Post by: ruby_onix on October 30, 2004, 01:29:07 PM
I can't say I really bothered to read the whole thing. Same old IGN crap. Except that this time, it's not IGN crap. It was written by N-Sider, but Matt thought it was Teh Greatest Editorial Evah so he posted it as the headline story on IGN Cube.
Personally, I think the biggest mistake Nintendo's been making lately is handing IGN so many exclusive scoops. You suck, IGN!
Feel free to use this thread to talk about the article, make fun of IGN, blather on about what Nintendo's done wrong with the GameCube, or just ignore what people here post and make fun of their typos and grammar mistakes.
Edit: Oh yeah, here's a link to IGN.
Post by: ThePerm on October 30, 2004, 02:01:10 PM
as far as sports games go, i think we can safely say on average Nintendo fans aren really big on them and probably never will be.
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 30, 2004, 03:30:52 PM
Post by: UncleBob on October 30, 2004, 03:36:35 PM
'bah... I play games for fun, not for what others think of them... ::goes back to playing his Classic NES version of Super Mario Bros.::
Post by: Rancid Planet on October 30, 2004, 03:51:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ThePerm
as far as sports games go, i think we can safely say on average Nintendo fans aren really big on them and probably never will be.
That's true but the idea shouldn't be to get Nintendo fans to play sports games, that ain't gonna happen, but to get sports game fans to buy into Nintendo and become N fans themselves.
Post by: joshnickerson on October 30, 2004, 04:51:29 PM
Post by: Artimus on October 30, 2004, 05:56:43 PM
Post by: Hostile Creation on October 30, 2004, 06:05:54 PM
Quote
Ruby, I learned to stop listening to the bile IGN spews YEARS ago
Oh yeah? Well I never listened to it.
Booyah!
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 30, 2004, 06:07:17 PM
No, you don't seem to understand...IGN doesn't know ANYTHING about a good game...They expect kart skins in Mario Kart and a "dream game" of their's is a freaking ZELDA FIGHTER...They are the epitome of unprofessional gaming media so any editorial that comes out of there can be ignored before it's even typed...
Post by: BiLdItUp1 on October 30, 2004, 06:30:59 PM
Post by: Artimus on October 30, 2004, 06:35:22 PM
Thirdly, you guys, Nintendo is failing. And they're doing it to themselves. I LIKE Nintendo's ideas (but I want to see real innovation) and that's why I've only ever owned Nintendo, but you can't give your ideas life if you're out of business. They have to make themselves cool, which they aren't, or they're going to keep disappearing. GTA: SA is making a HUGE splash right now. Sony has it first, but then PC and XBOX get it! The Cube should get it. Nintendo needs to keep Mario to MARIO games. You guys, this isn't an attack. Nintendo is failing and they're not stopping it. This IS a Nintendo fan saying "PLEASE wake up!"
Post by: Artimus on October 30, 2004, 06:36:34 PM
Post by: PaLaDiN on October 30, 2004, 06:40:20 PM
In what sense do you mean failing?
Don't worry about their going out of business anytime soon. They're still making a profit, and they've still got lots of money in the bank.
Post by: Artimus on October 30, 2004, 06:44:16 PM
Post by: Ymeegod on October 30, 2004, 06:48:29 PM
Actually that's why alot of people bought the game--"it has link in it". Xbox and PS2 would have sold alot better if it had better exclusive characters (think Master chief or Auron--FFX) on their respective consoles.
Know quite a few people with both the Xbox and GC and they went with the GC version even though the Xbox was slightly better.
Post by: PaLaDiN on October 30, 2004, 06:48:56 PM
Wow.
Okay, first of all, America isn't the world.
Second of all, "Yeah they're sitll making a profit but they're losing money for goodness sake." makes zero sense. I hope that's not what you meant.
Thirdly, perhaps you should reserve judgement on systems that aren't even out yet, hmmm? Especially when impressions from people who have played it are positive.
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 30, 2004, 06:51:34 PM
"The fact is though, that he does have a valid point about Link in SC2 and the fact that there are basically zero new Nintendo franchises now, unless you count Metroid or Pikmin"
No, that was a HUGE contradiction...They complain about Ninty not having new franchises(Pikmin, Wario Ware, don't count? Laugho) yet want a fighter based on the Zelda series...It's hilarious, in that sickening "WTF" way...
And it really doesn't make a difference that IGN didn't write it...They AGREED with it...
"Heck, their AD campaign for the DS is amazing, except for the fact that the DS isn't. Their campaign is completely opposite of the ds."
