Topic: Rumored Star Fox/Metroid Crossover Put to Rest

[Ian Sane]

What if the SSB RPG was made by Team Ninja and directed by Sakamoto?

Link would probably spend the whole time lamenting on waking up the Windfish... except he would keep referring to it as "the whale".

[broodwars]

Well, I figured that the rumor was merely that, but it was nice to imagine Nintendo actually making a risky and potentially interesting move with two of their major franchises.  I'm sure whatever Retro's actually working on will be excellent, as they're Nintendo's best studio IMO, but I would have liked to see where this concept could have gone.

And as I said in the original thread on this rumor, I've been wanting an epic Nintendo crossover RPG since Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars on the SNES.  Unfortunately, RPG-hating Yamauchi ran the company back when Nintendo might have actually considered such a game, and today's Nintendo is probably too risk-averse to attempt such a thing.  But I can dream.

[Ian Sane]

And as I said in the original thread on this rumor, I've been wanting an epic Nintendo crossover RPG since Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars on the SNES.  Unfortunately, RPG-hating Yamauchi ran the company back when Nintendo might have actually considered such a game, and today's Nintendo is probably too risk-averse to attempt such a thing.  But I can dream.

Nintendo does like their franchises though and any SSB RPG is going to have Mario in it.  NCL greenlighted Xenoblade and NOA would certainly not reject a game starring Mario.  The only real obstacle regarding it is that such a title done right would not be accessible to casuals in any way.

[Chocobo_Rider]

@broodwars

You don't think the following games were "risky and potentially interesting"? Keep in mind that risky, by definition, does not promise a good result.

Metroid: Other M
no explanation needed or, I suspect, wanted 

Kirby's Epic Yarn
-no vacuum ability
-no copy ability
-... everything is yarn
-2P co-op
-can't "die"

honorable mention:
4P co-op in NSMBWii.  Going straight from only 1P platforming to <5 might seem like a lateral move at best.  However, before it was released, we didn't know if it would be hilariously annoying or just annoying.  Luckily, the game's design makes it much more the former.

[Adrock]

I don't consider Epic Yarn especially risky. In fact, it was kind of the exact opposite of risky. Nintendo requested Good Feel make a completely new IP into a Kirby game, probably for marketing reasons. That's most likely the same reason Dinosaur Planet became Star Fox Adventures. Putting a character in unfamiliar territory is significantly less daring than marketing an entirely new product. You can sell a name far easier than you can sell an idea, no matter how good of an idea it may be.

[broodwars]

I don't consider Epic Yarn especially risky. In fact, it was kind of the exact opposite of risky. Nintendo requested Good Feel make a completely new IP into a Kirby game, probably for marketing reasons. That's most likely the same reason Dinosaur Planet became Star Fox Adventures. Putting a character in unfamiliar territory is significantly less daring than marketing an entirely new product. You can sell a name far easier than you can sell an idea, no matter how good of an idea it may be.

Yeah, what he said on Kirby's Epic Yarn.

I also think the only thing "risky" about Other M conceptually was handing it over to Team Ninja, and Nintendo's no stranger to farming their properties out to 3rd parties.  Otherwise, a 2D Metroid game with heavy storytelling elements under the control of Sakamoto was a relatively safe bet on paper because of the 2D Metroids on the GBA, especially Metroid Fusion.

You want risky in a Metroid game?  How about Retro's idea for making Samus actually hunt bounties in a free-roaming area in Metroid Prime 3, which Sakamoto shot down because he didn't agree with that definition of "bounty hunter"?

As for New Super Mario Bros. Wii, that was probably the safest one of the 3.  They took a game that was massively successful on the DS, they put the bare minimum of effort into the level designs, and they added 3 more players.  And all adding 3 players did was make the game much harder and more annoying than it needed to be.  Nintendo allowed the Wii to become the casual, party-game system and they turned Mario Bros. into a party game.  That's as safe a bet on the Wii as you can get without making a mini-game collection.

[Luigi Dude]

And as I said in the original thread on this rumor, I've been wanting an epic Nintendo crossover RPG since Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars on the SNES.  Unfortunately, RPG-hating Yamauchi ran the company back when Nintendo might have actually considered such a game, and today's Nintendo is probably too risk-averse to attempt such a thing.  But I can dream.

Seriously, your going to act like anything with Mario and Pokemon in it is risky to Nintendo now?

An RPG crossover using Nintendo characters isn't risky at all.  The original Smash Bros sold over 5 million copies just on the fact it was a Nintendo crossover fighting game.  The most recent Smash Bros has sold close to 11 million copies by now and continues to sell.  Yeah something like Smash Bros has more appeal but all the Mario RPG have broke the million mark.  This show Nintendo has an audience of 1 million already that will buy an RPG with Mario in it which a Nintendo RPG would.

