Gaming Forums => Nintendo Gaming => Topic started by: NWR_insanolord on September 07, 2013, 08:35:22 AM
Title: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: NWR_insanolord on September 07, 2013, 08:35:22 AM
Nintendo has a whole lot of IPs in their stable, and most of them have been around for a long time. Entry after entry, ideas get worn out, and the franchise starts to feel stale.
What Nintendo franchise do you think needs a reboot? Where do you think their developers need to start over and take a franchise in a new direction?
Title: Re: What Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Adrock on September 07, 2013, 09:34:56 AM
Metroid and Zelda. Plot-wise, they're both kind of a mess. It's the same reason Castlevania really needed a reboot. They were written into corners and had to cheat to come up with new stories (e.g. The Master Sword sleeps forever, The Last Metroid is in captivity, Dracula can only be resurrected every 100 years). Gameplay-wise, Zelda probably could use a reboot more simply because there are more of them and the gameplay and structure, more or less, is the same in each game. I'm sure Luigi Dude will staunchly defend Skyward Sword, but it wasn't that different in my opinion and the motion control route is not really the direction I want the series to keep going in a number of ways.
Specifically, in Zelda, it needs a less predictable structure. You know what's going to happen. I'd really like Nintendo to focus on the storytelling aspect because there's a really good foundation there with the Triforce and whatnot. However, I think they can let the gameplay tell most of the story. Focusing on story doesn't automatically mean long cutscenes. If a story requires long info dumps, consider rewriting the story or at least that part of it. Other things like more varied enemies and minimizing large spaces of nothing could go a long way. And for the love of Hylia, stop acting like Link is an avatar of the player. That stopped working in Ocarina of Time, maybe even Link's Awakening.
Metroid just needs better organization. Honestly, I would split the 2D and 3D series (or main and Prime, Other M still felt like the 2D games) into completely separate entities if they're not going to interact in a meaningful way. You can make the argument that they felt like part of a single canon before Other M, but once they delved into Samus' past and she didn't mention a doppelgänger, almost being poisoned to the point of DNA mutation, and destroying like two planets and the ecosystem of another, it doesn't work. The Galactic Federation seems kind of corrupt; they could always explore that.
Fortunately, the gameplay still feels fresh and I think it needs tweaks and additions rather than a full-blown overhaul. I suppose actual bounty hunting would be an interesting thing to explore. Does Samus ever get paid?
Title: Re: What Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Shaymin on September 07, 2013, 09:52:02 AM
F-Zero needs to be rebooted to get away from the anime influence that caused the second GBA game to tank. Leave that to Captain Falcon in Smash Bros and just focus on high speed racing on insane tracks.
Animal Crossing needs a boot out the door if they can't make anything more than Farmville out of it.
And of course, the comedy StarTropics option.
Title: Re: What Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: NWR_insanolord on September 07, 2013, 09:56:13 AM
With Metroid there seems to be a limit to what Nintendo will allow. She's nominally a bounty hunter, but Retro wasn't allowed to explore that the way they wanted to. There's a lot of cool storytelling to be had in that universe, but Nintendo seems to be the limiting factor.
Title: Re: What Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: shingi_70 on September 07, 2013, 01:24:56 PM
Metroid doesn't need a reboot as much as it needs to let the story progress. The furthest game in the timeline s Metroid Fusion and whatever comes after that is the most interesting with Samus on the run from the Galactic Federation and being followed by the guy from hunters. The problem is Nintendo for metrodi games isn't intrested it seems in doing the next logical step and instead wanting to do prequels games in the middle of the timeline. (Metroid Prime and Other M).
Title: Re: What Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on September 07, 2013, 02:38:17 PM
**** a reboot, what Nintendo franchise needs a resurrection!?
We don't need to keep reusing the same franchises to introduce new ideas, how about some old franchises that would bring with it new ideas.
Let Mario be Mario, Metroid be Metroid and Zelda be Zelda.
How about we bring back something like Star Tropics, which would practically be a new franchise at this point, or any of the other dead and buried franchises of Nintendo's past that keep getting over looked to force yet another gameplay idea into another one of the recycled franchises where you can't fully explore the idea because you have to keep it contained within the limits of the franchise you are shoe-horning it into. [/rant]
Title: Re: What Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Luigi Dude on September 07, 2013, 04:26:35 PM
None of Nintendo's franchises require a reboot since most of them are not really all that story heavy. Even for something like Zelda, most of the games still work as standalone stories just fine and don't require the player to have any knowledge of the previous game. Plus for the games that are story heavy like Fire Emblem, they basically make only two games that have a connecting story before moving on to something completely new anyway.
Now if you're talking gameplay, most of Nintendo's game already do that. Nintendo's long running franchises are constanly adding new gameplay elements bewteen installments that change things up between installments which is why they've continued to still be popular for over 20 years. Most of the problems people have with certain Nintendo games are easily fixable with different gameplay decisions. None of their franchises have gotten to the point though were they need to be started from the ground up with completely new takes on characters which is what a reboot does.
Title: Re: What Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Ceric on September 07, 2013, 05:30:42 PM
Mario could honestly have a good reboot. Pokemon in its own way. Star Fox... Well not really more like a retelling. HD versions etc. Zelda yeah probably. Metroid. Definitely unfortunately I don't trust them to that and I relatively enjoyed Other M. Star Tropic might be fun.
Title: Re: What Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Soren on September 08, 2013, 01:27:21 AM
Star Fox. Adventures messed it all up, clumsily tacking on elements of the Star Fox canon to what was essentially a different story. It gave us a really cheap ending (OMG it was Andross all the time!) and an undesirable female lead.
Title: Re: What Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: BranDonk Kong on September 08, 2013, 09:50:32 AM
God damn it, Insano. Change "What" to "Which" in the title of the thread. Mario Kart needs a reboot, the story has just gotten too convoluted at this point.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Caterkiller on September 08, 2013, 10:34:20 AM
I'm worried that when Metroid gets it's go again we'll have another first person adventure again. The back lash is so strong against Other M I bet they avoid 3rd person Metroid for all the wrong reasons. Sadly I'm sure this generation will go with out voice acting in the Metroid series as if that was some major issue that ruined everything.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: shingi_70 on September 08, 2013, 11:03:59 AM
Would love to see a new punch-out game with a more traditional career set up and online play.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: BranDonk Kong on September 08, 2013, 11:28:57 AM
I HAVE ABSOLUTE POWAR!
On a serious note it's hard to think of a franchise that needs a reboot rather than a really good sequel. Star Fox would probably be a good choice though, and it has to be all in the sky, none of this Star Fox Assault or Adventures crap.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Caterkiller on September 08, 2013, 11:58:08 AM
On a serious note it's hard to think of a franchise that needs a reboot rather than a really good sequel. Star Fox would probably be a good choice though, and it has to be all in the sky, none of this Star Fox Assault or Adventures crap.
I think on rails tank and submarine are suitable as well since they function almost exactly the same as the Arwing. But no on foot-riding on the wings-nonsense. I mean what the heck was that?
I do feel like this generation is the generation Star Fox gets brought back to life. Star Fox 64 3D just acknowledges the series existence.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: lolmonade on September 08, 2013, 12:28:23 PM
Balloon Kid Ice Climbers
I'd be curious if Nintendo could pull off expanding off these simple games and create a reboot that would either do something new with them or remake them with some compelling new gameplay features that would add a level of complexity to the core gameplay.
Other than that, I'll second the obvious choice for F-Zero. I feel a complete void of futuristic racers in my life.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: shingi_70 on September 08, 2013, 02:54:58 PM
On a serious note it's hard to think of a franchise that needs a reboot rather than a really good sequel. Star Fox would probably be a good choice though, and it has to be all in the sky, none of this Star Fox Assault or Adventures crap.
I would say prepare to be disapointed. I think whenever we see Star Foz comes back its going to be treated as a light hearted Third Person Shooter/Adventure game with story telling in the vein of Kid Icarus Uprisig and The Wonderful 101.
For Ballon kid just made an expanded version of the Nintendoland game for $15 on the eshop.
Ice Climbers could take ques from pikmin I guess. Or a gripping Survival horror game. (http://goodell.smugmug.com/Travel/Ice-Climbing-2011/DSC0261edited-1/1161465500_T8Z6X-L.jpg)
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: the asylum on September 08, 2013, 05:12:00 PM
Metroid doesn't need a reboot so much as it needs the next game to completely ignore Other M (see also: DMC2)
Rebooting F-Zero won't stop the whole FALCON PAWWNNNHCHHHHHH memes. The best way to deal with it is to just ignore it. (although, if rebooting the series DOES finally give us another F-Zero game, I'm all for it)
Star Fox, Zelda, and the rest of Nintendo's established IPs I don't think need a rebooting. It's their older, oft-forgotten ones that could use one. IE: Mach Rider
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Ymeegod on September 09, 2013, 02:50:27 AM
Excitebike :).
Wouldn't mind another RC PRO AM neither but I'm not sure if Nintendo owns the IP or does MS now?
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Ceric on September 09, 2013, 09:34:10 AM
You know I rather have Excitebike go back to its root as a simplistic Arcade Motorcycle Racer with a solid track designer.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Caterkiller on September 09, 2013, 11:46:24 AM
Remember when the biggest concern Zelda had was whether Link would be an adult or child? People are so stupid, me included. I wish that was my biggest concern with Zelda.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Ian Sane on September 09, 2013, 02:05:06 PM
In terms of story Zelda is pretty much a reboot every time anyway. If you made a Zelda game that just had a completely self-contained story and did whatever it wanted it wouldn't look out of place at all and would fit into the timeline as "well" as any other one.
To me the need to do a reboot means the need to just end something. Rebooting is for hacks with no original ideas. The only justification to reboot is to keep an IP alive that no longer has any artistic justification to continue. It is strictly a business decision so I have no interest in reboots. The only one I ever liked was the Nolan Batman movies but that's kind of different since it was an adaptation of something else. If a new attempt at Mario movie was made that didn't suck it would seem less like a reboot and more like a second attempt at something that was bungled the first time. Do you think of the Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings films as a "reboot" of the original failed animated LotR movies?
What Nintendo does need to do is pretend that Other M and Star Fox Adventures never existed. So every Star Fox game since then gets forgotten about since they all jump from that failed misstep. Metroid has yet to have anything come out that continues where Other M left off so it would be much easier to just pretend it never existed.