How about some explanation here? If you're going to claim this I'd like some reasons...(I'm laughing)
Post by: Artimus on October 30, 2004, 06:59:29 PM
I don't care if the DS is the best system ever. You know what? I'm buying it. I'll probably love it. But the PSP is going to come right in and become a cultural icon. The funny thing about when Reggie gave that huge speech, saying how people wanted the hot new thing, his speech should've been for the PSP. Is the DS more innovative? Yup. Is the ad campaign wicked? Yup. Is the DS itself cool? Nope. It's a sorta recantle thing, all boxy. It comes in a plastic case. The box is nice and...dull. Its launch game is going to look like an N64 port (WHY did they just make a new one?!). Imagine the DS if it was made from the same materials as the PSP, the beautiful glassly look. ANyone who has ever held an iPod will know the feeling. It's just beautiful. The DS isn't beautiful. It isn't sleek, it isn't awesome. Maybe the insides are, but the outsides aren't. It looks like a toy, not a high tech must have gadget. When they showed the new design the comment by ALL the press were not "AWESOME!" they were "Well, it's definitely better." Everyone looks at the PSP and goes 'Wow..." Heck, how can you not? Sure the DS has amazing gameplay oppertunities, but who cares about that if the PSP becomes the 'it' item? Nintendo continues to do this 'games for everyone approach'. That's fine and dandy, but there's a problem: kids will buy a sleek adult system and play games. Adults don't buy childish toys and play games. It has nothing to do with the quality, but the look and feel. Nintendo is losing...
Post by: Artimus on October 30, 2004, 07:00:32 PM
Post by: PaLaDiN on October 30, 2004, 07:09:26 PM
Well, I do for one. I don't know about you, but I enjoy games more when they're good, not when they sell more.
Post by: Artimus on October 30, 2004, 07:12:23 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 30, 2004, 07:17:59 PM
Post by: Artimus on October 30, 2004, 07:20:38 PM
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on October 30, 2004, 08:41:12 PM
Post by: PaLaDiN on October 30, 2004, 08:51:23 PM
I'm sorry... when you said "who cares about amazing gameplay opportunities if sales are bad?", I assumed you were asking a question. You know, there being a question mark there and all. It seems you're more interested in having a rant of your own though, so go ahead, don't mind me.
Post by: Artimus on October 30, 2004, 09:20:05 PM
Post by: PaLaDiN on October 30, 2004, 09:27:46 PM
I didn't buy a Gamecube to get involved in some horse race. I bought a Gamecube because I like Nintendo games. I seriously don't give a crap if they're in last place or whatever as long as they're still making profits. If they start making losses and burn through most of the money in their bank account, then I'll start worrying about the money side of things.
Until then, I'd rather they kept making the games I like. Since they're doing that already, I see no problems and IGN just seems like a bunch of prissy little schoolgirls to me.
Post by: KDR_11k on October 30, 2004, 09:48:07 PM
The DS already has some good third party support and being the only major system with touchscreen controls is a reason for third parties to develop for the DS. The GC had no such reason, you could go with the XBox, slightly more powerful, same userbase, better conditions or you could go with the PS2, weaker but huge userbase. The Cube didn't give devs any reason for developing games for it except to prevent Sony from getting an absolute monopoly. The DS gives you a real reason. The touch sacreen can be a major advantage if used right, things like target selection or quick orders would work a lot faster with the touchscreen.
Since Nintendo doesn't lose money on anything they can sustain operations for a long time to come. Even if the DS was a complete failure Ninty would live to make another system.
Post by: Captain Olimar on October 31, 2004, 06:10:55 AM
if nintendo sacked their whole european department maybe things would be different. nintendo europe do such a lousy job , most retailers take the same view as ign.
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on October 31, 2004, 06:30:07 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on October 31, 2004, 08:37:35 AM
And to me "solid lineup" means a few more than three titles.
Post by: Darc Requiem on October 31, 2004, 09:19:05 AM
I don't understand the view of "but hey they are still making a profit." Yes its the silver lining to darc cloud of Nintendo's situation but that doens't make the situation okay. Look at the software sales of Nintendo's top titles. Now imagine what they'd be if GC's sales were just double what they are now world wide. When you makes the worlds best titles and can't even post 2nd place in world wides sales, It shows that Nintendo as company is failing inspite of its quality software. Don't even get me started on its stance on on-line gaming. Oh and I'm not going to say what you think. I don't care if Nintendo makes on-line games themselves but that doesn't mean you should inhibit 3rd parties from making on-line games if desire too. I mean remember how Sega wanted PSO to be a launch title for GC? Well Nintendo dragged there asses on deliver the necessary tools for online software development so it put Sega behind. Oh it doesn't end there though. In addition to that, Nintendo dragged there feet on making modem and broadband adapters available. Now I sure other 3rd party developers saw this...I mean Sega pratically had to beg and plead with Nintendo. Thats not good and thats why we don't have on-line titles for GC.
