Topic: Nintendo and Konami Announce DDR with Mario

[Mario]

Quote
Originally posted by: Savior

Quote
Grand Theft Auto, Halo 2 and Madden online are what's helping Sony and Microsoft.

Its not that easy. If it were. Nintendo could have GTA already (Its on the GBA), They have their own FPS/A in Metroid Prime and EA provides the Servers for Madden Online, why not promote it like they did Phantasy Star Online? Its more than that.

What?

Quote

Quote
I saw every single one of Sony's games the past few years have been sequels

Yeah, was there a Jak, Ratchet and Clank, Socom, God of War, Dark Cloud, Sly Cooper, ICO, on the PS1?

Was there a Viewtiful Joe, Pikmin, Billy Hatcher, Super Monkey Ball, Animal Crossing, Eternal Darkness on the N64? And do you understand the concept of "past few years"?

Sony wanted a platformer, they had nobody to shove in there, so they "created" Jak, now he's in Jak & Daxter, Jak 2, Jak 3 and Jak Racing. The arguments for the point you're trying to make are irrelevant, because you have no point.  

[Savior]

Quote
What?

If Nintendo had those three things would they sell as well as Sony does?

Quote
Was there a Viewtiful Joe, Pikmin, Billy Hatcher, Super Monkey Ball, Animal Crossing, Eternal Darkness on the N64? And do you understand the concept of "past few years"?

Actually there was an Animal Crossing on the N64.  But there wasnt a Pikmin or an Eternal Darkness.

My point is certainly a valid one. Sony isnt living off its PS1 Franchises. They made new ones.  If Nintendo actually created New Stuff it wouldnt "attract only hardcore" like Bill suggests.  It would attract more people.  

[Bill Aurion]

Instead Sony lives off of really generic new, "hardcore" franchises and whores them to death...(Jak and Ratchet need three games each in one gen?  I think NOT)...I've said all my share on this topic...

[Ian Sane]

When I saw this headline I thought "hey cool!  DDR on the Cube!"  A lot of people thought "ANOTHER Mario game?  Screw this."  Well that's what I thought when I first found out about Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour, Mario Party 5, Mario Party 6, Mario Power Tennis, Mario Pinball Land, Super Mario 64 DS and NBA Street V3.  While I think having a DDR game on the Cube is great and this a rare scenario where I really think Mario's inclusion is a good idea and a good fit I agree that Mario is overexposed and Nintendo is quite rapidly killing his selling power.

Super Mario Sunshine was supposed to be the Cube's saviour.  After the rocky start it was supposed to be this big system seller that saved the Cube from becoming the N64 2.  Well it didn't and debatable game quality aside the reason it didn't is because the general public didn't regard it as anything special.  It WAS something special.  It was the first "real" Mario game in six years.  But the general public didn't notice this significance because to the average Joe looking over EB's game selection there have been several Mario games released each year since 1996.  Super Mario Sunshine was "just another Mario game" to the general public.

Now you can argue that Nintendo always changes things up with their franchise games which for the most part is true but nobody but hardcore fans notice that.  A lot of people see Nintendo as endless rehashers.  That is an image that I feel is worse than their dreaded "k!ddy" image.  And Nintendo just reenforces this image by releasing more Mario, more Zelda, more Pokemon, and more Metroid.  Bill said that there's a huge risk with making a brand new game.  That's true but there's an even bigger risk with releasing endless sequels and spin-offs when they're fighting a "rehasher" image.  Plus they're training the newer members of their fanbase to only accept franchise games, which is a problem with third party sales on the Cube and truly will prevent any new franchises from selling.