So I'm not really in favour in a reboot but rather a retcon where it's as if you travelled through time and erased a mistake from happening. Anything that generate thought about rebooting was obviously worthwhile at some point so why flush everything away? Just erase the crap. I'm sure Metroid could continue without acknowledging Other M since as a prequel the "later" Metroid games already existed without specifically denying or acknowledging it. And Star Fox would logically have stuff that falls between SF64 and SFA so they could always fill that space.
Of course there is a big problem here. The main reason to do any of this is for storyline reasons and Nintendo DOES NOT GIVE A ****. So we'll have Krystal and Other M's bullshit will probably ruin Metroid games from here on out because to Nintendo this is all just product. Any passion they have is strictly towards the gameplay. Miyamoto doesn't give two shits if Zelda's storyline makes sense because it's just tacked on to justify the gameplay. The guys who do care about storyline are guys like Sakamoto so we're fucked either way.
Thinking about it, Zelda could use a "Crisis on Infite Hyrules" storyline to bring it all into one Link and just offer a straightforward narrative.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Ceric on September 09, 2013, 03:12:19 PM
Fusion.
Other M is the direct Sequel of Super Metroid and Fusion, ironically, is the weird Sequel thing of Other M.
Unfortunately for the community Other M has more claim to Canon and timeline then any of the Prime games.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: ThePerm on September 09, 2013, 05:15:26 PM
oh this thread again (http://i47.tinypic.com/2exx8b6.jpg) (http://i47.tinypic.com/2rw97ao.jpg) (http://i49.tinypic.com/2s65vdj.jpg)
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Spak-Spang on September 09, 2013, 07:39:15 PM
I don't think any of Nintendo's main franchises need a reboot. Anyone looking for connectivity in the story lines for Nintendo games needs to relax and forget about it. Almost all of Nintendo's games are reboots in that area. They are not trying to tell a consistent story throughout each game series. That is not to say story is not in the games or that story should not be important, but that Nintendo usually looks at each game as an island separate from each other game, even when there is some connectivity to other games it is usually negligible.
So from a story point of view I do not think rebooting anyone of Nintendo's franchises is a priority or necessity. Game play wise I believe Nintendo usually does reboot it's franchises quite well...with a few minor exceptions. And in this regard, I would like Nintendo not to reboot but make sure each game series has significant enhancements and to try to take risks more with the overall game design.
For instance, Mario Kart has basically been the same game every year. Recently Nintendo has been trying to change things up, but mostly the changes are truly insignificant to the game. Motorcycles added very little to the actual game. So did gliding and underwater levels. They changed the sensations and atmosphere of the game, but the overall game play and did not change. Nintendo needs to actually try to change the game. Be it taking a Diddy Kong multiple racing vehicle type game play, to creating a need to boost more performing perfect lines, or having a unique power up system that upgrades as you race. Something, that makes it truly different from other Mario Kart games, and that can be built up and expanded in the sequels.
The same can be said with many of the Mario Sports franchises, Mario Party and whatnot.
So the games I feel Nintendo needs to "reboot" or I would say "rebirth" are the dormant franchises like Kid Icarius which was recently released as an awesome modern franchise. Look at the dormant franchises and ask, can we use this franchise to fill a void in our current lineup of game types? Perhaps Star Tropics becomes a more modern Zelda style game or puzzle/mystery game for older players? I don't know. But that is what I want to see.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Mop it up on September 09, 2013, 08:57:59 PM
I'm not sure I can think of a series that needs a reboot, in the sense that the word is typically used. Mario already kind of had one with New Super Mario Brothers, and then it stuck with that style over three more games. It isn't a "reboot," but I'd like to see more variety in Mario games again. Zelda games have always seemed distinct and unique to me, even something like Majora's Mask which uses the same engine and graphics as the previous game still manages to feel completely different, so I currently have no qualms with Zelda. Metroid has just had one misstep with Other M, and maybe a little with Fusion. But both those games have good qualities too, believe it or not, so I don't want them thrown out entirely.
I can think of things that I would want to come back, like StarTropics, Battalion Wars, the Excite series, etc., but that kind of thing isn't a reboot.
The only thing that's coming to mind that might qualify is Pokémon. I don't know if I necessary want a complete erasure of everything and starting anew from the ground up, but this series has just gotten too convoluted and formulaic for my taste. When I have felt like replaying a Pokémon game, I instead played the next newest one in the series, that's how samey they are to me. I've never liked any of the new stuff they added since Gold/Silver, such as the EV/IV stuff, natures, abilities, etc. I'd like to see the series made simpler and more user-friendly. I'd also like to see more done with the story, I think there's a lot of interesting things they could do with this world, but it's always about simply becoming a champion because it's the cool thing to do, with a little bit of random bad guys or legendary origins thrown in here or there, which is usually stupid.
Now that said, I haven't played Black/White yet, and of course X/Y is due out soon. So I can't speak on those, no idea if they are getting closer to what I want.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Spak-Spang on September 09, 2013, 09:39:32 PM
Pokemon is gaming perfection...which is why it is hard to challenge the formula. Tweak it yes, but changing it is hard.
Everything from the limited move sets for Pokemon and sacrificing some moves for others to the turn based game play of the game. To the Pokemon themselves and such are so carefully crafted it is hard to change that...yet the basic structure of the game is stale, even if the game is still fun.
Everyone wants a Pokemon MMO, but usually MMOs need action based gameplay and not turn based. I guess that gets tricky with the basic structure of the game. So I am not sure how to change or reboot Pokemon at all.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: alegoicoe on September 09, 2013, 10:14:21 PM
Starfox comes to mind, maybe even Platinum :cool; can take a stab at it
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: nickmitch on September 09, 2013, 10:51:57 PM
The only thing that's coming to mind that might qualify is Pokémon. I don't know if I necessary want a complete erasure of everything and starting anew from the ground up, but this series has just gotten too convoluted and formulaic for my taste. When I have felt like replaying a Pokémon game, I instead played the next newest one in the series, that's how samey they are to me. I've never liked any of the new stuff they added since Gold/Silver, such as the EV/IV stuff, natures, abilities, etc. I'd like to see the series made simpler and more user-friendly. I'd also like to see more done with the story, I think there's a lot of interesting things they could do with this world, but it's always about simply becoming a champion because it's the cool thing to do, with a little bit of random bad guys or legendary origins thrown in here or there, which is usually stupid.
Now that said, I haven't played Black/White yet, and of course X/Y is due out soon. So I can't speak on those, no idea if they are getting closer to what I want.
Honestly, BW/B2W2 do a LOT more with the story than the other games. In BW, you become the champion because the bad guy is trying to become the champion, and you want to stop that from happening. In B2/W2, I almost felt like getting badges and the like was completely secondary to moving through the story. Like, the game was all story and you earned badges because why the hell not. So, it might be worth a look for you, even if core mechanics haven't been altered.
Everyone wants a Pokemon MMO, but usually MMOs need action based gameplay and not turn based. I guess that gets tricky with the basic structure of the game. So I am not sure how to change or reboot Pokemon at all.
Honestly, I think a Pokemon MMO would suck. Number one reason: People. Playing Pokemon with your friends is great it's like playing Halo or CoD. Playing Pokemon with "people" would be more like playing CoD or Halo online. I know Nintendo would somehow keep out the racial slurs and dicks (both figurative and literal), but you're still gonna run into people with all level 100 Arceus (or other legendary) teams, FEAR Pokemon, and dudes that just IV breed/EV train/level grind the best teams and aren't fun to play against. Regular Poke-Joes wouldn't really fit it. It'd turn into the competitive scene, which has pretty large barriers to entry.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: alegoicoe on September 10, 2013, 12:54:49 AM
Golden Sun reboot for WiiU. I have played the GBA games but lost interest in the series after the second installment. A good comeback would be welcomed.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Plugabugz on September 10, 2013, 03:26:53 AM
Lets just turn them all on their head entirely.
Mario Wind Waker (the art style) Zelda Galaxy (Zelda platforming elements in the style of the Galaxy series) Star Fox Prime (this one is obvious)
Please.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Adrock on September 10, 2013, 10:32:47 AM
Wait, how are we defining the word "reboot?" In terms of videogames, there are two off the top of my head: story and gameplay.
In terms of story, every Nintendo IP that Nintendo created in the 80s that they still attempt an ongoing series plot line could use a reboot. That means, Zelda and Metroid, not Mario (since the whole "Save the Princess" thing is more of an in-joke now). Kid Icarus Uprising was practically a reboot. It's almost the Metal Gear Solid of the series where it continues the story, but practically ignores everything about it except for quick and dirty plot points. It also has the benefit of being MIA for nearly 20 years which is 20 years not needing to retcon things.
Earthbound is essentially the only Nintendo franchise that intelligently continued its story and we can thank Shigesato Itoi for penning each game. Even then, the series is over, its story very neatly wrapped up. The problem with Nintendo's older franchises is that they were created when plots were basically a few screens of text. When they brought back a villain, no one really cared back then. Once technology allowed more freedom, they were tasked with coming up with explanations for things they never thought they needed before. In Zelda, I prefer the whole each-game-is-the-same-legend-retold-for-new-generations theory than what Nintendo actually came up with which is the biggest mindfuck ever. For my own sanity, I pretend there is no timeline because the plotholes are glaring and annoying when I think about them.
With Metroid, I think the plot works better if we pretend the Prime series exists within its own separate universe like Yoshio Sakamoto seems to. It also work better if Other M was ignored because Fusion is still a better Metroid 4.
In terms of gameplay, I think it's hard to change it without making the games feel completely foreign. At that point, why even reboot a series? Just create a new one. For example, a Metroid reboot where Samus collects guns and ammo instead of having an arm cannon while mowing through waves of enemies is distinctly not Metroid anymore. If Nintendo were to reboot any series, start with the core of the gameplay, be mindful of its tone, and expand it from there. Very few Nintendo IPs require a total gameplay reboot. Kid Icarus Uprising was. Outside of shooting arrows and limited flight, it has next to nothing in common with its predecessors. Nintendo's major franchises like Zelda, Metroid, Mario etc. have pretty good foundations in terms of gameplay. I wouldn't want to see everything thrown out just to feel new.
