Topic: E3: 2008 Is about 3 weeks away what Wii news are you expecting and hoping for?

[Chozo Ghost]

I don't think it is fair to say Miyamoto has lost it. It is just that he is overseeing so much now and doesn't focus nearly as much on a single game as he once did.

True. I think he no longer has the creative freedom he used to have. Nintendo thinks highly of him, and they promoted him, but his new high up position just doesn't let him have the detailed control he did before. And as you said, he is overseeing a lot of projects at once, and that's got him stretched as thinly as paper mario.

[NWR_insanolord]

Miyamoto has to have less creative freedom, he has to have the time to oversee the younger developers and make sure that they're talented enough that Nintendo's development won't completely collapse when he retires. The fact that it's necessary doesn't make hurt less that we're never going to get a real Miyamoto game again.

[UncleBob]

I expect nothing.

What do I win?

[BeautifulShy]

I expect nothing.

What do I win?

You get to mock all of us that expected Megaton.

[KDR_11k]

Ian definitely qualifies as hardcore parody now: "You must pander to me even if that hurts or destroys the company!"

You know why Nintendo is making sequels?
1. You people DEMAND them! Any discussion about what Nintendo will reveal is ALWAYS full of peoplöe demanding sequels, hell, they demand sequels to games as old as Kid Icarus where a sequel would have nothing in common with the original game except the name anyway!
2. Epic games cost money. Big money. The kind that cannot be risked on something that's not a guaranteed seller.

And you know why Nintendo doesn't care about the hardcore? Let's provide a list of demands:
Hardcore: We want epic, cinematic games using risky IP policies to the exclusion of any casual games! You must pander to us even if that means running the company into the ground!
Rest: Just give us something that's fun, even if it was made by a tiny team in no time and has graphics that look dated.

[Deguello]

True. I think he no longer has the creative freedom he used to have.

I disagree.  No other company would let their top talent work on a risky endeavor such as Wii Fit and Wii Sports.

[Chozo Ghost]

Didn't Nintendo try to cater to the hardcore audience in the final years of the Gamecube's life, but didn't the gamers reject their offerings? I recall there was a very strong anti-Nintendo bias back then, and even M rated games like Geist couldn't shake that bias.

So you can't say Nintendo didn't try, and the fact these games failed to sell shows there is a problem with the market and not with the company.

[KDR_11k]

That's because the hardcore you hear complaining on the internet is mostly divided into fanboy camps that will flame anything that's not on their console. I don't think that was the reason for Nintendo's decline, they were just dying because everything they did someone else did better.

[NWR_insanolord]

True. I think he no longer has the creative freedom he used to have.

I disagree.  No other company would let their top talent work on a risky endeavor such as Wii Fit and Wii Sports.

Creative freedom may not be the right way to put it, he could take any concept he could think of and have it made into a game, but his current job wouldn't allow him to direct the game himself.

[Ian Sane]

I recall there was a very strong anti-Nintendo bias back then, and even M rated games like Geist couldn't shake that bias.

See this is the sort of dumb attitude Nintendo has about this sort of thing.  They release ONE M-rated title that isn't very good and is made by the f*cking Olsen Twin games developer and it flops.  Well DUH!  Sorry but the game has to actually be GOOD or it doesn't count as a serious effort to satisfy the fans.  You can't feed me burnt food and then accuse me of being impossible to satisfy.

It does however piss me off that a lot of hardcore gamers just ask for sequels but that's because people are idiots and don't know what to ask for.  It's hard to ask for a new IP because, well, if we could think of a new one we might as well be the ones making the games.  Still even then hardcore gamers ask for new entries to the big franchises like Zelda, Metroid and Mario.  They don't however ask for all the spinoffs.  No one asks for a Metroid pinball game.  But a new REAL Metroid?  Sure.  We want one at least once a generation.  The Wii Zelda is just a port of a Gamecube game so of course we're still asking for a full-on Wii Zelda.  But it's kind of silly to interpret this as JUST wanting sequels or that "we want Zelda" means "gives us stupid Zelda spin-offs".

Besides Nintendo should be smart enough to understand the concept of diminishing returns.  If a franchise is too saturated it will eventually no longer sell.

A lot of people also ignore that while Nintendo was releasing a lot of sequels on the N64 in many cases these were the first ever sequel to those games.  Star Fox 64, Pilotwings 64, F-Zero X, Mario Kart 64 were all the second game in their respective series.  So the formula wasn't exactly worn out yet.  There was every reason to make a sequel.  Plus they forget that Rare was making brand new IPs and as a Nintendo second party that counts.  Those were brand new games, published by Nintendo, with a Nintendo level of quality.  I think any new IP by Bungie would count as MS making an effort to introduce new IP so back then new IP from Rare would count as Nintendo making an effort.