And lately Nintendo has gotten sequel-happy to the point that we, the hardcore fans, are losing interest.  I'm tired of Mario.  I realistically am not going to buy anymore non-platformer Mario titles if things continue as is and others in this thread agree with me.  This gen Nintendo has had this attitude that it's all about their franchise titles.  It shows in their lineup and they've talked about it in speaches.  That's NOT what Nintendo is about.  Nintendo built up their fanbase and their legacy by being an innovative developer that pushed game design in new directions, made high quality games, and made sequels that meant something and were essential.  They've lost sight of that now.  Now they're like Capcom.  It's all "push the familiar product and sell, sell, sell".  Sure they still make good stuff but they've started to release a few unessential rehash sequels now.  New entries in franchises are coming out a quicker pace and with less new ideas in them.  Ten years I felt I had to play every game Nintendo made.  I don't feel that now.  I feel I can get away with playing about half of them.  If you count the GBA ports then even less than that.

And all these franchise games are killing their franchises.  Mario doesn't sell systems anymore.  I want a new Mario game for the Revolution launch but that's only because I think it would be a good addition.  I don't think, unless Nintendo lays off Mario for a while, that he would sell systems.  In fact I think if Mario is continued to be milked that his precense will be negative.  That people will just think "Oh more Mario.  The Revolution is just going to be more the same."

Nintendo is irrelevant to the average gamer.  They have to change or at least appear as if they've changed or they're going to be killed off.  That means they have to make more new franchises and they have to lay off the spinoffs and sequels.  Relying on franchises is a stupid idea because that was the plan with the Cube and the Cube is a failure.

[SgtShiversBen]

The thing is Savior, is that Sony kills off it's franchises way to quickly.  It had Crash Bandicoot for a while and look what happened there.  They also had Spyro and that went down the toilet.  Same with Tomb Raider, Gex (which was ported to 64) and countless others, but all of those this generation have simply just evaporated from the limelight.  Same thing is probably going to happen next generation.  We'll get more platformers that have three or four sequels on ONE damn console (I've already talked about this in the Thinking Big? forum).  Don't you notice how the one's that actually work are the franchises that don't have three or four sequels on one, but use spinoffs to show that they're still very much alive.  Mario is one, Sonic is one, the Gran Turismo's (with prologue and all that), and of course the Blank vs. Blanks.  Those work because people don't get tired of doing something else with the characters.  Instead they get board of doing the same thing over and over again.  The Jaks are the same, the Ratchets are the same and the Halo's are the same.  If they make Halo 4 (which is inevitable) they better change up the gameplay instead of using 1st person.  Mario changes with each generation in which new technology is provided.  He's come a long way from destroying King Koopa to siding with him to get Peach's voice back.  These things do matter in which the player isn't forced to do the same things over and over again.  
Nintendo does create new stuff, it just uses the same characters to introduce the player into the mix.  Mario Party brought board games to the cyber world.  Mario Kart brought a game where racing is all about destroying your opponent with projectiles.  Mario RPG brought RPGs to the casual people.  Smash Bros. brought four playing fighting to best.  Believe it or not, even Dead of Alive uses its formula in some instances.  
All in all I'm just saying that using a franchise is a sure way to test the waters of doing something creative while still being in the general area that people will use it.  Like Mario said, a game like "Master Chief's Crazy Capers" wouldn't work.  Mario's Crazy Capers, although with a wierd name, would probably introduce many people to what a game like Crazy Capers could be.  All I am saying is give up the "WE WANT NEW FRANCHISES" thing a rest.  Then you'll get all pissed off when they don't and demand a PROPER MARIO GAME, when Sunshine was as good as one as any.  I haven't seen that level of platforming since the Primes.  Before that, it'd have to be............back in the 64 days.

[Mario]

My personal opinion on why Super Mario Sunshine wasn't as well received as Super Mario 64 isn't because of Mario's overexposure but because the game wasn't as good, there was nothing revolutionary about it, and most of all, it was too complex. Though I do agree Mario is overexposed, Miyamoto said himself in an interview that people used to say "ah!" when a new title featuring Mario was released, and now they just say "oh". What's his solution to that? One way I would suggest is to make Super Mario 128 the BEST damn game on the planet, a game EVERYONE must play, and a game that everyone CAN play, but that doesn't fix the core problem of overexposure, though what can? If Nintendo stop releasing any games with Mario in them their profits will take a large nosedive and the lineup would feel very empty. What do you believe is the solution Ian?