[Chocobo_Rider]

What about Pokemon and Nobunaga's Ambition? Anything risky there or still just plain vanilla risk-aversion?

[broodwars]

What about Pokemon and Nobunaga's Ambition? Anything risky there or still just plain vanilla risk-aversion?

No, I'll grudging give them that one just due to its sheer weirdness, though given that anything that has Pokemon stamped on it is a license to print money so it's not that much of a risk.

[UncleBob]

I'm a little curious.  Would the Dual Screens and Touch Screen on the DS and the entire Motion Controls on the Wii not be considered a pretty big risk?

[MegaByte]

I'd say the Wii was, but the DS was not since there was a decent spec bump and traditional controls, and they initially pushed it as "third pillar," while developing an alternative in case it didn't take off.

[Chozo Ghost]

while developing an alternative in case it didn't take off.

Whatever became of this alternative?

[UncleBob]

Even if it was a "Third Pillar" - considering the competition (which had far more than a "decent" spec bump) was poised to do some damage, I think if the DS had failed, the potential was there to really hurt Nintendo's handheld brand (which, at the time, was their bread-and-butter).

[MegaByte]

Well, I don't think it was a risk, as such. Nintendo had never pushed handheld specs as hard as Sony did and wouldn't have been able to get something ready cost-effectively. In that respect, the decision to try a new direction was almost less risky.

[UncleBob]

But they really did the same thing with the DS as they did with the Wii.  Instead of going toe-to-toe spec-wise, they came up with a feature (neé "Gimmick") and used that to sell the system (well, that and GAMES).

I think Nintendo was really in a high-risk situation whatever they tried.  The PSP stood a chance of being a real threat.  In the end, it was the selection of games that won the DS over the PSP - and many of the most popular games made heavy use of the DS's features (/gimmicks).  Much to the dismay of some posters around here.

It's hard to say what would have happened if Nintendo had tried to match/1-up Sony feature-wise on the PSP, but the route they took was a path less traveled and was a bit of a risk.  I seem to remember a lot of doom and gloom forecast for Nintendo when they unveiled the DS (not from me, I knew from the beginning it would be AwESOME!)... I think I even remember their shares taking a bit of a hit...  The feature (/gimmick) route was NEVER a sure thing and could have greatly backfired.

Granted, I'm not sure how much they had planned ahead at the time, but I think in some alternate universe where the dual/touch screened DS failed, the Nintendo of that world got scared of any motion controlled Wii plans and ended up making a Nintendo version of the PS360.

[broodwars]

If you want the DS and Wii to be risks, fine, but I would point out when these risks occurred: last console generation, when Nintendo was struggling in 3rd place and desperate to make something that was a hit.  That was also the Nintendo that allowed a Western Studio to bring Metroid into 3D First-Person Gameplay; gave us a Mario game where the primary game mechanic was a squirt gun; turned Zelda into a cel shaded, sea-faring, cartoon adventure despite a very public outcry; and gave us Miyamoto's 1st new IP since the NES days.  That was a completely different Nintendo than the one we have now, flush with DS and Wii money and now very reluctant to take big risks for potentially big gains.  Today's Nintendo plays it safe because there is no longer an economic imperative to push the boundaries and try new things.  Instead, we get incremental upgrades and nostalgia-placating.

In many ways, I almost wish Nintendo was on the brink of irrelevance once again, just so they would feel the need to push their boundaries and do new things that surprise me.  I never feel positively surprised by anything Nintendo does anymore (the Nobunaga-Pokemon crossover nonwithstanding), and I miss that feeling of excitement when Nintendo is truly being creative.  These days, it's more exasperation at Nintendo doing X thing in Y game despite it not being the best way to execute a particular idea.  "Desperation is the Mother of All Invention", indeed.

[MegaByte]

But they really did the same thing with the DS as they did with the Wii.  Instead of going toe-to-toe spec-wise, they came up with a feature (neé "Gimmick") and used that to sell the system (well, that and GAMES).

It wasn't quite the same situation though because the home consoles require a significantly higher up-front R&D cost. Nintendo had also already designed the DS before the PSP and its specs were revealed. Furthermore, Nintendo still had a solid grip on the handheld market, but that wasn't true with consoles. But you're right that if it wasn't for the DS, the Wii would have been even riskier. I don't think the system itself was a risk, but perhaps their focus on the casual market was.

[tendoboy1984]

while developing an alternative in case it didn't take off.

Whatever became of this alternative?

The DS was supposed to be a 3rd pillar, selling alongside the GameCube and GBA. If the DS failed, then Nintendo would have just continued the Game Boy line.

