Topic: Nintendo hope to introduce Retro's new Wii U game in 'not so distant future'

[ThePerm]

I think its a good idea to create new IPs every generation(at least 3). The two reasons are to expand the catalog and to stay current. Nintendo usually adds 1-3 per generation into the fold. At one point Starfox, F-Zero, and Pikmin were all new IPs. Nintendo also has IP attrition issues thanks to Rare.

Banjo Kazooie, Perfect Dark, Killer Instinct, Conker, Jet Force Gemini would probably have wii and wii u sequels ready if they never let them go.

From all indications Nintendo still own Eternal Darkness. I honestly don't care if Nintendo brings back a franchise...as long as its one that is due for a sequel. Things Like Mach Rider, Star Tropics, Eternal Darkness, Earthbound. Now granted it has been a while since there has been a proper Starfox game, but an unsatifactory release just came out on 3DS. F-Zero seems like a good candidate, but it also seems like something maybe that could be done by....SEGA?

I know it's a little off topic, but look at this:
http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/05/03/shadow-of-the-eternals-teaser-trailer




It's a spiritual successor made by the same creator. He's planning to crowdfund it:
http://shadowoftheeternals.com/

There may be a reason why he has to crowd fund it. This could be Octopussy vs Never Say Never here.


I'll take it though. Where can I put my bucks in?

[Fjurbanski]

It might not make them irrelevant, but it does make them less relevant.

Not to the point where Nintendo needs something to take Mario's place. Yeah, they should make new IPs, everybody should. But Mario will always be Nintendo's main icon, and their main platformers will revolve around him. For every generation. It seems like some people in this thread are implying that isn't the case.

[Louieturkey]

Different generations need different videogame icons to identify with.  Right now for example kids all over Angry Birds and part of that is that that's THEIR game.  It isn't their parents' game, it's for them.  Every generation wants their own icons in all forms of entertainment.

Indeed. That is why my 7 year old cousin can tell you who Woody and Buzz are but wouldn't have a clue who the hell Mickey Mouse is.

That just tells me your cousin's parents only showed him Toy Story (possibly 1-3) and he's never been to Disneyland.  My 3 year old son knows Mickey, Donald, Buzz, Woody, Simba, Wreck-It-Ralph, Merida, Lightning McQueen, Mater, Goofy, etc.

My son also loves trains and drawing and playing piano and hitting baseballs and basketball and football.  Gotta give them variety for them to figure out what they like.

[Pixelated Pixies]

@Fjurbanski
 
To be honest, I wasn't even getting involved in the Nintendo IP debate. I was just agreeing with Ian that each new generation attach themselves to something new.

[Ian Sane]

Mickey Mouse is still Disney's mascot but when was the last time they made a Mickey Mouse movie?  They dont' just hammer out endless Mickey Mouse films anymore.  There was a long time where Disney practically didn't make sequels at all.  I'm not saying Nintendo should get rid of Mario but Disney would have died out before my parents were born if they stuck to making Mickey Mouse cartoons.  Mario should always be part of Nintendo but cannot carry Nintendo forever.

Novelty is a big part of entertainment.  That's part of what we're paying for.  No one just listens to the same songs, watches the same episodes of the same shows, watches the same movies.  You could get bored of the routine.  People entertain themselves with novelty.  That in itself justifies creating new IP.

Hell NSMB is a minor controversy among Nintendo fans because those of us that don't like it are BORED.  That's the whole point.  Does not the Wii U's failure to sell on the stength of a well made Mario game suggest that the public is growing tired of the formula?  The formula no longer provides novelty, thus the need for new gameplay experiences.  It will be easier for Nintendo to create new ideas if they are not constantly restricted by pre-existing IP.

[TJ Spyke]

Disney never made that many true Mickey Mouse movies (meaning not the shorts that used to play in theatres before TV existed and were only a few minutes long).

And the NSMB games still sell very well.

[Fjurbanski]

See, I haven't noticed that with the kids I know. What I've noticed is that kids don't attach onto new for the sake of new. Kids simply attach onto what they're given. Kids will like anything kid friendly if it's introduced to them at the right age. If cartoon network plays old cartoons mixed with new ones, then kids will grow up attached to both of them. If kids play Mario as well as Angry Birds, kids will grow up attached to them as well.


You said your cousin doesn't know Mickey Mouse. Well I can only assume that's because their parents didn't introduce them to Mickey Mouse, and to my knowledge Disney hasn't been making many new Mickey Mouse cartoons or movies lately. I could be wrong, but this is what I've observed. Kids latch on to what people try to sell them.

[TJ Spyke]

Actually, Disney has a cartoon aimed at pre-school kids called Mickey Mouse Clubhouse that does pretty well. It's been on TV since 2006.

