Topic: Is Nintendo losing touch with its roots?

[KDR_11k]

Also Ian if you look at the trends of the so called hardcore gamers on HD platforms they favor action games or FPS games that are less than 15 hours long.

15? The numbers I've seen reviews cite were 5-6 normal, 8-10 for a long game.

[Stratos]

^ Ian better rewrite is definition of `epic` to catch up with modern HD times.

I was just thinking about the definition of the word epic and its various uses traditionally and gaming wise.

Do you think we are slowly desensitizing ourselves to what is epic? Things seem to need to be bigger and better and more involving to attract people. Any epic movie now has to have epic choir accompaniments to interest many of us. Conflicts have to keep getting bigger and bigger to satiate our desire for epic experiences.

We also use the word in different ways. Game length, immersion, conflicts and climax of a story, music, battles, the players decision making, etc.

Maybe I'm thinking too hard on the issue, but I've wondered about this along with attention spans of gamers and movie goers for a bit now. People seem to need bigger wows in smaller doses lest they run the risk of boredom. Do people write off a game if it is not 'epic enough' in their eyes?

[Chozo Ghost]

Also Ian if you look at the trends of the so called hardcore gamers on HD platforms they favor action games or FPS games that are less than 15 hours long.

15? The numbers I've seen reviews cite were 5-6 normal, 8-10 for a long game.

Which is less than 15 hours, as was said.

My personal view is that if you have to spend more than $1 for each hour you get out of a game, you're paying too much. With games like Zelda you're probably going to spend 40 or even more hours in it, so if it costs $49.99 then its worth it. But if its a 360 or PS3 HD game for $59.99 that lasts 5 hours, then that's a huge waste of money, imho. Some might argue the HD visuals make it a better investment, but I disagree. I'd rather have a good terrible looking game than a terrific looking game that can be finished in one sitting.

If a game can be finished overnight or over a weekend then it may be worth $19 or $29, but if I'm paying $39, $49 or (God forbid) $59 then it better take at least an entire week to finish.

[Mop it up]

I suppose this "epic" game stuff applies only to single-player games, which inherently seem like a bad value to me since they often times have little replay value.

What would something like Mario Kart Wii qualify as? The single-player mode takes about 10 hours to complete 100%, although that includes playing the same tracks repeatedly; it takes only 2 hours to play every track once. But then, there is the multiplayer mode, both local and online, which is probably something that most people are going to be spending the majority of their time with. There's no real way to measure how much play time one could potentially get out of that before they become bored.

After I completed Super Mario Galaxy to 100%, I've not once touched the game since. Not a week has gone by since purchasing Mario Kart Wii in May that I haven't played it at least one day out of the week (though often times more). Which game is more epic?

[Stogi]

The FP is the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Nintendo sold its soul? The Wii fits Nintendo to the "T".

[Kairon]

The Wii recalls so many things from the NES that I'm sort of disappointed that so many people think Nintendo has somehow changed. Like Kashogi Stogi said, the Wii is Nintendo operating at full speed, and doing what they do best. They're not the exact same company they were in the 80's (for one: they're not using the iron-fist Yamauchi tactics that eventually got them hit with an anti-trust case in 1991), but they're still being driven by the same quest to not listen to what focus groups say (focus groups said the first Mario Bros. SUCKED), but instead look at whether a person was actually experiencing something special when playing a game.

I mean, look at Wii Fit and the NES Power Pad, Duck Hunt and today's arcade shooter games, Mario Paint and Wii Music... the way I see it, Nintendo is more in touch with their roots as ever.

[Stratos]

So would you say then that Nintendo hasn't changed, but it's fans and consumers have changed?

[Mop it up]

I don't think Nintendo is returning to its roots so much as they are starting over. They tried to evolve along with the fans but look where it lead them: a diminishing market share with each new home console. Now they're starting fresh, with a new concept (Wii), a new market, and some new games to go with it, as well as tailoring their existing franchises to attract some of the different audience they're targeting. Looking at some of the titles Nintendo published on the Nintendo 64, they would be very different games if the Nintendo of today had designed then for Wii. Better? Worse? That is what I can't decide.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

The only thing "epic" is most closely associated with today is "failure."

