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

[ThePerm]

Technically, Retro Studios is another developer. Few of the people from the Metroid days are currently there as far as we know. Granted they hired a bunch of top talent. Would I want them to make a Metroid game? Well yes, but I think they should make a Metroid game only after they've created a new franchise.

[pokepal148]

I think Star Fox has been out of the limelight long enough for a new instalment to big news. It would be even bigger news if it was a Star Fox game developed by Retro studios. That's the type of news that Nintendo probably would want to keep secret to maximise the impact of the announcement.
 
Having said that, I hope Retro aren't making a Star Fox game. I hope their ambitions are much broader in scope.

A starfox game is possible, idk i could see something there but it seems more likely that a new game would be made by Q-games on the 3DS based on 64 3d's engine

but does nintendo really need a new IP, I would think that they would have enough obscure cult classic one-off franchises from the NES days to cover whatever needs they would have... i mean they made Kid Icarus a third person shooter here I mean come on...

[RarityGamer]

Technically, Retro Studios is another developer. Few of the people from the Metroid days are currently there as far as we know. Granted they hired a bunch of top talent. Would I want them to make a Metroid game? Well yes, but I think they should make a Metroid game only after they've created a new franchise.

It's a shame when that happens. Teams make a name for themselves, then split up.
Long as they don't another Mario or Mario spin off...

[Ian Sane]

but does nintendo really need a new IP, I would think that they would have enough obscure cult classic one-off franchises from the NES days to cover whatever needs they would have... i mean they made Kid Icarus a third person shooter here I mean come on...

Nothing stays popular forever.  Eventually the market will tire of Mario and Zelda and Pokemon and all the rest and Nintendo will need new brands to take their place.  Every company needs new IP to keep themselves current.  Every generation has new IP that becomes a big hit.  This previous gen had Assassin's Creed, Gears of War, Uncharted and of course the Wii Series.

[pokepal148]

but does nintendo really need a new IP, I would think that they would have enough obscure cult classic one-off franchises from the NES days to cover whatever needs they would have... i mean they made Kid Icarus a third person shooter here I mean come on...

Nothing stays popular forever.  Eventually the market will tire of Mario and Zelda and Pokemon and all the rest and Nintendo will need new brands to take their place.  Every company needs new IP to keep themselves current.  Every generation has new IP that becomes a big hit.  This previous gen had Assassin's Creed, Gears of War, Uncharted and of course the Wii Series.

and yet things can come back, such as Kid Icarus, to fit a new role... Nintendo has plenty of games like Startropics that they could bring back to the modern day... why make a new IP if maybe there is something already that fits the bill... I don't think they have much need for a new IP... they have enough stuff between the well known franchises and things like mach rider and clu clu land that they could stretch to fit pretty much any genre

[Adrock]

People will tire of Mario, Zelda etc. when Nintendo starts continually releasing bad iterations of those series.

[pokepal148]

People will tire of Mario, Zelda etc. when Nintendo starts continually releasing bad iterations of those series.

i am not denying that i am saying nintendo has a huge back catalog of one off games or franchises from the days of yore that they can use... why not reboot one of those...

[Adrock]

I was responding to Ian.

There needs to be a reason for creating a new IP. Nintendo created many in the 1980s and 1990s whenever they needed to, typically when they were venturing into a new genre. That's not too different than other companies. Some start with a story and simply cannot use existing characters, but how many of those does Nintendo have? Mother/Earthbound? Xenoblade? Sometimes, it just doesn't make sense to put Mario in everything and that's when we got, for example, F-Zero and Star Fox. Those IPs were created out of necessity. And yes, there are times when it just doesn't make sense to use an existing character and Nintendo does anyway (e.g. Kirby's Epic Yarn). When it does make sense, why not just use an existing character?

New for the sake of being new is pointless. I brought up Retro Studios creating a new IP, not because it would be new, but because it would stand a better chance of reaching people who don't really play Nintendo games. They won't consider a Wii U because Mario and Zelda don't resonate with them. There are genres that Nintendo has no presence in and I think Retro Studios has the talent to fill the void one game at a time if need be. That way, they're creating for reasons beyond simply creating. I think Retro Studios can handle just about anything Nintendo asks of them. They can make Star Fox or F-Zero and do a damn good job too. I just think it would be far more beneficial for Nintendo to expand their core audience. Mario will sell to Mario fans and there are a lot of them, but there are whole segments of the market that Nintendo has nothing for. If third parties aren't helping Nintendo and deals like Bayonetta 2 cannot be made, Nintendo should considet going after those audiences themselves.

[pokepal148]

that is honestly a needed point to consider,

[Shaymin]

To answer a question posed earlier...

Who knows what the status of Silicon Knights is?

Zed's dead, baby. Zed's dead.

[TJ Spyke]

For all intents and purposes, they are. Silicon Knights is still alive for the moment though.

[nickmitch]

Nintendo doesn't really need NEW IPs right now. Existing ones are gonna sell Wii U because everyone is going to be familiar with the level of quality of the series. It's too lay to try something new on the Wii U evacuee only people that already own one will play it unless it really, really captivates people.

That being said, I gotta agree with Ian that Nintendo desperately needs more talent. Granted, quality talent is hard to come by, but if you mix in some known talent, throw in quality leadership, and hold new studios to your existing quality standards, then someone is gonna make a hit. I'd hate to say it, but Nintendo is mostly in this console race for and by themselves. They might as well just expand.