[KDR_11k]

Besides Nintendo should be smart enough to understand the concept of diminishing returns.

Well, yeah: As the cost of your games increases the sales gain for that cost decreases. Making games more epic or graphics more advanced has diminishing returns. Meanwhile making short, replayable games costs less but still returns a whole lot. And hey, if you do it right it even sells MORE than the epic games!

[Adrock]

I'm not sure fans are asking for epic or are rejecting casual games (well at least the sane fans). I think what's frustrating for Nintendo fans is when Nintendo started pandering their franchises to the casual crowd. That's why sequels like Mario Kart Wii suck. They simplified the game specifically for people who don't know better or care. And sequels like Twilight Princess are almost parodies of what fans have been asking for. It's dark... so f*cking dark and mature... there's death and fire and cleavage... but the game is easy as hell, derivative and so long that it's boring.

Truth is, you can make an engaging game that's fun, beautiful, and original without spending millions upon millions of dollars. Does Zelda need 15 minute FMV cutscenes that take months to produce? No. Nintendo (or anyone), if they really wanted to, could easily create a deep storyline without delving into melodrama (nearly any scene involving Zelda in Twilight Princess) or insulting the audience's intelligence and they could do this without all the bells and whistles Square-Enix and Konami thinks are needed to tell a good story.

Didn't Nintendo try to cater to the hardcore audience in the final years of the Gamecube's life... ...So you can't say Nintendo didn't try...

Dude, seriously.... That's like playing hard the last minute of a game when you're already down by 40. Nintendo practically did everything they could to make hardcore and mature games fail on Gamecube... you can't chime in at the 11th hour and act like you gave a sh*t.

[Spak-Spang]

Diminishing Returns?  For the most part Nintendo completely understands sequels and diminishing return.

Characters don't have diminishing return by the way.  A good character will always be funny as long as you do something new with it.  The same is true with games.  If the IP or franchise introduces new and/or compelling game play then there will be no diminishing return for each franchise.

Using Nintendo's franchises for example:

Super Mario Bros, Super Mario 2, Super Mario 3, World, Yoshi's Island, Mario 64, Sunshine, and Galaxy

None of these games safely take the route of repeating game play without adding anything new.  No, each adds unique elements to the Mario game play and refines it and perfects it.

Legend of Zelda, Zelda 2, Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Twillight Princess, Four Swords, Phantom Hourglass

All of these games offer unique play experiences, and adds to the formula, or perfects controls, or whatnot.  Zelda may not be as radical as Mario's evolutions but it is still there.

Now, lets look at a Nintendo franchise that fails to do that:

Mario Party 1-8

Although these games are all fun, and introduce new elements they just aren't compelling...and it isn't because Mario is hurting the series...it is because there have been 8 games with little change.

If you look at MOST of Nintendo's franchise sequels you will see little diminishing return because Nintendo does sequels right, and focuses on compelling game play and then allows the gamers to enjoy the characters they already love.

Star Fox, Wario Ware Series, Mario Kart, F-Zero, Smash Brothers, The Mario RPGS. 

[Ian Sane]

Making games more epic or graphics more advanced has diminishing returns.

Am I asking for games to be MORE epic?  Why can't I just ask for games of equal "epicness".  Nintendo is going backwards.  And "pick up and play" and "nerfed sissy marshmellow bunch of nothing" are different.  I "beat" Guitar Hero 3 in two days but it has enough substance to draw me back to play again and again.  Wii Sports doesn't, even though I find it a fun game.  In less than a week it became a multiplayer only game and my friends stopped wanting to play it once I bought my second Wii game.

[Adrock]

Transforming into a wolf that plays like a gimped version of regular Link hardly qualifies as adding to the formula or offering a unique play experince. Strangely enough, you left out Wind Waker which, despite how annoying it was, added sailing which is far more than TP did for the series. Just my 2 cents though.

[Spak-Spang]

Adrock:  I just forgot Wind Waker.  Which was actually my favorite 3D Zelda.

[Morari]

Legend of Zelda, Zelda 2, Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Twillight Princess, Four Swords, Phantom Hourglass

All of these games offer unique play experiences, and adds to the formula, or perfects controls, or whatnot.  Zelda may not be as radical as Mario's evolutions but it is still there.

I wish they'd evolve the damn camera system! And how about eliminating the stupid auto jumping/auto climbing crap?