[Procession]

At the moment Nintendo is catering for Nintendo fans, and that is no way to grow marketshare. Sure, you'll sell a few more copies to those who already own your console, but you won't expand your install base. People who like Mario enough to buy a game because he's in it own a Nintendo console already. Frankly, that's all there is to it as far as I'm concerned. Nintendo can either continue with their niche in the market (I'm talking GC here) or try an capture back some of the ground they've lost; they seem to have chose the former, rather than the latter.

Say what you will about Sony, but they have been the innovators this generation. Eyetoy and Singstar have been MASSIVE hits for them, especially in PAL territories. They have used brand new control mechanisms, didn't rely on an already established franchise, and have been, once again, huge hits. Why? Because they extend past the usual gamer. The sort of thing Nintendo has been talking about, but so far hasn't really pulled off. Mario isn't going to make new gamers, but that sort of thing is, and it's disappointing to see Nintendo be following, rather than leading in this case (and not to mention following in another Mario spin-off). Sony has captured new gamers; Nintendo hasn't (at least not en masse).

By the way, the worst example we've seen of this existing franchise mentality, when Miyamoto demanded Dinosaur Planet become Star Fox Adventures; I doubt it sold many (if any) Gamecubes, and made a bit of a mess in an otherwise solid game.  

[Caillan]

It honsestly seems to me that NCL is just reading sales figures and basing their decisions on those. Releasing all of the NES classics as seperate retail products may have made them sell well, but more than that it's really pissed people off. It's the same with conectivity compared to live: one has been a financial success, the other a complete marketing one.

I have yet to play the new Mario Tennis, I'm not even sure if I'll ever get a chance to, but I know damn well that I'm not going to be playing a GC Golden Sun anytime soon.

[Infernal Monkey]

It's DDR on GameCube. It's a Mario game. It might have some really awesome HOT SEX Nintendo remixes. This game will rawk. The end.

[CHEN]

Savior and Procession like their PS2's. But I have to disagree with you here with Sony being the innovators this generation. Microsoft with its Live application or Nintendo with its DS would fair a better chance.

- GTA were never really popular until the third installment. And the 3rd boosted the PS2's popularity. Then came Vice City and San Andreas. You know the rest.
- Metroid can never be a hit such as Halo 2 because of what it is.
- ICO bombed commercially even though it got praised by the media.
- The others you've mentioned weren't innovative at all.
- Eyetoy? more liek gimmick m i rite? It isn't a massive hit in the States as you say it is.
- Releasing new franchises or changing an existing formula is risky. Ask EA.
- Sony is getting cocky. They didn't want to give licenses to 2D titles for example. It looks similar to the NES period in that regard. And they did a piss poor job with their online application. I'm glad Nintendo didn't do it without a solid online plan.
- Sony capturing the public? Believe me, the masses will flock to another market leader if the Playstation brand somehow loses its throne.

I do have to admit Sony made video gaming more accessible. But it also garnered some problems that could be its downfall. I'm not going to explain that, but if history has taught us, Sony can't keep this forever. The industry has changed and if big corporations such as EA will continue to buy out, there might be nothing left if they don't change their business plans. Like you say, gamers are getting sick of sequels with gameplay barely changed. And that's what most companies do to secure their turnouts and avoid risks. Look at EA Sports. How it's still successful boggles my mind. Eventually, people will get tired of it. What does DDR and Mario have to do with it? Nothing. What does Nintendo have to do with it? I'll let you think about that.

[joshnickerson]

I look forward to the day when Nintendo can announce a game and is not automatically greeted with a wall of whining fanboys crying that Nintendo is doomed.

[SgtShiversBen]

I have a question...is this website going to keep going or is it going to change names when the new Nintendo comes out?  

[Bill Aurion]

It's a secret to everybody...

[Ian Sane]

"If Nintendo stop releasing any games with Mario in them their profits will take a large nosedive and the lineup would feel very empty. What do you believe is the solution Ian?"