That should explain a lot.

[Peachylala]

Clearly Pro Daisy wins this thread.

I deem it so.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

My Forum Kart score must be above 7000 now.

9999 are obviously for cheaters.

[Ian Sane]

When I think of an "epic game" I would think of something with a strong single player mode that has some sort of narrative and characters (though not necessarily very deep ones; gameplay shouldn't be compromised) that has a world to discover and has that feel of being an EVENT.  Some games just feel like a big event.  And in Nintendo's case their epic games are usually Game of the Year contenders.

Multiplayer-focused games, pick-up-n-play games, niche games, score based games and even non-games have every right to exist.  But to me what made Nintendo special was their "epic" titles.  That's why when one thinks of the NES they think of the incredibly ambitious Super Mario Bros games and The Legend of Zelda and are less likley to dwell on Donkey Kong Jr or Mario Bros even though those games are great.  You talk about the comparisons between the Wii and the NES.  To me Super Mario Bros is the NES.  That's when Nintendo became NINTENDO as they previously were all about single screen arcade games with one-dimensional gameplay.  But from then on they were about making games with so much more ambition in the design and of such a larger scope.  That's when Nintendo became about making videogame masterpieces.  I can see the comparison to the NES in the revolution kind of way but I certainly don't see the Wii as Nintendo going back to their roots.  If they are they've gone back to pre-NES roots and the days of Donkey Kong.  Non-games are intentionally restrictive in ambition and scope for the purposes of mass market appeal.  I didn't become a Nintendo fan because of their corporate bullshittery but rather their habit of going for the gusto with almost every game.

And as people we all get bored of the same stuff.  As great Mario and Zelda are they can't fight the law of diminishing returns.  That's why to me the Pikmin games were the biggest highlight of the Cube because they had that same level of ambition as Mario and Zelda but they were covering new ground.  So naturally I want Nintendo style "epic games", like they've been masters of for over 20 years, but with some new IPs just to keep things fresh.  But then you see the new IP go to stuff like Wii Sports and when Nintendo talks about "core gamers" they just talk about the franchises like that's all we want.

I would say the Nintendo devs that are reliable to deliver a classic "epic game" 99% of the times they attempt it are EAD, Intelligent Systems and Retro.  The October conference didn't reveal what these devs were working on so that's why the new stuff revealed then wasn't enough to get my motor running.  I'm interested in what those three devs are working on but who knows if those are new IP or not?  And in EAD's who knows if it's in the style of classic Nintendo or an intentionally restrained non-game?

If it turns out they're working on a new Mario, Fire Emblem and Metroid Prime wouldn't that just be a little bit stale?  Those games would turn out great but it's all very familiar territory.  But imagine three new IPs that became as huge as those three.

And if you're talking about money and sales, you're on a completely different planet.  That's like answering someone's complaint that there are too many reality shows on TV with "well they do well in the ratings".  You just don't get at all what the person is complaining about.

[GoldenPhoenix]

I knew it was just a matter of time. Time to bail out of this thread!

[UltimatePartyBear]

To me Super Mario Bros is the NES.  That's when Nintendo became NINTENDO as they previously were all about single screen arcade games with one-dimensional gameplay.  But from then on they were about making games with so much more ambition in the design and of such a larger scope.  That's when Nintendo became about making videogame masterpieces.

I honestly don't think anyone at Nintendo, least of all Miyamoto, has ever seen what they do that way.  Ever.

[Chozo Ghost]

I agree with what Ian just said for the most part. Every new Nintendo system does get some new IPs, but lately its been stuff catered to casual/non-gamers. The DS introduced Nintendogs and the Wii introduced Wii Sports. Those are the sorts of new franchises Nintendo is introducing these days. "Core" gamers get rehashes of old franchises, but seldom anything new. The Gamecube is often blasted for having a weak lineup, but by this point in its life it introduced more 1st party hardcore franchises than the Wii has so far. The Gamecube gave us Luigi's Mansion, Star Fox Adventures, Pikmin, etc. But where are the equivalent of these on the Wii?