Nintendo was a very aggressive company during they're rise. During they decline they became conservative....instead of trying to gain market share they seemed to be trying to hold on to market share. They appear to be very aggressive with DS so far and I hope they continue this stance and bring it to Revolution as well. I hate to have to choose between MS and Sony for my gaming needs.
Darc Requiem
Post by: JeffTheMasta on October 31, 2004, 10:39:40 AM
I'd just like to say that anyone who read the article should know that it was a piece written and edited solely by me. IGN had no role in the creation of the piece, nor does it have any controlling stake in the actions of my site, N-Sider.com. The only reason it appeared on IGN is through a partnership IGN has with us, which is described at the top of every page in the article.
For those of you who seem intent on pinning it as yet another example of IGN's hatred of Nintendo or something along those lines, perhaps you should read into things a bit more. "Playing it Safe" was not even going to be in the top spot this weekend. The only reason it was is because another article was delayed or didn't pan out as planned. And if you think that I or N-Sider are somehow Nintendo haters then obviously you didn't really read through my article (or read through it after already making up your mind about it). There is an editorial going up on N-Sider this week alone that is practically a counter editorial to the one I wrote and we have a great many writers with diverse opinions on Nintendo.
I guess that's all I have to say about that for now. I thank anyone who read the article without a bias. Thanks.
Post by: nemo_83 on October 31, 2004, 11:41:15 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Darc Requiem
Hmmm I'm a huge Nintendo fan but this "they are last but they are still making profits argument" is getting old and its highly shortsighted. Nintendo makes a butt load of money of their software sales. As their marketshare shrinks they have fewer customers to sell their software to. If Nintendo continues on its current path they will go out of business. That stated, the DS gives me a renewed confidence in Nintendo. They seem to finally get it when it comes to marketing and the redesign of the DS. When similar concerns where raised about the look of the Gamecube, Nintendo turned a blind eye to an obvious error. I mean Nintendo did a lot of things with GC that we all knew were mistakes. I mean hindsight is 20/20 but the color of the GC, lack of buttons on the GC controller, and pathetic memory card size where obvious errors that required no hindsight.
I don't understand the view of "but hey they are still making a profit." Yes its the silver lining to darc cloud of Nintendo's situation but that doens't make the situation okay. Look at the software sales of Nintendo's top titles. Now imagine what they'd be if GC's sales were just double what they are now world wide. When you makes the worlds best titles and can't even post 2nd place in world wides sales, It shows that Nintendo as company is failing inspite of its quality software. Don't even get me started on its stance on on-line gaming. Oh and I'm not going to say what you think. I don't care if Nintendo makes on-line games themselves but that doesn't mean you should inhibit 3rd parties from making on-line games if desire too. I mean remember how Sega wanted PSO to be a launch title for GC? Well Nintendo dragged there asses on deliver the necessary tools for online software development so it put Sega behind. Oh it doesn't end there though. In addition to that, Nintendo dragged there feet on making modem and broadband adapters available. Now I sure other 3rd party developers saw this...I mean Sega pratically had to beg and plead with Nintendo. Thats not good and thats why we don't have on-line titles for GC.
Nintendo was a very aggressive company during they're rise. During they decline they became conservative....instead of trying to gain market share they seemed to be trying to hold on to market share. They appear to be very aggressive with DS so far and I hope they continue this stance and bring it to Revolution as well. I hate to have to choose between MS and Sony for my gaming needs.
Darc Requiem
Youre entirely right.
It is never a good sign entering a new generation of consoles and handhelds with half of your fanbase (not even including what the rest of the industry thinks) believes your company is on the wrong track, a track that ends over a gulch. Nintendo is only around today because of their fanbase. Not really the quality of the games. The same quality is present and even funner in many old Nintendo games already owned by many in the fanbase. I play my old 2d Nintendo games more than the new ones. Why? Because despite the level of quality of their new games compared to the rest of the present market, they are still the same games I've played on three other consoles many times. Or the games have simply changed from what they used to be about, like Mario Minus the Bros. Scavenger Hunt Sunshine. I remember in the eighties when this bad ass company came out of nowhere and redefined my childhood with original games like Mario Bros, Zelda, Metroid, Kid Iccarus, Punch Out, and others. It is a fact that as Nintendo has cemented its reliance soley upon their franchises they have lost market share every year. Do they think that they can rely on their old NES and SNES carts to break down so we have to buy them again rehashed on future consoles? Why can't Nintendo make something new????????
Nintendo is only still around because their fans have been suffering from denial. There are five stages of grief, they're not always faced in order, but they must be faced. It is not the fault of gamers that Nintendo is failing. Their failures cannot be explained away by their fans being cheap or high brow (Nintendo only gamers). Also it is denial that has pushed Nintendo to where it is, not listening to gamers. There is a line that Nintendo must not cross, it is a line that once passed, they cannot return. I hope they have not crossed that line. We will have to wait and see how things look in a year to find out if they have crossed the line and alienated too many customers. Or if they are able to regain the market from Sony with a real Revolution.