[Plugabugz]

Um, you might want to lighten up because you know what he means and it's not a big deal. Maybe you shouldn't take everything so literally...

So then by "literally", you mean it metaphorically? :-P

He made a mistake, and I pointed it out in good humor-- You're right, it's not a big deal which is why I chose to have fun with it in the first place.

Which one of us really needs to lighten up?

Oh the irony, it's almost too much. I would suggest actually you read the dictionary meaning of literally before you try and "correct" someone on its usage.

lit·er·al·ly /ˈlitərəlē/ adv.
1. In a literal manner or sense; exactly: "the driver took it literally when asked to go straight over the traffic circle".
2. Used to acknowledge that something is not literally true but is used for emphasis or to express strong feeling.

And yes, it doesn't really make sense, that's why it's a little bit of a contentious definition, but it has been that way for a long time.

Good to know people can at least see what i was aiming it. More importantly this is the internet - making sense is optional.

[UncleBob]

I would point out when these risks occurred: last console generation

I know the Wii is greatly underpowered, but it *is* the newest major console on the market and all.

But, since you somewhat brought it up... WiiU.  Is the tablet controller playing it safe?

[Chocobo_Rider]

Pretty good conversation going here.

My 2 cents is, in order from biggest to smallest risk:

Wii
As much as up-off-the-couch gaming and swinging around a virtual sword may seem like no-brainers, it remained to be seen if anyone would actually want to do it.  In my opinion? Huge risk.

Wii U
Not much of a risk.  I mean, I just can't imagine any legitimate concessions someone would have to make to play Wii U games if they don't like the tablet.  ("I hate this second, informative screen!").  The only "risk" per se is the timing and the potential leap-frogging when the neXtBox/PS4 arrive.  However, people have been predicting Nintendo's demise based on forth-coming stronger hardware for years.  Hasn't played out that way yet.

DS
The DS was absolutely a huge innovation.  It was the first truly popular consumer touch screen device and now look how ubiquitous they are?  However, I don't see it as much of a "risk" because if no one wanted to use the touch screen, games could easily have just been made to operate like a standard GameBoy with a vertical screen.

[Ian Sane]

Metroid: Other M was somewhat of a conscious effort to make Metroid appeal more to Japanese gamers.  That's not really risky.  If anything that's the opposite.

The Wii was an insanely huge risk.  I thought for sure the Wii would be in bargain bins less than a year after its release and the whole thing would potentially kill of Nintendo for good.  Nintendo became an incredibly conservative company immediately after its success.  The Wii was Nintendo's plan to grab casual gamers and part two of the plan seemed to be "... and then we won't have to try anymore."  Getting the casuals took a huge risk but the ultimate benefit of doing so was that would allow them to be conservative and release mostly sequels and glorified motion control tech demos.  The mass market expects less from you if you can find the formula that works with them.  The only risk is in finding the formula.  Once you have it you can coast for years.

The Wii U isn't even a new idea.  It's pretty much a console DS and tablets are "in" these days, while motion control was nothing until the Wii showed up.  The risk with the Wii U is that core gamers might not go for it and casuals may have switched to the iPad or possibly Kinect.

[Adrock]

Nintendo has always been conservative. They make games for a fraction of the cost of other companies and sell tons. That's low risk, high reward. Nintendo's reliance on sequels and characters isn't even new. Nintendo has been doing that since the 1980s. With Mario Bros. and Super Mario Bros., Nintendo just took an existing character from a popular game (Mario from Donkey Kong) and put him on his own games.

The only difference between then and now is that Nintendo had to create characters and IPs in the 1980s and 1990s because they didn't have any back then. I have no real issues with sequels. I like sequels. I only find it disconcerting when Nintendo takes what is already planned as a new IP and turns it into a spin-off of an existing one, like Kirby's Epic Yarn, because then they're just unecessarily restricting creativity. I don't really understand the obsession with new IPs nor do I understand how sequels suddenly equates "not trying." Nintendo doesn't release many bad games. In fact, they're notorious for throwing out nearly completed games because they're not good enough. Don't get me wrong. I'm not against new IPs. However, as long as Nintendo keeps releasing high quality games, I don't see why it's so important to introduce new IPs. Will it draw in people who don't like Nintendo games? Maybe even though a brand new Nintendo IP is still a Nintendo game by definition. If that's the only reason, that's not a very good one.

[ThePerm]

the could go on the strategy they had with n64, just show something amazing and everyone will want it. I love how the Wii U is super futuristic by 1992 standards.

[Chocobo_Rider]

Let's not forget, if we're going to compare Nintendo's level of risk aversion to other companies, Sony and Microsoft can afford to hemorrhage money in their games division because they have soooooooo many other streams of revenue.

Nintendo does gaming.

... and also Love Hotels.