What I would like to see is Nintendo challenging their own formulas. What if a boss dropped out of the sky or emerged from the ground right in the middle of Hyrule Field while you thought you were simply headed to a new location to collect the next plot coupon? What if Zelda actually died instead of her coming back inexplicably in the 11th hour of Twilight Princess? Those kind of surprises keep players on their toes. I don't think Nintendo really needs a reboot for these things to happen, but I don't think they need to avoid one either. It depends on what they want to do with it. Nintendo has been bending the rules a lot. There are cameras and robots and trains in Hyrule. A reboot would allow Nintendo to settle on what they want a series to be.
If Nintendo were to reboot Mach Rider or Ice Climbers, there's very little there to build off of in a modern context. They would probably need a Kid Icarus Uprising style upgrade.
I still advocate survival horror Ice Climbers. And I'd turn Star Fox into a comedy... with Jason Bateman as the voice of Fox and Bryan Cranston as Andross. Hmm, I was joking when I started typing that, but now I actually don't think that's a terrible idea.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Mop it up on September 10, 2013, 06:32:20 PM
Everything from the limited move sets for Pokemon and sacrificing some moves for others to the turn based game play of the game. To the Pokemon themselves and such are so carefully crafted it is hard to change that...yet the basic structure of the game is stale, even if the game is still fun.
That's why I said I don't want a complete overhaul. I like the game being turn-based and the strategy of the limited moves, but there are still ways to make it all easier to manage. For example, there should be no limit to the number of moves a Pokémon can learn, just make it so that you must "equip" four moves for battle and only those four can be used. Then you don't have to deal with all the Move Deleter/Relearner nonsense every time you want to try out a new setup, and it can actually make for more strategy and make moves with narrow uses more worthwhile to have as you switch out moves for your next battle.
This is but one idea I have, but it's a big one that would really make the game a lot better for me.
Honestly, BW/B2W2 do a LOT more with the story than the other games. In BW, you become the champion because the bad guy is trying to become the champion, and you want to stop that from happening.
Yeah, I've heard a few things about that, so it may be a step in the right direction. The problem is that it sounds like the story may still be too simplistic/stupid, but even if so, at least they tried, I s'pose. Regardless, I actually already have a copy of Black and Black 2, but it may be a while before I get to them as I'm still tired of Pokémon right now after having finished with HeartGold about 6-7 months ago.
I totally don't want an MMO though, I can say that. That even already exists as a hack for the ol' Game Boy ROMs, so it's already available for people who want it, just not legally.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Stratos on September 14, 2013, 03:35:22 AM
Custom Robo and Eternal Darkness. We need new entries for those series.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Spak-Spang on September 16, 2013, 02:23:48 AM
Adrock: I think you bring up a good point. I think we need not look at each Nintendo game as a continuation story of the previous game. Zelda did not need to be a continuation story.
Personally, when I was a kid I just figured NES-SNES Zelda was a remake. Basically the same story with better graphics and gameplay.
The same is true with the Metroid series and Star Fox.
We had limitations and it prevented developers from making the games they originally envisioned, and later technology allowed their true visions to be created. Super Metroid is a masterpiece, but Metriod? Not so much.
In the end, I am not stressing at all about story in my games. I want a good story, but I am happier with a better game.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Luigi Dude on September 16, 2013, 06:05:35 AM
Adrock: I think you bring up a good point. I think we need not look at each Nintendo game as a continuation story of the previous game. Zelda did not need to be a continuation story.
But the Zelda games don't have a continues story. Each game is a stand alone story that doesn't require the player to have any knowledge of the previous game. This is why most of the games star a completely different Link in completely different settings then the others. Hell, even the games that star the same Link's usually don't require any knowledge of the previous game either.
Yeah there's a timeline to the whole series, but most games are very loosely connected anyway with only a few references to previous games. The games themselves though are still designed around being a standalone experience that anyone can play for the first time without any knowledge of the previous games.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Adrock on September 16, 2013, 10:41:41 AM
Zelda does but doesn't have a continuous story. While each game is meant to be understood independently for the purpose of accessibility, Nintendo has a canon that they adhere to and there are mostly minor references to other games in the series that are meant to enrich the experience for long-time fans (the more obvious ones being the Triforce and things like the stained glass windows in the Master Sword shrine in Wind Waker). Unfortunately, Nintendo does this worse than other companies and Zelda is worse because of it. To compare it to another Nintendo franchise, take a look at Earthbound. Each game can be understood as standalone games, but you get more out of understanding them together as a collective whole.
I think that's the problem with most Nintendo series. They're so poorly handled story-wise that seeing them as part of a series is more frustrating than anything. There's a lot of lost potential. Story should never take the front seat to gameplay, but it can be important to immersing players into the game's world.
If we're just supposed to ignore the inconsistencies and chalk everything up to "they're standalone experiences!" then Nintendo shouldn't even bother calling it a series or making the games part of one at all. I'd advocate a reboot if it meant Nintendo would get its act together regarding each respective series' canon.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Ian Sane on September 16, 2013, 01:27:43 PM
I think a lot of games need a "gameplay supervisor". Essentially the person's role is to make sure that the story isn't overwhelming the game to the point where you're watching all the cool parts instead of playing them and that the game is still a videogame and not a glorified movie. "No, Mr. Kojima you can't have a 30 minute monologue in the middle of the game." Miyamoto would be perfect for this role.
But Miyamoto needs a "story supervisor" who makes sure that a story is not made incoherent by gameplay ideas. They keep track of plot holes or inconsistent canon. "No, Mr. Miyamoto you can't have a world altering flood and place it in the middle of a timeline in which there has never been any mention or hint of such a thing occuring."
Wouldn't every major company benefit from a supervisor that specializes specifically in what the company sucks at?
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Luigi Dude on September 16, 2013, 04:09:04 PM
If we're just supposed to ignore the inconsistencies and chalk everything up to "they're standalone experiences!" then Nintendo shouldn't even bother calling it a series or making the games part of one at all. I'd advocate a reboot if it meant Nintendo would get its act together regarding each respective series' canon.
And what are these inconsistencies that seem to bother you so much? Every game in the different Zelda timelines works just fine with each other.
And what are these inconsistencies that seem to bother you so much? Every game in the different Zelda timelines works just fine with each other.
Really? Fine, I'll entertain this before my nap. A Link to the Past should be at the end of one of those forks, but it isn't. It's at the beginning of a time-split that doesn't even make sense to the begin with. If that's the case, all of these games should have have a "Hero is defeated" split and maybe they do which means we should stop following the canon because that would be F-ing ridiculous. (http://i.imgur.com/rbOKtGR.jpg)
And then, according to Nintendo's own timeline, the Oracle games happen and you defeat the Ganon with the Master Sword, so... (http://i.imgur.com/tMflMUG.png)
There's also the whole Seven Maiden's being descendants of the Seven Sages. Seven human maidens who inherited their magic from their ancestors of which a couple of whom were decidedly not human. Interspecies erotica must have been popular in Hyrule in the how ever many years are between Ocarina of Time and A Link to the Past... except the Zoras show up in A Link to the Past. (http://i.imgur.com/JPYS4nN.jpg) Oracle of Ages sneaks in an explanation that the hostile River Zoras and the friendly Sea Zoras are different even though the Sea Zoras in Ocarina of Time all live in Zora's River. Nice try. They just retconned the Zoras because of an inconsistency.
That's just A Link to the Past scrutinized against like two other games in the series. I don't even want to get into how much of a haymaker to the brain Skyward Sword is.
And I wasn't even talking about just Zelda. Other M punches the entire Metroid series right in the face. I've written so many posts on that so you can dig through my post history if you're interested. Here's a fun one though.
If you listen closely, you can hear Samus shitting herself.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Ceric on September 16, 2013, 05:42:15 PM
Confused about the Other M part. They already had PTSD Ridley flashbacks before the actual fight.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Adrock on September 16, 2013, 06:11:15 PM
Confused about the Other M part. They already had PTSD Ridley flashbacks before the actual fight.
What are you confused about? It's inconsistent no matter where in the game it is. Samus has fought Ridley like 37 times.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Ian Sane on September 16, 2013, 06:20:45 PM
I like how Luigi Dude says it all fits in perfectly and then posts this incredibly complicated diagram that looks like Bart and Milhouse charting out the correlation between the Saucer People and the Reverse Vampires.
Even if one can find a way to explain it all, the very need for some kooky split timeline suggests that the whole thing is made up on the spot and rationalized later. The story just isn't interesting enough for this kind of complexity since each game is pretty just "dur, stop the bad guy". Zelda is so fucked up they had to come up with a split timeline based on a hypothetical scenario where the hero failed just to explain it even though NONE of the games in that timeline mention it. Couldn't "Link failed" create an alternate timeline off of EVERY Zelda game? Or for that matter every decision in any game? If I just make up random **** that is never even once hinted at in an actual game I could fit the CD-i games and Soul Caliber II and SSB in here too. They come from an alternate timeline where Link's uncle doesn't fail and is the real hero of A Link to the Past.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Luigi Dude on September 16, 2013, 06:25:12 PM
Really? Fine, I'll entertain this before my nap. A Link to the Past should be at the end of one of those forks, but it isn't. It's at the beginning of a time-split that doesn't even make sense to the begin with. If that's the case, all of these games should have have a "Hero is defeated" split and maybe they do which means we should stop following the canon because that would be F-ing ridiculous. (http://i.imgur.com/rbOKtGR.jpg)
And then, according to Nintendo's own timeline, the Oracle games happen and you defeat the Ganon with the Master Sword, so... (http://i.imgur.com/tMflMUG.png)
Actually you don't need the Master Sword to defeat Ganon in the Oracle games. He can be defeated with the Noble Sword if you use spin attacks. Yes you can get the Master Sword in those games, but it's completely optional and has no function to the overall story. So if the Zelda canon is that big a deal to you, kill Ganon with the Noble Sword and then the Master Sword still sleeps forever.
Quote
There's also the whole Seven Maiden's being descendants of the Seven Sages. Seven human maidens who inherited their magic from their ancestors of which a couple of whom were decidedly not human. Interspecies erotica must have been popular in Hyrule in the how ever many years are between Ocarina of Time and A Link to the Past... except the Zoras show up in A Link to the Past.