I thought that shifting back and forth between Link and the Wolf was going to play more along the lines of going in and out of the Spectral Realm in Soul Reaver. It did not.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

autojump is cool

lol zelda fans

[BiLdItUp1]

So I decided to stop by here to hear some reactions to the underwhelming press conference yesterday.

...honestly, I don't see how more people here aren't agreeing with Ian, this being a 'gaming' site. I understand if y'all drank the Nintendo Kool-Aid in the past, especially during the GameCube years, but honestly, I don't understand why people keep making excuses for this company.

The idea that Nintendo doesn't have enough resources to commit to everyone is laughable. They are the only hardware manufacturer making money right now, and serious amounts of it. Making an epic game on Wii should be a MUCH easier sell resources-wise than for other systems because people have basically been familiar with the hardware for a generation! Wasn't this one of Nintendo's main pitches for not putting gobs of expensive, overheated hardware in the Wii? I don't think it's too much to ask for Nintendo to try to appeal to everyone. Didn't Sony achieve this with the PlayStation and the PS2? If they're going to take the #1 mantle, they should be able to do that, plain and simple. They have the money, and what's more, they could further marginalize Microsoft and Sony by at least deigning to compete on their turfs. There is no reason why Nintendo cannot fund and promote a BioShock-style experience. And it's not like the games won't sell, guys...

FULL DISCLOSURE: I own 333.000 shares of NTDOY, and am looking forward to my $1.21/share dividend next week. So by definition, I actually have more of a stake in Nintendo's monetary success than most of the people here who drank the Kool-Aid and speak so often about Nintendo having to stay afloat when they're so well ahead of the game they could afford to take some 'risks'. (Really non-risks since these are the sorts of games that have traditionally sold well anyway.)

[Adrock]

Yeah, I don't know where that Nintendo needs to stay afloat nonsense came from. Nintendo was profitable before they started making games like Wii Sports. They never spent that much on game development, comparitively to other companies expensive games. Titles like Sports and Play simply cost even less than Zelda or Mario does.

[BiLdItUp1]

...true those games themselves do not cost very much. However, it seems like they are what is driving Nintendo's investment in more immersive hardware to begin with. That Nintendo isn't following up it hardware investment with more games (not non-games) to showcase the hardware is telling. Why isn't Nintendo making "Shawn White Snowboarding"?

...Honestly though, I've basically come to terms with Nintendo mostly ignoring the old-style gaming it championed in the N64 years and earlier. That's why I'm happy my bros got a 360 last year, so I'm not totally out in the cold. I'm holding out for the $299 PS3 to round out the deal.

-e

[Stogi]

Jeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuus...

Now you guys are back to complaining about GC and TP?

No wonder Nintendo doesn't give two shits about you.

[Ian Sane]

it's too much to ask for Nintendo to try to appeal to everyone.

Nintendo honestly thinks they are.  For years they assumed that making famliy friendly games was appealing to everyone because everyone COULD like those games.  They've just taken this a step further now that non-gamers are part of it.  Nintendo thinks making games for everyone means making all games suitable for everyone.  Sony's plan which worked really well was to offer a library of such varied selection that everyone could find something they liked.  The games by themselves only target a certain audience but all audiences have stuff to choose from.  That is a true "everyone" console.

Nintendo never got that and still doesn't though they're getting away with it right now.  They thought making a game that wasn't bright rainbows and sunshine would only appeal to adults and teens and thus would not be suitable for everyone and would alienate families.  Now they're afraid to make a game without simple game mechanics so as to not alienate non-gamers.  Nintendo tries to please five different people with ten products they think all five could like.  Sony would try to please those five different people with two products for each person specifically tailored to their needs and wants.  That's why the Playstation 2 was a big deal and the Gamecube was a joke.

The PS3 is however a joke now because Sony lost sight of a true everyone console concept and copied Microsoft's "for tech savy 18-25 males only" approach.  Someone makes a true everyone console and they'll kick all three of their asses.  Variety is the key to success in the console wars.

[Deguello]

Now, lets look at a Nintendo franchise that fails to do that:

Mario Party 1-8

Wrong Spak.  Both Mario Party 8 and Mario Party DS are the best selling entries in the series, ever.  You can talk about critical review, but that's meaningless, basically.

And Ugh IAN Rampage.  It's really not worth trying to talk to him.  He'll keep saying that Iwata ruined Nintendo and the DS is the worst handheld ever and other such hot stupidity.

[ShyGuy]

Yeah, a true everyone console like the Super Nintendo!