[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?

[Oblivion]

How was Star Fox 64 3D unsatisfactory? That's like saying that Ocarina of Time 3D was unsatisfactory.

[ThePerm]

It wasn't really much different Then Starfox DS, and then it had camera chat, but WTf did it have camera chat, when you could only play local multipayer? You're sitting right next to each other.

[Fatty The Hutt]

The "Star Tropics updated to be Uncharted style" idea has been floating around here and there. That'd be something I'd like to see, from Retro or otherwise.

[Oblivion]

It wasn't really much different Then Starfox DS, and then it had camera chat, but WTf did it have camera chat, when you could only play local multipayer? You're sitting right next to each other.

So having a feature that doesn't matter for a port makes an amazing game unsatisfactory?

[RarityGamer]

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/

[Ian Sane]

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.

When I was a kid it was all about Mario.  Not Space Invaders or Pac-Man, that was old stuff.  Atari tried to take on the NES with Centipede and Pole Position and us kids all laughed at their dinosaur games (which is funny because those were like five years old at the time).  Nintendo really pulled it off with Pokemon.  A different generation grew up, not as Mario fanatics, but as Pokemon nuts.  That was important because it was a new IP for a new generation that was their own.

I think ideally Nintendo should try to have at least one new IP a generation become a big hit with each generation of gamers.  I think a big part of why the Gamecube got such a weak reaction was that Nintendo pushed it a lot on existing Nintendo franchises to a market that was adopting GTA and Halo and "their" videogame icons.  The Wii bucked the trend by introducing Wii Sports/Fit/Etc. and having a new group of gamers (many of which were casual adult gamers) adopt it as their own.

You don't stay fashionable if you stick to the same stuff and in entertainment everyone is looking for the next big thing.  Remember Nintendo isn't just trying to sell to the same people that ate up Mario and Zelda on the NES.  They constantly want new customers so they have to come across as current.

[Adrock]

And yet Mario remains the most recognizable character in the world. Your examples of Pac-Man and Space Invaders don't work here because Mario is still relevant today. He hasn't lost popularity. Rather, he has only become more popular with every generation who then spend their formative years catching up on all the Mario games from yesteryear. Nintendo doesn't need to create a new Mario for a new generation because Mario still has that lasting appeal. If anything, it should show other companies how to protect a brand by constantly reinventing itself and not abusing its popularity with mediocre products. Not every Mario game needs to change gaming. It just has to not suck. Even the safe Mario games are still pretty good.

[Oblivion]

And yet Mario remains the most recognizable character in the world. Your examples of Pac-Man and Space Invaders don't work here because Mario is still relevant today. He hasn't lost popularity. Rather, he has only become more popular with every generation who then spend their formative years catching up on all the Mario games from yesteryear. Nintendo doesn't need to create a new Mario for a new generation because Mario still has that lasting appeal. If anything, it should show other companies how to protect a brand by constantly reinventing itself and not abusing its popularity with mediocre products. Not every Mario game needs to change gaming. It just has to not suck. Even the safe Mario games are still pretty good.

He hasn't lost popularity because the adults of today are the ones who know who he is. Sure, kids play with him, but there are far more kids who like Angry Birds and want AB merchandise.

[Fatty The Hutt]

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.

When I was a kid it was all about Mario.  Not Space Invaders or Pac-Man, that was old stuff.  Atari tried to take on the NES with Centipede and Pole Position and us kids all laughed at their dinosaur games (which is funny because those were like five years old at the time).  Nintendo really pulled it off with Pokemon.  A different generation grew up, not as Mario fanatics, but as Pokemon nuts.  That was important because it was a new IP for a new generation that was their own.

I think ideally Nintendo should try to have at least one new IP a generation become a big hit with each generation of gamers.  I think a big part of why the Gamecube got such a weak reaction was that Nintendo pushed it a lot on existing Nintendo franchises to a market that was adopting GTA and Halo and "their" videogame icons.  The Wii bucked the trend by introducing Wii Sports/Fit/Etc. and having a new group of gamers (many of which were casual adult gamers) adopt it as their own.

You don't stay fashionable if you stick to the same stuff and in entertainment everyone is looking for the next big thing.  Remember Nintendo isn't just trying to sell to the same people that ate up Mario and Zelda on the NES.  They constantly want new customers so they have to come across as current.

THis is a really insightful observation. I think you may be on to something here.
The trouble is, folks are mighty fickle. What's going to take off is basically a crap-shoot. I don't think it's worth Nintendo's time to try and engineer the "next big thing". Folks will smell the cynicism a mile off and stay away. So, Nintendo just does what they do and hopefully makes the best games they can.
I agree they should at least attempt to push some new characters/IPs.

[Pixelated Pixies]

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.

[Fjurbanski]

None of that makes the old icons irrelevant. For instance, Mickey Mouse. He's still relevant after how many years?


Mario is plenty relevant to kids. Kids I know from my family friends all know and like mario (if they like video games at all, that is). Sure they like Angry Birds too, but that doesn't make Mario irrelevant at all.


And take your own example as a counter argument. Pokemon. Pokemon is NOT an icon for this generation of kids. It's an icon from MY generation of kids, but it's still very relevant. Certain things just have staying power, whether it's Mario or Mickey Mouse. New icons don't make old icons irrelevant.

[Pixelated Pixies]

None of that makes the old icons irrelevant. For instance, Mickey Mouse. He's still relevant after how many years?

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