Like Ian said, the games introduced for the Wii are score-based arcade or family style non-games with no plot and no characters. Nintendo is becoming very predictable in what their gaming lineups are going to be. Whenever Nintendo announces a new system, you instantly know what games are going to come out for it (Zelda, Mario, Metroid for sure).Its a given that Nintendo will churn these games out ad infinitem at least once or twice for every generation of its consoles. But where are the new stuff? What if we aren't a non-gamer? I want to actually be surprised when Nintendo announces its gaming lineup and see something major going on that isn't Mario, Zelda, or Metroid (or a non-game) for a change. Players get burned out on these things after awhile.

[Kairon]

Actually Chozo Ghost, many of the games you mentioned are sequels. The truth is that Nintendo has been EXTREMELY light on new IP since the SNES era. What new Nintendo IP got its start on the N64? ... ummm... hmm...Oh yeah! Animal Crossing! And on the GameCube, wasn't Pikmin the sole new "character universe" that Nintendo created?

I think it's disingenuous to somehow act like this is a new thing, as if somehow Nintendo has done a 180. I also think it's disingenuous to ignore huge swaths of Nintendo contributions to gaming, I assure you that games like Track and Field, Mario Paint, and Mario Party were integral parts of many Nintendo fan's personal histories.

And actually, the reason so many of these "alternative" Nintendo games are beloved is exactly because of what Ian said: "games with so much more ambition in the design and of such a larger scope." It's just sad that people speak of ambition and scope and then they rule out entire frontiers of gaming. You don't think Wii Fit, turning movement into gaming, was extraordinarily gutsy and ambitious? You don't think that Wii Music, what with how it magically fills in notes to songs for whatever you press, didn't tackle the challenge of somehow generating music programmatically? If you're looking for games that will surprise you and force you to expand the very limits of gaming, I think that Nintendo has been exactly the place to be, from Kid Icarus to Mario Paint to Wii Fit. That is, of course, unless you're only looking for surprises in specifically this genre or specifically this playstyle. Then again, that's not really in the complete spirit of "surprise" is it?

Of course, that doesn't mean you have to enjoy all these games. Myself? I've NEVER enjoyed Metroid as much as others have. I won't touch Fire Emblem with a ten foot pole thanks to permadeath. And Wii Play? Link's Crossbow Training? Complete wastes of my time. I don't care that there are people out there getting perfect scores in those games, I'm not keen on 'em.

But that these games exist doesn't mean that Nintendo is suddenly changing their feathers. *shrug* It just means that I happen to have my own tastes. That's not Nintendo's fault is it? I mean, they're only one company, and a company that loves to take 2-4 years to make these so-called epic wonder games. I mean, we're Nintendo fans aren't we? We may have been spoiled by the late-2006-all-of-2007-first-half-2008 release binge Nintendo was on, but put that anomaly aside and I thought we were among the most condition-to-wait gamers in the industry, along with Blizzard fans...

And besides, even Miyamoto has said that his approach to gaming is not the only way. Opinions of Nintendo topple, I think, only when gamers put them on unreasonably high pedestals.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Kairon deserves a cookie for a brilliant post. Who has one to give him?

[BeautifulShy]

Kairon deserves a cookie for a brilliant post. Who has one to give him?

[Khushrenada]

With regards to the N64, Rare stepped up to the plate on that one and delivered a lot of new IP's so the fact tha Nintendo didn't provide many wasn't an issue. Banjo-Kazooie, Jet Force Gemini, Perfect Dark, Conker. The problem is that those IP's didn't get a chance to develop since Rare left soon into the Gamecube era and took their IP's with them where only now are we seeing sequels come out for them. Now, obviously, the complaint is the fact that more than sequels are needed. Still, if those IP's were still around, it might help fight the "stale" accusations since they are a bit newer compared to other established Nintendo franchises.

The other thing that helped during the 64 era was the 3-D switch. In a way, every franchise felt new since they did have to adjust the gameplay to a 3-D world. Plus, Mario Party was new along with Mario Sports ala Golf and Tennis. Or are they the same franchise as Mario Kart?

Now let's discuss a different factor. Gameplay. For the most part, all of Nintendo's franchises offer a different kind of gameplay experience. Mario has different gameplay compared to Kirby which has different gameplay compared to Donkey Kong which has different gameplay compared to Wario. They are all platformers but they all do something different. They all have different gameplay mechanics. And in DK's case, he's been doing a lot of experimenting on gameplay lately. Or am I wrong here? Are they all the same thing? Just platformers but really well done.