Well we don't know just how far in the future Link to the Past takes place. Considering thousands of years could have taken place, yes, there easily could have been interspecies breeding. Hell, considering Princess Ruto had the hots for Link and wanted to marry him, it's not hard to believe she could have ended up with a different human male and her descendants would end up more being more human then Zora after many generations if they kept getting it on with humans. So once again, hardly a problem to the storyline.
Quote
Oracle of Ages sneaks in an explanation that the hostile River Zoras and the friendly Sea Zoras are different even though the Sea Zoras in Ocarina of Time all live in Zora's River. Nice try. They just retconned the Zoras because of an inconsistency.
Ages takes place in Labrynna, not Hyrule. So it's not an plot hole, when in Labrynna the hostile Zora's do live in the river while the friendly ones in the sea. Plus even if the game did take place in Hyrule, Ages takes place well in the future anyway, so it doesn't matter if the friendly Zora's used to live in the river when in Ages they clearly don't anymore.
Quote
[/size]And I wasn't even talking about just Zelda. Other M punches the entire Metroid series right in the face. I've written so many posts on that so you can dig through my post history if you're interested. Here's a fun one though.
Ridley killed Samus mother right in front of her as a child. Samus thought Ridley was dead for good after the events of Super Metroid since you know, the entire planet his remains were on was blown up, with all the Space Pirates as well so he had absolutely know way to be revived again. Not hard to believe that suddenly seeing Ridley again after she thought he was gone for good this time would set it off again since this would be a huge shock.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: pokepal148 on September 16, 2013, 06:42:19 PM
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Wah on September 16, 2013, 08:02:12 PM
Metriod and Zelda both need to look into as there hasn't been a good metriod game in ages and zelda's timeline is all other the place.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Adrock on September 16, 2013, 10:22:09 PM
So if the Zelda canon is that big a deal to you, kill Ganon with the Noble Sword and then the Master Sword still sleeps forever.
Seriously? Nintendo breaks their own continuity and you justify it by saying telling me to ignore it and play the game a different way. It may be optional, but it's still in the game. How about they just not include the Master Sword to begin with? It wouldn't be the first time either. I don't believe the Master Sword is in the original Zelda. In fact, the entire story surrounding the Master Sword is pretty inconsistent. Sometimes you need the Master Sword to defeat Ganon and sometimes you don't.
And the Zelda canon should be a big deal to Nintendo, that's the point here. If they insist on having a canon, then make it count. The way they had to split the timeline just to have some semblance of continuity is pretty indicative that they had no real plans for one. The "Hero is defeated" split is a total cop-out. Stories have never been important to Miyamoto's games and that's why things like this happen. If Nintendo were to reboot Zelda, they could prevent all of this.
Quote
Hell, considering Princess Ruto had the hots for Link and wanted to marry him, it's not hard to believe she could have ended up with a different human male and her descendants would end up more being more human then Zora after many generations if they kept getting it on with humans. So once again, hardly a problem to the storyline.
Really? It's not hard to believe that? And the Gorons did that exact same thing too? And there are no Zora/Goron people waltzing around? The course of this fork of Hyrule's history followed the absolute slimmest possibility and eliminated all traces of the other genetic traits. If that's not hard to believe to you, I really don't know what to say. I find that to be incredibly hard to believe. It's far more believable that Nintendo just shrugged their shoulders because they wanted different races in Hyrule when developing Ocarina of Time and didn't think of it when developing A Link to the Past.
Quote
Ages takes place in Labrynna, not Hyrule. So it's not an plot hole, when in Labrynna the hostile Zora's do live in the river while the friendly ones in the sea. Plus even if the game did take place in Hyrule, Ages takes place well in the future anyway, so it doesn't matter if the friendly Zora's used to live in the river when in Ages they clearly don't anymore.
It's more likely that Nintendo retconned Zoras and tried to cover their tracks, poorly I might add. And if you're going to use the "not Hyrule" explanation, then there's no currently explanation for Hyrule Zoras.
Quote
PTSD dude, read about how it works.
I'm aware of the PTSD argument and if you're going to use it, then it needs to be consistent, but we'll get to that. Nice condescending tone though. You even posted a wikipedia link...
Quote
Not hard to believe that suddenly seeing Ridley again after she thought he was gone for good this time would set it off again since this would be a huge shock.
On the contrary, it's pretty hard for me to believe that Samus thought Ridley was gone for good that time specifically when, even if you ignore the Prime series and the three additional times she defeats some version of Ridley like Sakamoto does, Ridley already came back once before Samus fights him again in Other M. I know she blows up Zebes, but you're assuming that the Space Pirates kept everything on that one planet. "There's absolutely no way Ridley can be revived this time." That's sloppy at best. And if cowering in fear is how Samus reacts when she sees Ridley, there's no way she fires a single shot on the Ceres Space Station. I'm not even really convinced she would have made it out of their fight on Zebes without anyone to save her if she becomes practically catatonic at the mere sight of Ridley. That's poor characterization and even lazier storytelling. Besides having four major missions near the beginning of the series that never get referenced again, Metroid generally made sense before Other M wrecked it all. Stop messing with prequels and interquels and there won't be these issues.
It just sounds like you're okaying and accepting everything Nintendo does. Most of your explanations rely on conveniences and happenstance. You preface your explanations with "It's not hard to believe" when what you're saying is pretty hard to believe.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Mop it up on September 17, 2013, 05:23:07 PM
Stuff like this is why I just take Zelda stories at face value, it's a lot easier that way and far more entertaining if I don't think about how everything fits together. The opening of Wind Waker is neat in that it tells an actual legend, finally befitting the game's title of The Legend of Zelda. I don't want to ruin that by trying to figure out its inconsistencies with past games.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Stratos on September 17, 2013, 06:49:03 PM
Anyone remember how NOA tried to tell us that they were all the same Link at the launch of Wind Waker and they just said he was warped through time?
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Ian Sane on September 17, 2013, 07:40:19 PM
Anyone remember how NOA tried to tell us that they were all the same Link at the launch of Wind Waker and they just said he was warped through time?
I remember that. They said that Link's Awakening took place while Link was sailing between East and West Hyrule in Zelda II which I'll admit was a creative idea that no fan had every thought of. It seems unlikely to me that Nintendo actually has a real Zelda timeline when the first "official" one revealed doesn't match the current one. I guess NCL could have not known what NOA was doing but it seems like something important enough to keep straight between branches. They're either making up the Zelda timeline as they go (my theory) or they care so little about it so as to not keep NOA in the loop.
I had a good timeline in my head when there were only six games but Wind Waker's flood screwed it up so much I just gave up on the whole concept. It's a new game, I'm Link, she's Zelda, the bad guy is likely Ganon. One nice thing about Zelda's approach to story is that since they don't really directly reference the other games much if they had a really bad game in there it would easy for the fans to just pretend it never existed. Metroid is connected tightly enough that Other M might permanently infect the series from here on out. Fans can't ignore the shitty games if the later games blantantly reference it. Metroid will require the creators to pretend Other M doesn't exist but Zelda will probably remain largely self-contained, allowing the fans to conveniently remove any potential Other Z.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Wah on September 17, 2013, 07:43:12 PM
So if the Zelda canon is that big a deal to you, kill Ganon with the Noble Sword and then the Master Sword still sleeps forever.
Seriously? Nintendo breaks their own continuity and you justify it by saying telling me to ignore it and play the game a different way. It may be optional, but it's still in the game. How about they just not include the Master Sword to begin with? It wouldn't be the first time either. I don't believe the Master Sword is in the original Zelda. In fact, the entire story surrounding the Master Sword is pretty inconsistent. Sometimes you need the Master Sword to defeat Ganon and sometimes you don't.
And the Zelda canon should be a big deal to Nintendo, that's the point here. If they insist on having a canon, then make it count. The way they had to split the timeline just to have some semblance of continuity is pretty indicative that they had no real plans for one. The "Hero is defeated" split is a total cop-out. Stories have never been important to Miyamoto's games and that's why things like this happen. If Nintendo were to reboot Zelda, they could prevent all of this.
Quote
Hell, considering Princess Ruto had the hots for Link and wanted to marry him, it's not hard to believe she could have ended up with a different human male and her descendants would end up more being more human then Zora after many generations if they kept getting it on with humans. So once again, hardly a problem to the storyline.
Really? It's not hard to believe that? And the Gorons did that exact same thing too? And there are no Zora/Goron people waltzing around? The course of this fork of Hyrule's history followed the absolute slimmest possibility and eliminated all traces of the other genetic traits. If that's not hard to believe to you, I really don't know what to say. I find that to be incredibly hard to believe. It's far more believable that Nintendo just shrugged their shoulders because they wanted different races in Hyrule when developing Ocarina of Time and didn't think of it when developing A Link to the Past.
Quote
Ages takes place in Labrynna, not Hyrule. So it's not an plot hole, when in Labrynna the hostile Zora's do live in the river while the friendly ones in the sea. Plus even if the game did take place in Hyrule, Ages takes place well in the future anyway, so it doesn't matter if the friendly Zora's used to live in the river when in Ages they clearly don't anymore.
It's more likely that Nintendo retconned Zoras and tried to cover their tracks, poorly I might add. And if you're going to use the "not Hyrule" explanation, then there's no currently explanation for Hyrule Zoras.
Quote
PTSD dude, read about how it works.
I'm aware of the PTSD argument and if you're going to use it, then it needs to be consistent, but we'll get to that. Nice condescending tone though. You even posted a wikipedia link...
Quote
Not hard to believe that suddenly seeing Ridley again after she thought he was gone for good this time would set it off again since this would be a huge shock.
On the contrary, it's pretty hard for me to believe that Samus thought Ridley was gone for good that time specifically when, even if you ignore the Prime series and the three additional times she defeats some version of Ridley like Sakamoto does, Ridley already came back once before Samus fights him again in Other M. I know she blows up Zebes, but you're assuming that the Space Pirates kept everything on that one planet. "There's absolutely no way Ridley can be revived this time." That's sloppy at best. And if cowering in fear is how Samus reacts when she sees Ridley, there's no way she fires a single shot on the Ceres Space Station. I'm not even really convinced she would have made it out of their fight on Zebes without anyone to save her if she becomes practically catatonic at the mere sight of Ridley. That's poor characterization and even lazier storytelling. Besides having four major missions near the beginning of the series that never get referenced again, Metroid generally made sense before Other M wrecked it all. Stop messing with prequels and interquels and there won't be these issues.
