Topic: Mario kart.....should I bother??

[Ian Sane]

I was reading through the IGN review and I came across this line regarding LAN play:

"The only problem it has is the setup. You aren't given the option to select your characters -- even with as little as two people on seperate TVs."

What the hell does that mean?  You can't pick your characters in LAN play?  How does it determine who plays who then?  If that's the case then that's a pretty dumb restriction and will really hurt online play.

One thing I noticed about the review is that the reviewer is complaining about how the game is too cookie-cutter.  That in itself is a reasonable complaint (though the two character setup seems to have been ignored) but it's hypocritical for IGN to give Mario Kart a ho-hum score for that reason while F-Zero GX, which is also very cookie-cutter, gets a score in 9's.

Nintendo seems to get this "not original enough" BS a lot which always bugs me because those same reviewers will then gush over Soul Calibur II, or the latest Madden, or GTA; Vice City, or the latest Final Fantasy, etc.  It's ridiculous to expect Nintendo to completely innovate every time while not expecting other developers to do the same thing.

I imagine if Nintendo just included online support then IGN would have completely overlooked any of the flaws and given the game a great score.  Online support is a really simple way to bring new life to a multiplayer focused game that doesn't lend itself to innovation.  If Nintendo wasn't so stubborn (and to some extent senile) in their approach to online gaming they could easily spice up some of their multiplayer games and all of the "cookie-cutter" complaints would disappear.

[Flames_of_chaos]

Maybe Fran needs a gamecube up the buttocks or a Xbox smashed on his head.

[mouse_clicker]

Who really wants online play, though? I know I wouldn't use it, even if Nintendo did offer it, and I'm a pretty deep gamer. Would Joe Schmoe really want to shell out money just so he can play online? Would Nintendo really want to invest millions of dollars into developing an online plan just so a select few of its hardcore fans can use it? I'd ,uch rather Nintendo pour back its wealth of resources into making great single player games instead of dividing it up between a mediocre single player and a mediocre online game. Nintendo has had far more experience with online systems than anyone else- I trust them when they say it's not profitable. I don't even need to look at Sega, Sony, or Microsoft's numbers to know that's correct, although if you do, you'll come to the same conclusion.

[Armed]

Ehh... who cares what IGN says, all they do is complain on what Nintendo is doing wrong now.   Look at other sites like gamespot, or wait for review here.

[Ian Sane]

"Who really wants online play, though?"

Me.  And a fair bit of people on this forum who plan on playing Mario Kart online using some options that are much more complicated than anything Nintendo themselves would come up with.  If you don't want to play online then don't.  But it should at least be an option for multiplayer games.  It wouldn't cost much for Nintendo either.  This isn't like an online RPG or anything.  Games like Smash Bros, Mario Kart, and F-Zero don't need anything else beyond simple matchmaking.  That is not going to require a lot of costs on Nintendo's part (Blizzard manages to do it for free and they're not in severe debt) or a fee on our part.  It's also simple enough that they could probably make it so all you have to do is plug you online connection into your modem and everything else is handled by the game itself.  LAN gaming is a much more non-user friendly approach that only appeals to the super hardcore.  Ditto GBA/GC connectivity.

Anyway this is getting off topic.  I just think it's something that Nintendo could add to games like Mario Kart that would make them seem more fresh and new without really changing the formula much.

[mouse_clicker]

Nintendo would have to set up a server. They would have to keep the serve running. They would have to constantly modify the server. They would have to employ people to work on the server. If no pay-per-play feature was implemented, which I know nobody, then Nintendo would lose money, which isn't good. So what if you and some other people in this forum wanted Mario Kart to be online? Do you realize less than 4,500 people post here, compared to nearly 15 million Gamecube owners worldwide now? How on Earth is the measely demand on this message board reason enough for Nintendo to exert the time, effort, and money to put Mario Kart online?

I do agree with what you said about Nintendo not the only one who doesn't innovate every game. Just the other day I saw a commercial for Ratchet and Clank 2 and thought to myself, this is Ratchet and Clank with a 2 in the title, nothing more. So why are people railing on Nintendo? It doesn't make sense.

