lot of people seem to want)

[Savior]

Are Mature Games That wrong though ?

Nintendo themselves are making the next Zelda more mature...

It doesnt have to have Nudity and Blood to be Mature.


Oh and I really hope Nintendo gives Retro free reign after Echoes. Let them make Raven Blade or whatever the hell they want, and not Metroid Prime Revolution

[Renny]

Pikmin is "mature." It takes a mature gamer to appreciate it. Sadly, there aren't many of those. Oh, right, you meant "dark." No, there's nothing wrong with a game having a darker theme. [Eh. Little "Mature"-bashing there for yas.]

Anyway, the main point of the article is mostly right. Pikmin is the magical game that it is because it wasn't crafted around any preconceived theme. It still had the Nintendo feel, without having Daisy's microplane voice grating your ears.

But relying on Nintendo icons doesn't always hurt games. WarioWare wasn't harmed by its main character's legacy. He was there as a reference to Nintendo games more than anything else. I mean it bombed anyway; it's a new, ingenious idea that had no chance with the mainstream. Why not use an old character to help its sales a little and provide for some family-friendly my post is a train wreck-bashing? Mostly just saying what others have said here....

Still, Nintendo does continue to create new franchises. They're just taking small steps. They can't throw out their entire foundation over night. Here's hoping Another gets some recognition.

[KDR_11k]

I think for one thing "mature" would mean a story that goes beyond what you would find in a children's book.
Variety is good. So far pretty much all of Nintendo's games are colourful and "happy". What people are complaining about is that there's no real variety. How does the world of Mario feel to you? Which emotions can it evoke? Can any of Nintendo's games evoke fear, anger or sadness?
And keep in mind that a setting is more than a story. Mushroom Kingdom is a setting, Zebes is a setting and Hyrule is a setting. Surely you feel a difference between Mushroom Kingdom and Zebes?

[Ian Sane]

When I think of Nintendo making mature games I think of titles like Goldeneye, the Metroid series, Wave Race, 1080, Excitebike 64, Fire Emblem, Golden Sun, the N64 Zeldas, and the new Zelda game coming up for the Cube.  None of these titles are rated 'M' and none of them feature exploitive content like graphic violence.  They are simply titles that don't look like a cartoon.  They're titles that look more like real life.  They're titles that if they were movies could feature real actors instead of animation.  They have scary visuals when appropriate, deal with dark subject matter when appropriate, and have realism when appropriate.  They're also titles that wouldn't be considered kiddy by most of Nintendo's most superficial critics.

Nintendo can make a game that appeals to those that like GTA and Halo and appeals to Nintendo fans and is not an exploitive bloodfest.  We know this because they did it in 1997 with Goldeneye.  It's like Nintendo forgets that title existed and that it was one of their biggest hits EVER.

[Caillan]

Quote
I think for one thing "mature" would mean a story that goes beyond what you would find in a children's book.

Conventional storytelling in games tends to be very, very poor. Few games go beyond the character development and story arcs found in a standard short novel written for pre-teens. Games simply aren't (for now) a medium that lend themselves easily to such a technique. Sure, there are exceptions, such as Chrono Trigger and Majora's Mask, but even heavily story-based games can get away with telling something overly cliched in an intersting way. Take Eternal Darkness, for instance.

Smaller, less significant 'stories' propagated naturally by the setting are what videogames can express the best of any medium. Not even movies can do this as effectively as games can.

Books for children overwhelmingly focus on creating mystery. For very young children with little experience, mystery will be an element of almost any story. As the target demographic grows older and older (and I'm not talking about teenagers here, I mean kids aged 8-12), and the stories take more function and form, happiness as a theme just ceases to feature in them. If the Mushroom Kingdom invokes the emotion of happiness, what makes it less significant than Zebes evoking fear or mystery? Happiness is under-represented enough everywhere else, it should not be erased from games.  

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Slight problem is Goldeneye was Rare-developed, and not Nintendo-developed.  It's more a matter of Nintendo finding a developer who can provide a game with that kind of "wider" appeal rather than making it themselves, since historically we've seen these "responsibly mature" (in constrast to "immature mature") games do not originate from Nintendo's JPN first-parties.  This leads to the situations with Retro and N-Space.

Nintendo "can't/won't" make these games (as it seems), so they must pay someone else to do so.  Yeah, Nintendo should find/pay even more of these kinds of developers.