It just sounds like you're okaying and accepting everything Nintendo does. Most of your explanations rely on conveniences and happenstance. You preface your explanations with "It's not hard to believe" when what you're saying is pretty hard to believe.
look at the offical timeline it spilts all other the place!
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Stratos on September 17, 2013, 07:43:40 PM
I liked the idea that Link's Awakening took place as a dream when Link was sealed in the Temple of Time for seven years during Ocarina.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Wah on September 17, 2013, 07:46:14 PM
Did it? O.K, thats pretty smart!
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: NWR_insanolord on September 17, 2013, 07:49:34 PM
I still don't get why they didn't go with the fact that they called it a legend and say it's like a story passed down orally through the ages, and every game is just the same story told in a different way. So simple, so elegant, would allow them to do basically anything they wanted without regard to continuity. That would explain the Zoras being portrayed differently in different games, as was mentioned here, it would explain why sometimes Link's older, sometimes he's younger, and one time he was both.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Wah on September 17, 2013, 07:59:02 PM
Isanlord there was a offical timeline released when skyward sword came out! look it up!
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: pokepal148 on September 17, 2013, 08:08:27 PM
I still don't get why they didn't go with the fact that they called it a legend and say it's like a story passed down orally through the ages, and every game is just the same story told in a different way. So simple, so elegant, would allow them to do basically anything they wanted without regard to continuity. That would explain the Zoras being portrayed differently in different games, as was mentioned here, it would explain why sometimes Link's older, sometimes he's younger, and one time he was both.
You and your common sense...
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: pokepal148 on September 17, 2013, 09:35:27 PM
I still don't get why they didn't go with the fact that they called it a legend and say it's like a story passed down orally through the ages, and every game is just the same story told in a different way. So simple, so elegant, would allow them to do basically anything they wanted without regard to continuity. That would explain the Zoras being portrayed differently in different games, as was mentioned here, it would explain why sometimes Link's older, sometimes he's younger, and one time he was both.
You and your common sense...
people would probably just call that a cop out excuse
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: NWR_insanolord on September 17, 2013, 11:33:53 PM
They might call it a cop-out, but they at least wouldn't mock it all the time like they do with the hacked-together timeline they've got.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Wah on September 18, 2013, 12:34:24 AM
But miyamoto made it himself!
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Ian Sane on September 18, 2013, 01:24:27 PM
Using a cop-out like "it's a legend told differently each time" is worthy a ridicule and so is coming up with arbitrary split timeline based on an event never ever even hinted at in the actual games. Both just admit that Nintendo bungled the Zelda storyline. There is no way to rationalize it that would be satisfying unless Nintendo went back in time and did it right the first time. Zelda is unfortunately a great series of games with an incoherent broken continuity.
It's actually a good sum up of Nintendo as a company - astonishingly talented in some ways and ridiculously stupid in others. Only someone who is somehow both a genius and a moron could have made the Zelda series.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Wah on September 18, 2013, 09:00:27 PM
Using a cop-out like "it's a legend told differently each time" is worthy a ridicule and so is coming up with arbitrary split timeline based on an event never ever even hinted at in the actual games. Both just admit that Nintendo bungled the Zelda storyline. There is no way to rationalize it that would be satisfying unless Nintendo went back in time and did it right the first time. Zelda is unfortunately a great series of games with an incoherent broken continuity.
It's actually a good sum up of Nintendo as a company - astonishingly talented in some ways and ridiculously stupid in others. Only someone who is somehow both a genius and a moron could have made the Zelda series.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Nemo on September 18, 2013, 09:59:09 PM
Which Nintendo series needs a reboot?
Wii Sports.
Zing!
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: MagicCow64 on September 19, 2013, 09:45:59 AM
It's silly to maintain that Zelda has any kind of actual continuity, besides obvious stuff like Wind Waker-Phantom Hourglass. Which really isn't a problem, it doesn't need one. And guess what, it's very easy to just shrug off a silly ad-hoc timeline published in a small run fan art book. Just like it was easy to ignore that NOA timeline people mentioned (I'm glad other people remember that). Like, is there any conceivable situation where you'd be all "man, that was the best Zelda game ever! But it didn't tie into Twilight Princess, so **** it"?
As for most wanted reboot:
Chibi Robo. I played this game last year and it blew my mind. A new version in a bigger, more complex house/neighborhood, with robo gamepad features, could be the best game ever.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Adrock on September 19, 2013, 10:38:20 AM
I like when sequels intelligently use previous stories to tie everything together. There are sequels that simply continue the plot and sequels that really delve into the mythology to deliver a memorable and series changing narrative. The latter is much harder to do, but the payoff is that much greater.
I wouldn't say Zelda games are individually and intrinsically worse because the continuity is in shambles, but it could be so much better from a narrative standpoint if Nintendo cared more about it. Skyward Sword allows for the Triforce to destroy Demise, the source of all monsters. Nintendo put that story at the very beginning of the timeline. Since that's true now and the Triforce is even more powerful than previously thought, why are there other Zelda games? That potentially nullifies every future event in the entire series. How did that thing even get stolen or split? Just keep using the Triforce to destroy evil. Better yet, Zelda and Link (who already had a balance heart to use the Triforce) are standing right in front of it at the end of Skyward Sword and there's apparently no limit on making wishes like the Dragon Balls. "Hey, Triangles, just destroy and/or seal evil all the time forever from now on. Please and thank you." How do you have a potentially series breaking event like that and put it right at the beginning? That's why I generally try to overlook Zelda as a series with any sort of continuity and advocate a complete plot reboot. Establish rules and stick to them. Technologically, we're at a point where games aren't limited by the stories that can be told.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: shingi_70 on September 19, 2013, 02:12:13 PM
Wii Sports Club makes a ton of sense But to be honest I was hoping for a $60 full on open world sequel that's like Go Vacation.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Luigi Dude on September 19, 2013, 04:04:45 PM
Skyward Sword allows for the Triforce to destroy Demise, the source of all monsters. Nintendo put that story at the very beginning of the timeline. Since that's true now and the Triforce is even more powerful than previously thought, why are there other Zelda games? That potentially nullifies every future event in the entire series. How did that thing even get stolen or split? Just keep using the Triforce to destroy evil.
Did you even play Ocarina of Time? The Triforce was sealed away and the only way someone could enter the Sacred Realm was by using the three Spiritual Stones which were all owned by three completely separate races, needed the Royal Families Ocarina of Time and needed to be the chosen Hero who could actually lift the Master Sword. Ganondorf was smart enough to manipulate events to allow Link to get all these and then entered the Sacred Realm himself. That's how it was split since he didn't have a pure heart when he touched it.
Plus the Triforce can only kill something with a name. You can't just say kill all evil since what exactly is evil? What some people consider evil, others consider good. Even in Ocarina of Time, we where shown that the King of Hyrule clearly trusted Ganondorf at the beginning so even if the King had access to the Triforce which he didn't, it wouldn't have been useful since the King didn't view Ganondorf as an enemy.
Quote
Better yet, Zelda and Link (who already had a balance heart to use the Triforce) are standing right in front of it at the end of Skyward Sword and there's apparently no limit on making wishes like the Dragon Balls. "Hey, Triangles, just destroy and/or seal evil all the time forever from now on. Please and thank you." How do you have a potentially series breaking event like that and put it right at the beginning?
Only that wouldn't work since when Link wished for Demise to die, it only killed him in the present while his past self was still alive. So Skyward Sword itself shows that the Triforce can only have any effects in the present time, so they couldn't wish for it to kill future villains since they don't exist yet and it's power doesn't extend that far through time.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Adrock on September 19, 2013, 10:46:55 PM
I don't need your wikipedia regurgitated summary. I asked a rhetorical question... which you answered with a rhetorical question yet still insisted on giving me a wiki-explanation. It shouldn't even get to the point where anyone is even close enough to seize the Triforce if you can use it to kill things.
Even if you want to argue that the Royal Family can't/won't do that for some arbitrary reason, Link attains the entire Triforce at the end of A Link to the Past in that ridiculous "Hero is defeated" time split. He should just wish for Ganon to be destroyed forever. That nullifies at least the original Zelda and Zelda II. Before Skyward Sword establishes that the Triforce can kill people, it made sense for Daphnes Nohansen Hyrule to have the Triforce wash away the remnants of old Hyrule to prevent Ganondorf from laying claim to it. Now that Skyward Sword is a thing, Wind Waker's ending doesn't make sense anymore. Kill that son of a bitch and save the kingdom. That's a broken storyline. And all because Nintendo insisted on creating another prequel and haphazardly setting new rules.
Quote
Plus the Triforce can only kill something with a name. You can't just say kill all evil since what exactly is evil? What some people consider evil, others consider good.
That sounds like conjecture. Would you kindly show me where and when in the games it's said that the Triforce can only kill something with a name? Otherwise, Demise promises his hatred will be reborn. Use the Triforce, break the curse. Or are we just going to assume again that the Triforce can't do that? There should be no assumptions. That's what makes this poor storytelling. If there are more definitive rules then the reader/viewer/player needs to know them.
The Triforce doesn't discriminate between good and evil, but it knows the difference as reflected by the transforming Sacred Realm. What exactly is evil? The "source of all monsters" who previously attempted to seize the Triforce, caused Hylia to give up her divinity, then stole her soul as a mortal, promises his hatred will be reborn. That sounds like a really good place to start.
Quote
Only that wouldn't work since when Link wished for Demise to die, it only killed him in the present while his past self was still alive. So Skyward Sword itself shows that the Triforce can only have any effects in the present time, so they couldn't wish for it to kill future villains since they don't exist yet and it's power doesn't extend that far through time.
That sounds like conjecture again. Your evidence is shaky because it's based on poor storytelling. There's nothing in the games saying that you can't kill future villains. That's why I said Skyward Sword potentially nullifies the rest of the series. Chronologically, it's first and it establishes new rules that damage the validity of subsequent games. It's easy to poke holes in Zelda's mythology because Nintendo took such little care of it. Maybe you don't think so, but honestly, I haven't seen anyone else defend it as ardently as you have.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Wah on September 19, 2013, 11:08:00 PM
Like i said theres A REAL OFFICAL TIMELINE HAS ALREADY BEEN REALESED BY NINTENDO! LOOK!