Well it's not like the lineup would be empty.  Cutting back on Mario doesn't mean cutting back on games period.  I think the solution is to enforce limits on how many games are released on each system for each franchise.  For nearly all of them I would say only one per system.  With Zelda have two since that's how they've done it so far and limit Mario to platformer, Mario Kart, Mario RPG, and maybe one other title.  Plus developers working with Nintendo should be encouraged to release new things.  So Camelot doesn't work on another Mario game, and aside from one new Metroid Prime Retro Studios works on new stuff.  The sequels should be limited to the company that traditionally works on it.  So Mario is EAD and EAD only.  And finally if there's no creative reason to make a sequel don't make it.  There's no need for a new Mario Party so just ditch it.

In regards to how to sell these new franchises well they need good marketing.  Halo is brand new yet it sold Xboxes.  Somehow MS managed to get people interested in a brand new franchise.  So it's perfectly doable.  Not everything will take off but there's nothing wrong with releasing a few niche titles that don't bring mainstream success.  That happens and if a developer is constantly afraid to release a commercial flop they become uncreative and turn into EA.  Plus there are genres Nintendo doesn't really have any exclusive franchise for that do to the popularity of the genre could easily become a hit.  Nintendo doesn't currently have a popular traditional FPS right now for example.  It's easy to get people interested in something like that.

As for what to do with Mario well I say they should just stop making Mario games until the Revolution launch.  On the SNES there were no Mario titles I can think of released in 1994 (except maybe some educational game) and that created more demand for Mario.  Fans kept busy with stuff like Donkey Kong Country and Mortal Kombat II and then Mario returned with Yoshi's Island.  But that was only Baby Mario so the traditional adult Mario didn't return until 1996.  Super Mario 64 not only had the appeal of being an unbelievably innovative game but it also was viewed as a return for Mario after being out of the spotlight for a bit.  So if Mario is not used for a little while then his "return" on the Revolution will be significant and people will notice that this is the first Mario platformer in a few years.

[Deguello]

"Super Mario 64 not only had the appeal of being an unbelievably innovative game but it also was viewed as a return for Mario after being out of the spotlight for a bit."

Except that pesky Super Mario RPG...

[Savior]

Quote
Relying on franchises is a stupid idea because that was the plan with the Cube and the Cube is a failure.

Exactly. Nintendo promises a  revolution. I hope that Revolution also means Alot more new franchises. No more Mario Parties.

Quote
The thing is Savior, is that Sony kills off it's franchises way to quickly.

No they dont. They make new franchises, to use their new technology. Sony lost the Crash Bandicoot liscence to Vivendi, so Naughty Dog created a brand new franchise in Jak and Daxter. Not a great plataformer but good enough to sell millions. They didnt "kill" their franchises, they moved them aside. Wipeout was one of the PS1s most popular games and the PS2 sequel was ignored by Sony because they wanted new stuff. Twisted Metal, Jet Moto, Cool Boarders all famous franchises and Sony simply decided to make new stuff. Nintendo could be served well to do the same. Would you have prefered Pikmin be called Mario-min and you controled millions of Mario? Nope.

Quote
WE WANT NEW FRANCHISES" thing a rest. Then you'll get all pissed off when they don't and demand a PROPER MARIO GAME, when Sunshine was as good as one as any. I haven't seen that level of platforming since the Primes. Before that, it'd have to be............back in the 64 days.

The 64 had more new franchises in its lifetime than the GCN has had in three years. (This is do alot thanks to Rare,) The N64 didnt have third party support so they needed to make new stuff to plug holes. Now Nintendo plugs holes with old franchises not new ones.

Quote
If Nintendo stop releasing any games with Mario in them their profits will take a large nosedive and the lineup would feel very empty.

Mario isnt even Nintendos main guy anymore. Link is.  Making Less Mario games would make the Mario games you do make more special.

Quote
It honsestly seems to me that NCL is just reading sales figures and basing their decisions on those.