[WesDawg]

The only REAL complaints I've seen about MK have been its lack of innovation. IGN seemed to think there was new stuff in there, but not enough to make it a work an 8.0. I think theres been a ton of messages up about these subjects before, but in this case I don't really care about innovation. I mean, I just want to play Mario Kart. To have something fun to play with my family over Christmas break, and to invite my friends over for battle mode or races during the school year. I may even pick up a broadband adaptor or two if I can find 'em so that we can play 8 player kart. Innovation really wasn't the demand here. Same as it wasn't in demand for Vice City, GT4, F-Zero, Prince of Persia, Ratchet & Clank, or even for Zelda & Mario. I just want my old franchises realized better environments with tight gameplay. They can save the innovation for Pikmin, Made in Wario, Viewtiful Joe, or PN03. I can even see the demand for it if you're releasing a new version every year like SSX, Tony Hawk, or Madden. If you're gonna release a title three or four times on a system, you better do something new with it, but once a generation I'll settle for, and I only really want a solid recreation of what I loved about the old game.

[CaseyRyback]

Nintendo should take a hit and make their games online and have dedicated servers. I know I would buy a copy of Smash Bros. again if it had online play. Hopefully everyone playing on a LAN server will show them.

[mouse_clicker]

You don't "take a hit" unless you're going to get that money back, and Nintendo will not make that money back, if only for the sole reason barely anyone wants to play games online, pretty much only hardcore computer nerds like us. Stop being selfish and thinking Nintendo should set up an online system just so YOU can play online. How hard is that to understand?

[manunited4eva22]

That is somewhat true mouse, but then again PC gamers have been playing games online for quite some time (I have been playing PC games online since Doom for christ sake) You can get away with it by charging a tad for online, and honestly, I would pay for it.  I mean xbox live is in itself a decent expierence, but I don't really play too many games online with it.  If I could play games that I have grown up on loving, I have no doubt I would like it just a tad bit more.

[Ian Sane]

Well if there aren't that many people using it than the server maintenance wouldn't be as high would it?

I don't know exactly what sort of costs are involved but whenever people talk about some online game that costs too much to maintain 99% of the time they're talking about an online RPG which is a very different situation.  Matchmaking doesn't require you to be adding new content or anything like that so the costs of maintaining it are lower.  It still costs money but I don't know how much of a loss it is.  If the game sells well enough their might not even be a loss.  I'm just saying that Blizzard has had Battle.net for years and they seem to be okay.  Activision has also made every Tony Hawk game on the PS2 online and I have yet to hear of any problems stemming from it.

It doesn't really matter anyway since Nintendo will likely never go online with the Cube and it's already too late to add it to the games that could have used it.  These sort of additions to multiplayer games are more needed for the N5 versions of these games.  By then if Nintendo can't justify doing simple online matchmaking then they really will have gone insane.

"Just the other day I saw a commercial for Ratchet and Clank 2 and thought to myself, this is Ratchet and Clank with a 2 in the title, nothing more."

I saw that commercial as well and thought "That's a great commercial.  It's funny and links directly to the first game's ads.  Why doesn't Nintendo make ads like that?"  But that's a topic to beat into the ground for another day.

[Bill Aurion]

Playing games online is hell for me...I can't stand pay-to-play games, and I can't stand the "leet" talkers and pricks that play them...

[mouse_clicker]

I thought Ratchet and Clank 2's commercials were funny the first time I saw them, when they were for Ratchet and Clank. I was amazed that the commercials reflected the game even to the point where they were no different than the original.

manunited: I would never pay to play online- not because I don't see the reason for having to pay, but because I don't like the idea of continuosly having to pay any amount to play the same game. I'm interested in getting an XBox, but most certainly not for XBox Live. Which, on an offnote, just hit 500,000 users- if only half a million people play online on a system whose online play is it's main selling point, and a large chunk of its owners are PC gamers, how well do you think it'd do on the Gamecube? I admire Microsoft's gusto with setting up such a great plan, but it's hardly successful, much less profitable.

[Ian Sane]

"I think theres been a ton of messages up about these subjects before, but in this case I don't really care about innovation. I mean, I just want to play Mario Kart. To have something fun to play with my family over Christmas break, and to invite my friends over for battle mode or races during the school year."

I agree that innovation is overhyped and not always needed.  I just want sequels to improve on the previous game.  That means new levels/tracks/characters/powerups/etc, tighter controls, a few new abilities (nothing super original, stuff like the ability for Samus to cling to ledges in Metroid Fusion is a perfect addition) and better graphics and sound.  I don't need something that completely changes everything around.  For example I was disappointed in Super Mario Sunshine not because I didn't feel it was innovative but because it just wasn't as fun as Super Mario 64.  If anything the game tried too hard to be innovative by adding the water pack.  If the game was similar to Super Mario 64 but with improvements all around and some new moves and abilities for Mario it would be fantastic.