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Adrock on September 19, 2013, 11:40:46 PM
My goodness, kid. I have already seen the timeline released by Nintendo. I have the The Legend of Zelda: Hyrule Historia sitting on my bookshelf literally four feet to the left of me. We have been discussing how Nintendo's timeline doesn't make sense. If you're not going to read the thread, please consider not posting.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: nickmitch on September 19, 2013, 11:49:21 PM
Like i said theres A REAL OFFICAL TIMELINE HAS ALREADY BEEN REALESED BY NINTENDO! LOOK!
Gee, if only someone would've just, I dunno POSTED IT IN THE THREAD ALREADY (http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/forums/index.php?topic=42636.msg809920#msg809920)!
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: nickmitch on September 19, 2013, 11:55:54 PM
More relevant post: The ending to OoT is fucking stupid. Link turns in to a kid again, so the timeline splits? What? I feel more like nothing in the game ever "really" happened.
As for the THREE splits (or at least the "defeated split"), I can kinda see that. I have to buy the main split, but if I'm doing that then **** it. Link starts at the base of one timeline, sleeps until the future and then goes back. He changes that timeline, then moves forward along it into the future where he defeats Gannon. He never goes back to the previous timeline. That makes two time lines.
Except he goes back earlier in both timelines when at the end of the game he goes all the fucking way back and none of the events really happen.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Shaymin on September 20, 2013, 12:06:16 AM
Trying to employ logic with Lucariofan is like trying to convince Nintendo to reboot F-Zero - it's not gonna work, and you're wasting your time trying it.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Stratos on September 20, 2013, 02:10:56 AM
Are you sure it made it so that nothing ever happened in Ocarina? The game doesn't specify WHEN Link returns in the Child Era. It could have been just before Ganondorf tries to enter the sacred realm. Or, since Ganondorf was sealed away, Link could have left him 'trapped' when he returned the Master Sword to it's resting place for good. This would mean that there was no longer a Ganondorf in the Child Era.
And I'm going off of what the specific game itself shows since anything Nintendo says on the subject now is suspect. Looking at the actual game when I first played it I thought it was clear Ganondorf was no longer in the picture. When Link returned to being a child I assumed it was at the same instant he first left his time and he was returning to young Zelda to report on what had happened on his journey.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Adrock on September 20, 2013, 03:29:04 AM
Well, Ocarina of Time itself doesn't really make any sense though that's mainly because time travel is a facepalm of a plot device (Skyward Sword doesn't really make sense for the same reason). The problem is that Nintendo couldn't decide if it wanted a single timeline or multiple timelines then jumps between the two to make the plot work. Then, on top of that Nintendo threw in a parallel universe where Link fails. The alternate/parallel universe/timeline vocabulary makes this even more confusing. Depending on who you talk to, you may get a different definition for each.
Ocarina of Time's story works until it, ironically, starts messing with time travel. After the Forest Temple when Sheik gets the hell out of the way and lets Link use the Pedestal of Time to travel back to the past, the story goes off the deep end. When Link goes back in time and starts changing **** (though why he's a child is a little bit hazy... I'm thinking returning the Master Sword to the pedestal sends Link's consciousness back seven years, maybe?), he technically shouldn't have been able to return to the future he came back from because he should be asleep in the Sacred Realm except now he's not. He's running around finding gauntlets and cutting grass. I believe this is what nickmitch was referring to. The moment Link goes back in time, he should create a new timeline and when he pulls the Master Sword out of the pedestal again, he should go seven years into the future of that new timeline. Of course, that's not what happens in the game. At this point, Link should technically be timeline traveling though it's still treated as a single timeline. He changes the past which inexplicably changes a future he should no longer have access to. If you want to try to simplify this with using a time-loop, be my guest. I think that confuses more than elucidates.
Anyway, everything happens, but that doesn't mean it makes sense that it happens. There is a Ganondorf in the Child Era. After Adult Era Zelda returns Link to the past, we're supposed to assume (that word again) two strings of events occur that creates the official time split (rather than the infinite ones that should occur throughout the game yet don't). First, the Triforce of Courage breaks into eight pieces without Link in that era, he never returns when Ganondorf is revived/escapes the seal, Hyrule is flooded, Ganondorf is revived again and The Wind Waker happens. Second, Link (returned from the Adult Era) finds young Zelda (for the second time total to him, the first in this era to her) and explains everything and somehow they convince the king of Hyrule that Ganondorf is evil. The Sacred Realm is protected (this is in Nintendo's official timeline) and the Door of Time is never opened for Ganondorf to seize the Triforce. Except that doesn't make sense because in Twilight Princess (which follows the Child Era when Link was sent back by Adult Era Zelda) Ganondorf inexplicably has the Triforce of Power that allows him to survive execution and he's sent to the Twilight Realm as a last resort.
To clarify, Ganondorf is sealed in the Sacred Realm in the Adult Era and ultimately banished to the Twilight Realm in the Child Era. So, everything happens (though not all of it works if you ask any questions) and either something is missing between the beginning of the Child Era and Twilight Princess or Nintendo done goofed.
Time travel sounds cool except when you think about it too much. The only anything I felt handled it well is Futurama and I probably would have given it a pass since it's often used for comedic effect.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Stratos on September 20, 2013, 07:23:14 AM
I always liked how time travel was handled in Stargate. It dealt with the parallel realities quite often.
I don't really care if the timeline is broken. The games are all fun and I can replay any of them at anytime and have a full, rich experience. I just pretend Nintendo's PR team doesn't exist and make the games fit however I desire. Do you stare at the puppet master during a performance? The way people talk it's like the Zelda series is unplayable.
Does all this timeline talk really ruin the experience for anyone?
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Adrock on September 20, 2013, 07:53:34 AM
I wouldn't say Zelda games are individually and intrinsically worse because the continuity is in shambles, but it could be so much better from a narrative standpoint if Nintendo cared more about it.
I absolutely believe this. If I didn't, I'd stop buying Zelda games. However, I love stories, hearing and telling, and I love it as a point of discussion. A well crafted story makes me swoon. I believe it is a storyteller's responsibility to let the audience know their intentions. When something is off or unexplained, the narrative suffers and it's on them.
I've maintained that when it comes to Nintendo franchises like Metroid and Zelda, I generally ignore the canon because it makes no sense. I do that for my own sanity and so I can better enjoy the games for the main reason I bought them. Nintendo simply did not put the effort in maintaining a consistent narrative though I think fans pressured them into establishing a timeline/strict canon when previously there was none and no plans for one. Nintendo was just making games because gameplay was the reason their products even exist. That's merely how I view their stories on a personal level. I'm discussing it here because well, this is a message board and I wouldn't be here if not for the conversation. Despite Luigi Dude's repeated condescension, I'm interested in talking about these games.
I definitely advocate a plot reboot of most Nintendo franchises, starting with Metroid and Zelda. Then, I'd only like to see them once per console and once per handheld (maybe two if they fall at the beginning and end of the hardware cycle like Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword, the former being a GameCube game, but that's beside the point). That way, they get to plan a consistent, flowing narrative and it doesn't get bogged down by too many games in the series. I also don't really like seeing the same series over and over again. I like that we only get one Mario Kart and Smash Bros per system. I think that should be true for most Nintendo franchises. Instead of three Mario games, we get one or two then we could get F-Zero and Star Fox again. I know they don't sell as well as Mario, but I'm talking from a consumer standpoint rather than a business one.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: ShyGuy on September 20, 2013, 03:10:49 PM
If Mi nish cap is the origin of Link's hat and Skyward sword is the origin of the Master sword, which came first??
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: NWR_insanolord on September 20, 2013, 04:24:19 PM
Nintendo's going to rewrite it so they happened simultaneously, in separate timelines. The next game's going to tell the story of how Link got his leggings.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Halbred on September 21, 2013, 11:02:52 PM
Metroid is in desperate need of a reboot, especially after Other M.
I have a whole fanfic reboot in my head. I'll do it for free, Nintendo.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: pokepal148 on September 22, 2013, 12:25:01 AM
Metroid is in desperate need of a reboot, especially after Other M.
I have a whole fanfic reboot in my head. I'll do it for free, Nintendo.
based on the ending of Fusion I think we are reaching the point where things could get very interesting for that series.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: NWR_insanolord on September 22, 2013, 01:14:03 AM
They should do a Super Metroid version of the Link Between Worlds concept and just say "**** it, it's the same setup and story with a new map."
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: the asylum on September 22, 2013, 12:17:19 PM
I thought it was generally agreed upon that Other M doesn't exist. We can go on our merry way post-Fusion and not even give a wink towards that awful, awful game.
See also: CDi, Zelda
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: azeke on September 22, 2013, 02:45:38 PM
Skimming the thread, it becomes clear that it's not series that need to be rebooted, but fans of said series.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Mop it up on September 23, 2013, 05:02:35 PM
They should do a reboot of Super Mario Brothers where Mario and Luigi start out in real-world Brooklyn as low-wage, foul-mouthed plumbers.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: the asylum on September 23, 2013, 07:32:09 PM
Metroid is in desperate need of a reboot, especially after Other M.
I have a whole fanfic reboot in my head. I'll do it for free, Nintendo.
based on the ending of Fusion I think we are reaching the point where things could get very interesting for that series.
That's true--as I've said before. However, Nintendo is terrible at telling stories, especially after a big event that fundamentally changes the established storyline (see: Phantom Hourglass). So that'll never happen.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Stratos on September 24, 2013, 05:52:03 AM
@Mop it up I think robot chicken already parodied that scenario. I enjoy their game parodies.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Wah on October 07, 2013, 07:28:47 PM
well i loved OoT myself...
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Kytim89 on October 07, 2013, 08:48:45 PM
If there was one franchise in the gaming industry that needs a reboot it's the Metroid series. The series has reached a point where it has pretty much done everything that it can do with Nintendo's eastern teams at the Helm. The keys to the franchise should be handed over to Retro and have them do a reboot of Metroid in the same style as the recent remake of Tomb Raider. Secondly, there needs to be a sequel, or sidequel, to the Wii U remake that is a 2-D sidescroller developed by either Retro, Wayforward, or Armature Studios.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Wah on October 08, 2013, 06:20:32 PM
Prime hunters was all right!