Very True. The Success of Soul Calibur 2 with Link will convince Nintendo to possibly do the same more often....

Quote
Savior and Procession like their PS2's. But ...But I have to disagree with you here with Sony being the innovators this generation.

Well the PS2 is alot more like the Super NES than the Gamecube is. Thats kind of why i like it. I like RPGS. Theres more RPGS on the PS2. I like Fighgting Games. Theres no Virtua Fighters or Tekken on the Gamecube. So of course i like my PS2. Id rather have my RPGs and Fighting Games on a Nintendo console, like the SNES did.  

Oh and I never said Sony was more innovative. I just said they created more New Franchises in the PS2 generation than Nintendo has.  They werent hurt. So If Nintendo made New Stuff It wouldnt hurt them either. Theres already proof that New Stuff sells

[Hostile Creation]

What new stuff?  You mean Ico, a good game of which there was only one (which sold poorly), or Jak and Dexter, which they've made two sequels of in the past few years?
I don't mind people wanting Nintendo to diversify, but don't use Sony as a basis for comparison.  Even if Jak and Dexter is a new franchise, it is far, far away from anything like innovative.

[Savior]

The Majority of the PS2 lineup is new franchises. They arent really living off PS1 Franchises.

[Mario]

Quote
Mario isnt even Nintendos main guy anymore. Link is.

Where did you pull that from?

And if they're going to cut back on games with Mario in them , they better NOT stop releasing Mario Tennis & Mario Golf, because I freaking love those games. I love Mario Party too. Hell, I love every game that Mario's starred in, because they're good games. Where am I going with this? To the fridge? I dunno.

How can people say the public is all Mario'd out and then say that the only people who buy Mario games are Nintendo fans?

[Savior]

Quote
Where did you pull that from?

Didnt Wind Waker outsell Super Mario Sunshine ?

[Mario]

No.

[Hostile Creation]

Is that so?  Maybe PS1 franchises sucked?  Or maybe most of the RPGs on PS2 are continuations of older RPGs.  I forget which.

Anyway, Sony makes hardly any games for its own console, and the few that they do tend to be followed by a multitude of sequels, even if those franchises were created this generation.

[Bill Aurion]

Quote
Originally posted by: Savior
The Majority of the PS2 lineup is new franchises. They arent really living off PS1 Franchises.

PS1 franchises were separated into 2 categories

1) They were so bad they just died (As SgtShivers already said, Gex, Tomb Raider, etc...)
or
2) They ARE existing today: Metal Gear Solid, Gran Turismo, Twisted Metal...Are you really saying Sony doesn't rely on these?

[Ian Sane]

"They ARE existing today: Metal Gear Solid, Gran Turismo, Twisted Metal...Are you really saying Sony doesn't rely on these?"

Well they don't really rely on Twisted Metal.

I don't think Sony is the ideal company to point out as an example of making new stuff.  I think they have made some new franchises with the PS2 but they don't rely on first party stuff like Nintendo does.  And even though they create something new they tend to beat it into the ground pretty fast.  Plus the big killer apps for both the PS1 and PS2 are not first party titles.

I think MS is better example since they have had to rely on first and second party titles more and being a brand new console maker they really had to create new franchises to define the Xbox.  They made Halo which is easily one of the most successful games of this generation and that was brand new.  Well it didn't play all that new but it had a new world and new characters.  The general public thought it was new and that's really what we're talking about.  The persception of newness was there.  MS also managed to promote a brand new third party franchise, Splinter Cell, in such a way that it became an Xbox killer app and "beat" Metroid Prime.  That's pretty impressive considering that Splinter Cell wasn't even an exclusive title.  MS managed a fanbase for an entirely new product really quickly.  They got their fans to get excited about pretty average games like Bloodwake or Brute Force.  The Xbox is the ideal model for pushing new franchises because it had to start from scratch and in America is on pace to beat the franchise heavy Gamecube.

[Mario]

Quote
Well they don't really rely on Twisted Metal.

Twisted Metal Black on PS2 has sold over one million copies.