I consider Battalion Wars a new IP but it was based off the Advance Wars games. Does that mean it is a new IP or not?

Another issue is third parties. On the NES and the SNES, there were a lot of third party exclusives that made it seem like Nintendo had more IP's. Square with Final Fantasy, Secret of Mana. Megaman was exclusively Nintendo at the time also, I think. Castlevania. Others like that. Growing up, if you didn't know much about the business, you just thought it was all Nintendo. The problem is, most of those third party titles have stopped being exclusive and now appear on all sorts of consoles. Sometimes, they don't appear on a Nintendo console at all. In this way, it again adds to the perception that IP's are lacking on the console. Even new IP's that appear on multiple consoles seem to be disregarded and not treated with much regard. Why is that people want to see Nintendo make new IP's but don't care about third parties?

I think they want the exclusitivity. Yes, we know that Nintendo will make a highly polished and excellant game. But third parties can do that too and have done that. But the issue always comes back to Nintendo. It has to be them to do this. I think it goes back to exclusitivity. When third parties left Nintendo, the routine has usually been to scorn them for this decision. Even I still do this on occasion. I was dead set against buying Rock Band after giving the 360 a brief period of exclusive release. But in the end, I bought it over GH:WT because I did like it more. So, I think the possibility should be left open to the fact that third parties could also deliver such a game even if it isn't exclusive.

Now, there was more I was going to say but there's a few things I would want clarified before going further. First, if I'm right about anything I've said so far. Second, must a new IP be epic? Trauma Center, for instance, is a new IP with an interesting gameplay idea. It may not be a very long game or epic in it's production. Is that still considered to mini-gamey? Professor Layton could be a new franchise. Since it is just solving puzzles, should it be dismissed? Chibi-Robo might not be the most polished game around but I loved it. The gameplay might not be revolutionary but at least it did something different with its setting and characters. Is that what is needed? Just something different even if it might be gameplay used in other games? Why must a new IP be a longer game that requires the player to master different skills and abilities in the game to face ever increasing challenges as you progress?

[GoldenPhoenix]

Sadly Khush's post was too late and we ran out of cookies.

[Ymeegod]

Wait a minute?  Aren't you being a bit hard on Nintendo?  The entire industry isn't going with original IP's because the casual fanbase isn't biting.  Is Microsoft or Sony dissing out new IPs (minus LBP). 

And Mario Sunshine really feels fresh IMO (I played all of previous game as well) so yeah it might be sequel in name sake but that's like saying FF is the same ole crap when FFXII was totally different in gameplay compared to the rest.

My gripe with Big N is they are penny-pichers to say the least.  They could have made the WII a bit more powerful (at least as powerful as the Xbox 360) and took the lose on hardware and make it up on software.  Also they could invest into other developers, the lack of RPG's (genre that I LoooVee) is still rather sad.

[Ian Sane]

must a new IP be epic?

No.  But the absense of ANY isn't good either.  So when Nintendo does announce something new and it's not an epic game, I get upset.  But it isn't because Nintendo is "wasting" an new IP on a non-game or anything like that.  It's because they aren't releasing any new IPs that can match up to their best franchises at all.  It's never been about what the make but rather what they aren't.  So Nintendo releases Wii Music and I have no interest in it at all.  Well I'm not going to like everything Nintendo makes so out of context I shouldn't have any beef with it.  But last Christmas the first party games were a glorified remake and a non-game.  So where's a game for me, Nintendo?  Where's a game for a core gamer who already bought Animal Crossing on the Cube?  See, THAT is the issue.  Always has been.  New IPs are being used for non-games but NOT epic ones.  We're getting excluded.  There's the problem.

And I agree fully with Khush's opinion about Rare.  In my mind Rare totally counted as Nintendo.  They were a Nintendo second party and routinely made games of comparable quality to Nintendo's first party efforts.  The fact that Retro is a first party dev instead of a second party is largely a technicality.  To me it's a similar idea: a non-Japanese developer working exclusively with Nintendo that can make games as good as Nintendo.