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: the asylum on October 08, 2013, 08:27:35 PM
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Spak-Spang on October 10, 2013, 12:08:01 AM
I don't know if you need to reboot Metroid. The foundation of Metroid is quite solid. You have 3 beautiful 3D games that show how you can make an adventure First Person Shooter...and you have a great series with Super Metroid, Metroid 2 and Metroid Fusion...that act as a good story itself.
I really just want to see Metroid continue in the 2D gaming world. I think Donkey Kong Country Returns is a perfect example of what I want. An interactive, living world, wrapped in a fun 2D game to play with characters and game mechanics already tested, but refined and made better.
The only thing I really want Nintendo to do with their characters is flesh out their stories and allow them to be actual characters. I wonder if Nintendo actually knows what a Bounty Hunter does? Because many of their characters are mercenaries or Bounty Hunters, but don't actually act like it.
I could go for a game that actually has Samus being a Bounty Hunter...I don't know exactly what that would look like but I think it would be cool.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Wah on October 10, 2013, 01:07:30 AM
I'am just saying i want another metroid game!
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: nickmitch on October 10, 2013, 07:13:31 PM
Samus kinda acts that way already. She's essentially a private military force being hired by the galactic federation (or whoever) to fight pirates and kill Metroids.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Stratos on October 10, 2013, 07:26:51 PM
How about making an open world Metroid game where Samus can accept 'bounty' side quests to kill or capture monsters and characters or gather hidden items. Let her suit upgrades be tied to these 'bounties' by unlocking customization of her suit. Make it an item-based system like Legend of Zelda or make it a monetary system like Fable or any other RPG style game.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Spak-Spang on October 11, 2013, 01:34:34 AM
I don't know if that will work. I think the best thing would be to keep the idea of finding items in the game...it is very important to Metroid.
Open World...maybe 2D Open Worlds. What I mean is, I think it would be cool if Samus went to different planets. Each planet is a living breathing world. Some ideas could be to go to home world of the Space Pirates, The home world of the X virus or whatever it was she got attacked by in Metroid Fusion, and of course the home world of the Metroids. Each world can have multiple levels. When you get there your ship acts as a beacon to accept missions. List of difficulty can be displayed by bounty costs, and the computer can predict what items you need. Speaking of items, I would love to see a combination Super Metroid, NES Metroid approach. I loved how in Super Metroid you could unequip items you collected.
I think this should be built into the game, but you have limited weapons and abilities you can bring. These abilities can be found in any level, but you may need to carefully pick which items and suit upgrades to bring with you. Of course later in the game, you could unlock a suit upgrade that gives you all your abilities all at the same time.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Khushrenada on October 11, 2013, 10:47:12 AM
The home world of the X virus is the home world of the metroids, SR-388. Moreover, as Fusion established, with Samus wiping out the Metroids on SR-388, it allowed the X virus to flourish as the Metroids were the primary hunters of that X species.
World-hopping was done in Metroid Prime 3: Corruption including going to the pirate homeworld. That said, they probably had to find a new base after the end of that game. I applaud Retro's efforts in making each world look unique and different not only from each other but also from the previous Metroid games. I also think they did that concept about as well as it could be done. In the end, I don't think it is worthwhile. I much prefer having a one large map planet adventure, than multiple smaller map worlds. Plus, to backtrack things were slowed down. Before, you just had to get on an elevator and to transport. World-hopping meant going to your ship, loading up the map screen, selecting the map of where you want to go and then the animation of leaving the world, travelling through space, arriving at the new world and finally you were off.
I'd argue that Fusion could even be considered an idea of this multiple world hopping idea. For most of the game, each space section you enter is its own world and you have to navigate and explore through it. Only at the end of the game, with the screw attack upgrade, are you finally able to start busting through these worlds and bring them further together abit. Even then, it can still take awhile to get from one section to another depending on where you are and how it is connected.
I prefer the pace of a one world game. Metroid Zero Mission really set the bar high for that.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Ian Sane on October 11, 2013, 01:18:04 PM
The "rules" of Metroid that make it Metroid:
- The world is interconnected and able to be freely explored as opposed to having sequential level progression - The main character obtains access to new areas using power-ups that they discover during exploration
I could realistically describe Zelda the same way. The only real differences is the setting, Zelda having NPCs and towns and "safe" areas that Metroid doesn't typically offer, and the viewpoint. If you follow the rules then you have something that will feel like Metroid. A certain Metroid game that I shall not name had a very sequential progression that broke the first rule and arbitrary storyline events to open new areas, which broke the second rule. But regardless of what story or setting you go with, you can do whatever you want if you follow the two basic rules.
Every game series can be condensed to its core elements that gives the franchise its appeal.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: ThePerm on January 08, 2017, 11:13:15 PM
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Evan_B on January 09, 2017, 02:27:52 AM
Reading through this thread, I realized the only good story Nintendo has ever made was Pikmin. Seriously.
Or maybe Duck Hunt.
In any case, while people seem to think Metroid Post-Fusion would be interesting, I think it would provide a bit of a conundrum. Metroid is at its best when Samus isn't engaging with intelligent life-forms, and Fusion ends with the potential threat of the Federation hunting Samus for her crimes. If you're gonna do Metroid(5), just bring it back to the feeling of loneliness and isolation. That's all I care about.
Also, I know several avid fans of the Golden Sun franchise hoping that series makes a comeback. I'd like Wario to make a return to (plat)form(ing), myself.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: rygar on January 09, 2017, 07:39:28 AM
I would love to see a post-Martinet reboot of the Mario brother characters without the gabagool organ-grinding.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: ThePerm on January 09, 2017, 08:16:06 AM
They could reboot Metroid. All they need is some sort of alternate reality excuse. It is sci-fi. I would kinda like to see a very large scale Metroid game. Something with several planets.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Luigi Dude on January 09, 2017, 12:32:27 PM
In any case, while people seem to think Metroid Post-Fusion would be interesting, I think it would provide a bit of a conundrum. Metroid is at its best when Samus isn't engaging with intelligent life-forms, and Fusion ends with the potential threat of the Federation hunting Samus for her crimes. If you're gonna do Metroid(5), just bring it back to the feeling of loneliness and isolation. That's all I care about.
They could still do that in a post Fusion world. Just make the story at the beginning that some new alien race on some planet is threatening the Galaxy and the Federation contacts Samus and offers to pardon her for her previous crimes if she deals with it. Then the rest of the game would just be traditional Metroid set on a new world which can allow for some new gameplay and settings. That would be the easiest way to move forward with a Metroid 5 without having to worry about the Federation drama throughout the game outside of the opening and ending.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Adrock on January 09, 2017, 06:01:25 PM
This thread is hilarious. I'm baffled anyone could so ardently defended Nintendo's no-fucks-given storytelling.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Khushrenada on January 09, 2017, 07:15:22 PM
Reading through this thread, I realized the only good story Nintendo has ever made was Pikmin. Seriously.
You know, that just made reflect a moment and I realized that the original Pikmin had a simple enough story but it was enlarged by having Olimar write a diary entry every night he was on the planet up to 30 days. Considering how often we hear Miyamoto as being opposed to story to the point that Koizuma's trying to sneak in story elements past him, in this case, he really opened up Pikmin to have a larger story or background story at least. I wonder what he'd say as to that decision these days.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Evan_B on January 09, 2017, 08:20:31 PM
I wasn't joking. Pikmin does have the best story.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: ThePerm on January 09, 2017, 11:06:35 PM
This thread is hilarious. I'm baffled anyone could so ardently defended Nintendo's no-fucks-given storytelling.
Sometimes it's been pretty convenient for a better game. A lot of story lines were from a time when cinematic technology in games was really low. So, in order to not make the game horrible, they cut down. How many times have Marvel and DC had to reboot their storylines because the writers wrote themselves into a hole?
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Luigi Dude on January 10, 2017, 01:19:41 AM
This thread is hilarious. I'm baffled anyone could so ardently defended Nintendo's no-fucks-given storytelling.
As I already said in the beginning of the thread, most of Nintendo's games contain lighthearted standalone stories that basically reboot each game anyway. We can argue for another 3 pages about every nitpick in the overall Zelda timeline again but even the individual stories in those games are mostly self contained as well.
Some people prefer Nintendo continue to stay with their gameplay first, story last approach to games since that's what makes many so great. They're not constrained by some overarching canon everything has to fit into, they can just do whatever the **** they want. Plus it's not like the rest of the industry is ahead of Nintendo in the story department. Many of the major videogame storylines now a days are the usual generic Hollywood blockbuster **** in the West, or over-complicated anime **** from Japan. Yeah Nintendo could try a little harder but it's not like the rest of the industry is pumping out masterpieces left and right either.
See this is what I should have said years ago. If Nintendo was to reboot games like Zelda and Metroid to have a more constant overall storyline, that would be nice for the first game in said reboot but what about the second or third? Eventually said franchises start to reach a point where things the developers want to do are going to conflict with certain plot points anyway which will require another reboot to stay consistent. For a company like Nintendo that greatly specializes in gameplay first, I'd prefer they not have to constantly worry about how the gameplay they want to do might create some plot hole in some game they made over a decade earlier. Especially as the rest of the industry shows, trying to care more about the story doesn't exactly result in these stories being good in the end, which makes many of these games end up wasting millions on said crap story anyway.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Khushrenada on January 10, 2017, 02:15:40 AM
I wasn't making jest of your post either nor did I consider it a joke. I think you may very well be right in this statement which is why I was agreeing and elaborating on how odd it is that Miyamoto would be in charge of making the Nintendo game with the best story.
When I think of anything that could possibly counter or top the story of Pikmin the only thing I can think of would be Super Mario RPG which I think triumphs still over the Paper Mario RPG's stories and would still be my favorite story in Nintendo games I've played. However, that story may be more due to Square Enix than Nintendo in which case Pikmin defaults back into the top slot.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Adrock on January 10, 2017, 03:23:03 AM
We can argue for another 3 pages about every nitpick in the overall Zelda timeline again but even the individual stories in those games are mostly self contained as well.