[Pixelated Pixies]

You guys are really getting caught up in my Mickey Mouse allusion, lol.
 
I was simply trying to point out that Disney Pixar's creations are likely to be more influential for today's children than Walt Disney's. I actually didn't anticipate much debate about it. Now that you've got me thinking, however, I feel it's time for an incomprehensible stream of consciousness.
 
My broader point was that doing something new and original can be incredibly beneficial. Setting out to do something new invariably leads to more innovation than was originally intended. A few posts back Adrock said 'New for the sake of being new is pointless'; which I completely disagree with. Sometimes doing something new or different simply for the sake of it is exactly what is needed. That's what fashion is. Hell, that's what Science is! Starting something new forces you to look at a blank canvas, to consider things which might not have been conceivable within the restrictions of the old or the existing. New is good. Not inherently good of course, but good in the sense that it might lead to something innovative and worthwhile that did not exist before. Which was my original point. Look at what Toy Story has done for animation and story telling in children's films. If Mickey Mouse hasn't been ousted in our imaginations he better well should be.

...and that's why Retro should be allowed to create a new IP!

[Fjurbanski]

Retro should create a new IP if they feel like it and if they think it's good. Should they create a new IP right now, though? Well, I don't know. If the Wii U gets into a more comfortable position, then maybe they should. But right now they need to make a good game that will. That's hard to do with a new IP. Their best bets, probably, are familiar IPs. But that's just the business side. As a gamer I'd love to see a new IP from them (Honestly at this point I'd love to see anything from them, new or old).


And to everyone, let's not say Nintendo doesn't try new things. Remember, these are games, not fashion. Nintendo does try new things on the gameplay front. They try new things all the time. They've even ruined some games (imo) because they tried to make them different from their predecessors (Sticker Star). They just don't use new characters too often.


 

[ThePerm]

idk if its hard to make a good new ip. I think at this point its more work to make an older franchise current, unless its been years since older franchise.

I mean Gears of War, Drakes Uncharted, and God of War are relatively new game franchises. If Sony and Nintendo can make good newfr anchises, then why cant Nintendo?

[Adrock]

Again, they make new series because they have to. They would love to have Nintendo's stable of recognizable characters, but they don't so they have to create their own like Nintendo once had to. These companies aren't creating new franchises because they're more creative than Nintendo. And as we've seen, once they launch a successful one, they bleed them dry no matter how little it makes sense for the series. By last count, Ubisoft has released 41 Assassin's Creed games since the series launched in 2007. God of War's story arc ended with III over three years ago yet Sony still managed to release two additional games in the series.

Yes, Nintendo relies on their characters a little too much sometimes. As previously mentioned, Kirby's Epic Yarn is hardly a Kirby game. It even began as a completely original intellectual property before Nintendo asked Good Feel to change it. However, people are way too attached to this idea that companies, namely Nintendo, need to come up with new franchises for the newness of it.

Hypothetically, if the Galaxy team decides to make a Mario-esque game that is not a Mario game just so it's not a Mario game, consider why it shouldn't just be a Mario game. Why create something similar to Mario and try to replicate that level of success when you can just make a Mario game? Mario's universe is so open and inconsistent that Nintendo just does whatever they want in it. There are no rules. He can swim forever in one game, but has limited oxygen in another. He has a spacesuit in Super Mario Land, but not in Super Mario Galaxy. If you really think Nintendo needs to create a new franchise because they're too limited by the series to present new, innovate ideas, you haven't played enough Mario games. Nintendo has established the series as one where anything goes, one that constantly changes depending on what they want it to be depending on the game. It just so happens to be their most popular intellectual property.

Now, I'm not saying Nintendo shouldn't look to create new franchises. They should when appropriate. I think there has to be a balance. Creating a new franchise should make sense. What is the developer trying to accomplish? If they have to betray an entire character just to fit it into the series (e.g. Kirby's Epic Yarn), it should probably be its own franchise. I advocate Retro Studios creating a new franchise so long as they're creating something that Nintendo doesn't already have a hand in. If it means Retro Studios makes a first-person shooter, it makes sense to explore that because Nintendo has no first-person shooter franchises of their own and they're not getting nearly as much support in that area from third parties. However, if Retro Studios is basically making Metroid Prime without Samus, I really don't see the point. Yeah, it's new and may catch the attention of people who aren't Metroid fans since it lacks Metroid in the title, but I don't think that should be the only or even main reason. If it has to be new, really commit to it.

[RarityGamer]

Just a thought. Out of all the great games Nintendo could have remade, they chose to remake Starfox 64 not long ago. Could that of been an attempt to get new people onboard and to gauge the interest in the series?