For me the ideal sequel is Super Smash Bros Melee.  It wasn't particularly innovative but it improved on everything and added tons of new stuff.  That's how you do a sequel.

[mouse_clicker]

Quote
For me the ideal sequel is Super Smash Bros Melee. It wasn't particularly innovative but it improved on everything and added tons of new stuff. That's how you do a sequel.

EXACTLY- I couldn't agree more. SSBM added so much while still keeping it all basically the same. In other news, IGN gave Ratched and Clank: Going Commando a 9.4- why does "cookie cutter" sequel Mario Kart with some pretty hefty additions get a 7.9 when Ratchet and Clank 1½ gets a 9.4? I've lost even more trust in IGN.

[mouse_clicker]

Double post.

[Pale]

It would be possible for Nintendo to make online gaming free of costs, and thats just by doing direct connections.  It would be more complicated for the user in that they would have to know the ip, and matchmaking wouldn't be there at all seeing as you would have to somehow communicate with someone and get their ip.  I would personally like this option, but nintendo would NEVER do it because think of the crappy reviews they would get then.

[CaseyRyback]

taking a hit on online is a great move. Look at MS, its the one thing that has separated its product and it is one facet where the hype about it is such good publicity that it pays for itself

Whats the first thing out of an Xbox fannie is that it plays online, which helps sell a product that most Xbox owners do not have(even Harrison admitted to this)

[mouse_clicker]

500,000 people have XBox Live- since when has a selling point that's sold only 500,000 units been successful? And not only has it only pushed out 500,000 XBoxes (which is assuming every Live player bought an XBox because of Live), Microsoft has lost a tremendous amount of money not only keeping Live going but advertising it as well. The Gamecube's price drop alone sold some 400,000 units in a month- THAT is something to talk about, not XBox Live.

[VideoGamerX]

For the question about who wants online play, you need only go as far as Gamefaqs poll that asks specifically how important online play is to gamers. It was overwhelmingly obvious that only a scant few found online play important in a game. A surprising amount said they wouldn't even utalize the online functions. I still feel this is proof that online gaming is a gimmick as far as console gaming goes.

Would I play Mario Kart DD online? No. Even if it were free? Still no. Why? Because I don't care for it. I have my reasons. I don't relish the fact that Jimbo and Bimbo can clear Mario Circuit I 24 seconds faster than me... because that's all they do 18 hours out of their day is sit and play Mario Kart nonstop. When you go online with these games, you're going to find yourself losing nonstop to these kinds of people. That's not fun. That's demoralizing.

I have a lot more fun playing my friends. With the most likely and expected setup we're going to have for online play, you're not going to get to choose your opponents. You'll have no way of telling who you're facing, and you're more than likely guaranteed to get stuck with a couple of Bimbos you'll never beat.

Even if you do beat them, what's the prize or the point? Bragging rights? It's an evaporating victory as far as I see it. It'll be gone as soon as you leave the race screen. I don't see a point for it.

I think RPGs are online worthy and I love MMORPGS. As far as racing games go, I think it's pointless. FPS's have etched themselves as online worthy, but even then I still think it's pointless (personal taste).  

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Nintendo also doesn't have the resources to take a hit on online gaming like Microsoft does.

Quote
No that isnt what THEY said, that is what Avinash_Tyagi said in the post above you, it is an assumption. IGN and the reviewer simply gave an opinion, the person reviewing the game didnt care for it, who really cares? I dont understand why people get so worked up about these things.

You obviously missed the whole part of the review where they bashed the game as not appealing to Mature gamers due to its colorful graphics and gameplay.

[mouse_clicker]

If you're REALLY a mature gamer, you shouldn't care what a game looks like.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Fran seems to think otherwise.

Which is why I think that if the same game mechanics were in a game with more violence and more "Mature" characters as some would call them he would have given the game around a 10.

[yellowfellow]

and i don't know if this has been stated, but if Crash Nitro Kart had the same mechanics as MK: DD there would be 10s all around the board.  IGN eats way too much into hype and expectations.

[mouse_clicker]

Oh, of course, avinash. I meant my statement to be truthful, not applicable.