That's where we differ, I guess. I can't dismiss certain things as nitpicking. Placing a canon destroying plot-point right at the beginning of a series chronologically isn't a nitpick. It's bad storytelling. I don't expect Tolkien-level world building, but give a couple fucks maybe. Was anything really gained by Skyward Sword being first chronologically? Change a few things and it makes a lot more sense almost anywhere else.
Quote
Some people prefer Nintendo continue to stay with their gameplay first, story last approach to games since that's what makes many so great. They're not constrained by some overarching canon everything has to fit into, they can just do whatever the **** they want.
Except Nintendo is constrained by an overarching canon. Adhering to it hurts the games now because Nintendo insists on having one. I'm taken out of a game when the plot causes me to say, "Wait, that doesn't make any sense." This isn't mutually exclusive. Nintendo can have fun gameplay and tell a good story. A story doesn't have to be epic, but it does have to be smart. If Nintendo is going to have a canon, respect the canon. Otherwise, don't have one. Everything would have been just fine if Nintendo said:
1. There's no Zelda canon. Some games have direct sequels, but overall, each game can exist as its own entity. 2. Metroid Prime is a non-canon side-story. 3. What's Other M? I have no idea what you're talking about.
Quote
Plus it's not like the rest of the industry is ahead of Nintendo in the story department. Many of the major videogame storylines now a days are the usual generic Hollywood blockbuster **** in the West, or over-complicated anime **** from Japan. Yeah Nintendo could try a little harder but it's not like the rest of the industry is pumping out masterpieces left and right either.
Dude, these are just excuses.
Quote
If Nintendo was to reboot games like Zelda and Metroid to have a more constant overall storyline, that would be nice for the first game in said reboot but what about the second or third? Eventually said franchises start to reach a point where things the developers want to do are going to conflict with certain plot points anyway which will require another reboot to stay consistent.
That isn't even remotely true. Maybe Nintendo should stop fucking with prequels if it can't be bothered to respect over two decades of storytelling it insists is related.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: KeyBilly on January 10, 2017, 04:40:01 PM
Interesting discussion about Zelda canon. It reminds me of the issues people had with the official timeline in the Zelda book. They laid out detailed reasons that it couldn't possibly be true. For me, there is no problem with creating an underlying story that contradicts the older games in some ways. It has to be done, because the old games were not likely made with the modern canon in mind and there would be conflicts regardless.
But, having a canon does make the games better. The world is more immersive, and there are layers beneath layers that can only come with a long-form story being told over decades. The same is true for TV, movies, and books. With that said, I find deviations in post-canon games less acceptable.
Miyamoto has talked about being limited by story, but is it really so limiting? I think that with creativity, developers can weave any new gameplay mechanics or dungeon designs into the Zelda world. As with some other major franchises, I think they should have a small staff devoted to understanding the history of franchises and protecting the IP, similar to the teams at Disney or Ubisoft. The developers wouldn't need to focus on those elements or just rely on memory.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Evan_B on January 11, 2017, 02:18:08 AM
I'm gonna say it one last time. Pikmin has the best story, so if you want to argue about ANY narrative, it should be Pikmin.
I acknowledge the Zelda timeline, but it's rare that the games actually build on one another, and when they do, it's often in a "this happened in one game before so we're bringing it back for this one" sort of tie-in rather than "THIS IS AN OVERARCHING THING THAT HAS TO HAPPEN IN EVERY ZELDA" and I prefer the former implementation. And honestly, getting all worked up about the Zelda chronology is time wasted in the first place, since every game focuses on telling a contained narrative anyway.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: ThePerm on January 11, 2017, 02:45:15 AM
Also, the whole "It's a Legend" thing.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: pokepal148 on January 11, 2017, 03:09:46 PM
I'm gonna say it one last time. Pikmin has the best story, so if you want to argue about ANY narrative, it should be Pikmin.
I acknowledge the Zelda timeline, but it's rare that the games actually build on one another, and when they do, it's often in a "this happened in one game before so we're bringing it back for this one" sort of tie-in rather than "THIS IS AN OVERARCHING THING THAT HAS TO HAPPEN IN EVERY ZELDA" and I prefer the former implementation. And honestly, getting all worked up about the Zelda chronology is time wasted in the first place, since every game focuses on telling a contained narrative anyway.
I do like Pikmin, so I won't argue with you there.
With Zelda, a lot of the canon consistency is subtle. There are many small references to all sorts of things in previous games that most people would miss and wouldn't distract new players. But, for those who are a bit too obsessed with the games, it is great and makes the world feel richer. The only issue is when they throw one of these references in in a way that fans can recognize, but is just nonsensical fan service that contradicts Nintendo's own narrative. Although, nonsense can be fun in the right dosage.
It would be easier on the timelines and better (IMO) if Zelda games didn't each have a doomsday scenario, where Link must save the world from imminent destruction. The same is true for superhero movies and anime.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: ThePerm on January 11, 2017, 05:24:51 PM
We could all just say Zelda has a continuity like The Matrix or Westworld. When things repeat... the order in which they repeat doesn't matter so much.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Ian Sane on January 11, 2017, 07:59:05 PM
Miyamoto has talked about being limited by story, but is it really so limiting? I think that with creativity, developers can weave any new gameplay mechanics or dungeon designs into the Zelda world.
There are games that are so story focused that the gameplay is terrible or constantly interupted by cutscenes and I think Miyamoto has a point about that. But I also think that he really sucks at stories and thus comes to the incorrect conclusion that a game can't have both a good story and gameplay. Zelda's overall storyline is so full of inconsistencies that you figure Miyamoto can't describe his commute to work without leaving out some crucial detail or contradicting himself. It's REALLY bad.
The thing is that Nintendo can have simple stories without them being incoherent. And the idea that games can't have good gameplay and story is nonsense because there are plenty of games that do.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: ThePerm on January 11, 2017, 08:14:50 PM
To be fair the games that Miyamoto has been hands on have had decent stories. Miyamoto is a really world creator too.
Wait till the Giant Robot game hatches into whatever it's actually going to be.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: MagicCow64 on January 11, 2017, 08:54:02 PM
My rubric is basically that story can be a pleasing additive to a fundamentally sound game, like good music, good UI, etc. And it can also be a detriment to a fundamentally sound game if it is bad and intrusive. Video game stories are bad and intrusive 90% of the time. An effective, diagetically sound story can add maybe a 5% shift in the overall value of the package and a bad, intrusive one can have a much more negative shift in the other direction.
So, in my book, focusing on it is an odds-on a recipe for a worse outcome. And how many fundamentally mediocre or bad games are actually redeemed by their narratives? It's hard to think of examples. Deadly Premonition? Eternal Darkness? Maaaybe Mass Effect 2?
Whatever criticisms one could have about any of the (thin) Zelda narratives, it's truly silly to give a **** about the overarching lore. There's no way to coherently include NES games and the like. Nor would it make sense to arbitrarily declare a point at which the games start "counting". So, enjoy the allusions as they come, ignore that art book Nintendo put out that one time with the ridiculous timeline.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: pokepal148 on January 11, 2017, 10:25:45 PM
It would be easier on the timelines and better (IMO) if Zelda games didn't each have a doomsday scenario, where Link must save the world from imminent destruction. The same is true for superhero movies and anime.
You mean like Link's Awakening? :smug:
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Stratos on January 14, 2017, 11:19:35 AM
Gotta side with Pokepal. Pikmin had a fun story filled with neat minutia, but Link's Awakening is still better. It is possibly my favorite Zelda game.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Evan_B on January 14, 2017, 12:15:52 PM
Pikmin tells a better story without words than Link's Awakening attempts to do with repeated Owl interruptions. The Pikmin franchise even has a better overarching story if we're talking about a continuous narrative.
The only good thing Link's Awakening does is put the player's goals at odds with the island's survival, and even then, all of the island's inhabitants want you to awaken the Wind Fish.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: KeyBilly on January 14, 2017, 03:15:51 PM
It would be easier on the timelines and better (IMO) if Zelda games didn't each have a doomsday scenario, where Link must save the world from imminent destruction. The same is true for superhero movies and anime.
You mean like Link's Awakening? :smug:
Yeah, that is a good example. The only thing that rubs me the wrong way is the "it was all a dream" ending, although the dream seems to be rooted in some things of consequence to the Zelda world. It might be worth returning to the Wind Fish in another game.
Speaking of Pikmin, a Pikmin collection, or at least Pikmin 3 for a low price, would be good Switch titles. I generally dislike ports, but so many people missed the Wii U that it would be nice to just port every first party title if it isn't too much work. The "Wii Missed You" collection.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Luigi Dude on January 14, 2017, 09:26:21 PM
Yeah, that is a good example. The only thing that rubs me the wrong way is the "it was all a dream" ending, although the dream seems to be rooted in some things of consequence to the Zelda world. It might be worth returning to the Wind Fish in another game.
Well Ocarina of Time and Skyward Sword both have giant whale that looks a lot like the Wind Fish and are considered guardians of their respective regions. So at the very least these whales are important to the Zelda world since they're suppose to help protect it from monsters and bad stuff like that, even if they kind of do a terrible job at doing it for Hyrule at least.
Plus if you get the good ending the Wind Fish granted Marin's wish and turned her into a seagull that's actually alive in the real world so these whales have pretty strong magic abilities that I like to imagine they use to hopefully help people when they're not infected with demon parasites.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: KeyBilly on January 14, 2017, 09:30:06 PM
Hmm, I hadn't thought of that!
Also, it would suck to be a seagull.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: pokepal148 on January 14, 2017, 09:44:48 PM
Miiverse officially needs a reboot.
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: King of Twitch on January 14, 2017, 09:48:06 PM
XD that explains how she ended up in OOT (under a pseudonym)
Title: Re: Which Nintendo Franchise Needs A Reboot?
Post by: Luigi Dude on January 15, 2017, 01:41:49 AM
Well that's what she wanted since she liked seagulls. At least there's talking animals in the Zelda world so I imagine she can still communicate with humans like other talking animals in the Zelda series. I like to imagine she at least had a pretty good career since people would be like, "holy **** it's a singing bird" and would draw in some pretty large crowds.
Hey there's a good idea for a spinoff, a Marin rhythm singing game. :cool; Come on if Tingle can get several games they can give Marin one too.