Either way, I really hope we get another Starfox game. I think they is a gap in the market for it. Think about it though, I can't think of a single 3d space shooter quite like Starfox 64 last or this gen.

[Caterkiller]

Just a thought. Out of all the great games Nintendo could have remade, they chose to remake Starfox 64 not long ago. Could that of been an attempt to get new people onboard and to gauge the interest in the series?


Either way, I really hope we get another Starfox game. I think they is a gap in the market for it. Think about it though, I can't think of a single 3d space shooter quite like Starfox 64 last or this gen.

That's pretty much exactly what it was. Miyamoto straight up said if we want a new one then buy this remake. I don't think the sales were that great to warrant a sequel, but I think they are making it. If you go back 7 years or so I've been saying that every May and June on these very forums, so I think odds are I'm due to be right.

[NWR_insanolord]

If you read interviews with Miyamoto over the past few years it seems pretty clear he really wants to do another Star Fox game. Like Pikmin before it, it's a series that means a lot to him that he won't let go away.

[MagicCow64]

If you read interviews with Miyamoto over the past few years it seems pretty clear he really wants to do another Star Fox game. Like Pikmin before it, it's a series that means a lot to him that he won't let go away.

This is like those persistent Kid Icarus rumors that popped up this time of year long before they announced the new game. It seems pretty certain there's some kind of Star Fox project percolating, especially with those Platinum Games trial balloons. It was like an actor hinting that they want to be cast as a character in an unannounced franchise movie.

[SonofMrPeanut]

Mickey Mouse is still Disney's mascot but when was the last time they made a Mickey Mouse movie?  They dont' just hammer out endless Mickey Mouse films anymore.  There was a long time where Disney practically didn't make sequels at all.  I'm not saying Nintendo should get rid of Mario but Disney would have died out before my parents were born if they stuck to making Mickey Mouse cartoons.  Mario should always be part of Nintendo but cannot carry Nintendo forever.

Novelty is a big part of entertainment.  That's part of what we're paying for.  No one just listens to the same songs, watches the same episodes of the same shows, watches the same movies.  You could get bored of the routine.  People entertain themselves with novelty.  That in itself justifies creating new IP.

Hell NSMB is a minor controversy among Nintendo fans because those of us that don't like it are BORED.  That's the whole point.  Does not the Wii U's failure to sell on the stength of a well made Mario game suggest that the public is growing tired of the formula?  The formula no longer provides novelty, thus the need for new gameplay experiences.  It will be easier for Nintendo to create new ideas if they are not constantly restricted by pre-existing IP.

I'm glad someone brought up Mickey not being featured in an actual Disney cartoon for decades until Mickey's Christmas Carol in 1983.  Mario certainly saw a marvelous reinvention mechanically with the Galaxy games, but this runs parallel with the NSMB series that's had 3 entries since the first Galaxy.  In the 1950s Disney was exploring new ideas through new characters and was content to let Mickey be instead of making more shorts (Mickey's NSMB equivalent).  Nintendo's approach has been to come up with a mechanic first and then see what character would best fit that, often leading to the use of an existing character or series.  Those in a creative position at Nintendo, Miyamoto or otherwise, have to justify using a new character/world to explore said base mechanic soon.


Incidentally, I'd consider Super Mario 64 his "Sorcerer's Apprentice" moment since it was a true showpiece and introduced us to modern Mario.  Also, are 101 Dalmatians the Pikmin of Disney?

[Louieturkey]

Also, are 101 Dalmatians the Pikmin of Disney?

Nope, because you can only control 100 pikmin at a time.  So they're missing one.

[Stogi]

I'd rock a pikmin coat.

[pokepal148]

Also, are 101 Dalmatians the Pikmin of Disney?

Nope, because you can only control 100 pikmin at a time.  So they're missing one.

Olimar?

[AnGer]

I for my part am going to jump into the freezing cold water of predictions and will state that Retro's new project will feature him: http://nintendo.wikia.com/wiki/Takamaru

Why? Well... he's been featured in two Wii games (Captain Rainbow and Samurai Warriors 3) and got his own section in Nintendo Land. That might mean nothing, but remember the last time Nintendo brought a character believed to be long gone back to a game? Remember Pit's return in SSB Brawl? He got his own game a few years later.

[ThePerm]

Prime came out a long time ago, but Other M came out in between to mixed reviews. It didn't look like the game for me. In some ways it seemed kind of insulting.

[Mop it up]

I haven't been paying much attention, has it been confirmed that Retro's game will be revealed at E3, or is it simply highly likely?

[BranDonk Kong]

You'll find out in 2 days.

[Toruresu]

Would it be possible that Retro's new game is one of the old games for GC they had to cancel at the moment? Raven Blade was it? Western RPG is something Nintendo has always lacked.

What other stuff they had to cancel?