Can everyone agree that innovation and originality has long been a part of Nintendo's identity?  So when they give core gamers the same franchises over and over again without anything really new to balance it out doesn't that somewhat go against part of what makes Nintendo Nintendo?  Or extremely incremental updates to Animal Crossing or the Mario Sports games or Mario Party?  Were sequels that are practically the same game something that was often identified with Nintendo?

[Khushrenada]

Sadly Khush's post was too late and we ran out of cookies.

Does that mean you like the post or you didn't?

Wait a minute?  Aren't you being a bit hard on Nintendo?  The entire industry isn't going with original IP's because the casual fanbase isn't biting.  Is Microsoft or Sony dissing out new IPs (minus LBP). 

Who's being hard? Me or someone else in this thread?

As for new IP's, Viewtiful Joe, Sly Cooper, Jak and Daxter, Rachet and Clank. There's a bunch of the top of my head. Just because Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft aren't making them, doesn't mean there are no new IP's out there. However, are they epic? Which is the point of this thread. The quickest thing I can think of off the top of my head are God of War and Shadow of the Colossus. Those are two more new IP's which are supposed to be epic or give you an epic experience.

Agree that Sunshine is feels fresh. I liked it alot and would love to see a Sunshine sequel. Played that game over and over a lot. Yet, it still follows a lot of the same conventions set up by Super Mario 64. Now, I don't know what Final Fantasy's gameplay is like. But does the story involve someone rising up against an evil ruler to stop him from controlling some great power? Does it involve chocobos and airships? That's why it is considered the same old crap as you put it. The gameplay may be different but there are many elements that still make it part of the Final Fantasy line and not say, a Chrono Trigger game or Mana game or a new IP.

Which brings me back to my earlier point. "Is that what is needed? Just something different even if it might be gameplay used in other games?" Is that what this new IP wishing is about? Just making up a new world and characters?

As for penny-pinching, there are pros and cons to it. Right now, it's worked to Nintendo's benefit and really, that doesn't have much to do with the need for fresh experiences.

[Chozo Ghost]

Ian brings up an excellent point about Mario Party and Animal Crossing. I accept that Mario Galaxy is significantly different enough from Mario Sunshine and Mario 64 to justify its existance, but can the same be said about Animal Crossing on the Wii? I owned the Animal Crossing for the GC and then when the Animal Crossing for DS came out I got that too, and was extremely disappointed by how little had actually changed from the original. This is why I didn't get the Wii Animal Crossing game and never will. Actually, in some respects Animal Crossing for the Wii is actually a DOWNGRADE from the GC, because you lose the GBA connectivity and features that introduced.

I am playing Galaxy right now, and I agree it is an excellent game and I think its existence is very much justified, but the fact is it is still a Mario game. It didn't have to be. Considering its background, it could have been a Captain Olimar game. That's the issue here. The Mario franchise is overmilked, and I think Nintendo should dust off some of its other franchises (or heaven forbid, create some new ones) and give other characters and universes a bit of attention. I love the Mario universe and I always will, but is it wrong of me to want to see something new or something else get put in the spotlight for awhile?

I am glad Nintendo has dusted off its Punch-out franchise and is bringing that back, and I hope they'll do the same with Icarus and why not Ice-climber and Nester too? These are all Core original franchises which have not appeared on any Nintendo system since the NES days. They aren't "new" but they have been absent for so long that any new game featuring them would be fresh now.

[Stratos]

Nintendo has had an interesting year in that I can think of two Nintendo pushed games that have yet to release in the States: Fatal Frame 4 and Day of Disaster. DoD obviously flopped and who knows what happened with Fatal Frame. Having those two games would have bolstered Nintendo's Winter lineup greatly.

Captain Rainbow was a new IP that never came West as well. Though I wouldn't consider it a high caliber game.

It seems that Nintendo isn't bringing over all of its games anymore. Soma Bringer, ASH, DoD (in NA), Fatal Frame and Captain Rainbow all have not come over yet. So I'm wondering if part of the problem is more NoA's fault in not localizing as opposed to NCL.

I had hoped we were moving beyond this issue once games like Fire Emblem were finally getting localized but I guess the issue is still alive and well.