Post by: Infernal Monkey on October 31, 2004, 12:03:37 PM
Four pages to tell us this. Again.
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on October 31, 2004, 12:04:04 PM
Post by: BigJim on October 31, 2004, 12:14:08 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Darc Requiem
I don't understand the view of "but hey they are still making a profit." Yes its the silver lining to darc cloud of Nintendo's situation but that doens't make the situation okay. Look at the software sales of Nintendo's top titles. Now imagine what they'd be if GC's sales were just double what they are now world wide. When you makes the worlds best titles and can't even post 2nd place in world wides sales, It shows that Nintendo as company is failing inspite of its quality software.
It isn't just that Nintendo is still profitable. They are the *most* profitable as well. Even with all of Sony's tens of millions of Playstations sold, they are moving a lot more money around, but the bottom like is still not as strong as Nintendo's. Popularity is important, but profitability is what keeps a company alive. As "minimized" as Nintendo appears in the marketplace, of course there is room for a lot of improvement, but it's also hard to argue with success.
My feeling about them is, "OK, they've done good. Now do great."
I for one have been quite energized by Nintendo since E3. The DS has momentum. Zelda will likely sell a good load of new consoles in the system's late cycle, and if the DS is any hint at Revolution, I think they will have a system much more competitive than GameCube. I'm just one person, but I've been pretty hard to impress lately. I think the sleeping giant is waking up.
If anybody expects Nintendo to suddenly be a Sony ass-kicker tomorrow, they're going to be disappointed. There's simply not much point in trying to be so aggressive this late in GameCube's life. At this point it is all about the people looking for cheap fun. There's less profit to be had going forward than there was the last 3 years.
I think the "new" Nintendo is showing itself in the DS. They are going to try to fend off the PSP to the death to keep their monopoly. They also appear to be working on some aggressive plans for Revolution. It's certainly going to be pretty close in spec to Xbox2, and it will have a hell of a much more timely launch. The only question to me, really, is 3rd party support. They've been given general guidelines, but there probably won't be actual dev kits distributed to them until next year.
Post by: BiLdItUp1 on October 31, 2004, 12:48:49 PM
's who. Because gamers don't want hi-def, why don't we just yank it out, so we make another couple of bucks? Why don't we make higher licensing fees, even though our discs have a sixth capacity of our competitors? Why don't we skimp on DVD playback and all those other needless features our competitors are trumpeting? Why don't we keep touting our profitablity as a cover for being third in the most important game market in the world, and mask the fact that that profitability comes its Game Boy monopoly, which is about to be assaulted!
I didn't need to rant like that(I don't really care about most of what I just wrote about)I wonder- without the Game Boy division, would the last couple of years profits been losses? Until we know, we should stop letting Nintendo use its profitability to shield not-so-great sales and its go-it-alone attitude. Eventually, profits'll wither away if there aren't enough sales to begin with....
I do believe that Nintendo is getting better in will soon realize what they have to do to make an effective comeback.
Post by: Artimus on October 31, 2004, 04:08:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: JeffTheMasta
Hello, I am the author of the article in question.
I'd just like to say that anyone who read the article should know that it was a piece written and edited solely by me. IGN had no role in the creation of the piece, nor does it have any controlling stake in the actions of my site, N-Sider.com. The only reason it appeared on IGN is through a partnership IGN has with us, which is described at the top of every page in the article.
For those of you who seem intent on pinning it as yet another example of IGN's hatred of Nintendo or something along those lines, perhaps you should read into things a bit more. "Playing it Safe" was not even going to be in the top spot this weekend. The only reason it was is because another article was delayed or didn't pan out as planned. And if you think that I or N-Sider are somehow Nintendo haters then obviously you didn't really read through my article (or read through it after already making up your mind about it). There is an editorial going up on N-Sider this week alone that is practically a counter editorial to the one I wrote and we have a great many writers with diverse opinions on Nintendo.
I guess that's all I have to say about that for now. I thank anyone who read the article without a bias. Thanks.
Don't worry about them. They just don't want to face it. I used to be like that too, I was a die-hard fanboy, my people could do no wrong. But now I've faced facts. Good editorial.
Post by: PaLaDiN on October 31, 2004, 04:35:38 PM
Maybe it's not so much that we don't want to face it as it's we don't work for the company.
Whine and bitch all you want. The fact of the matter is that I'll be enjoying my games and you'll be bitching.
Post by: Infernal Monkey on October 31, 2004, 06:29:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
Don't worry about them. They just don't want to face it.
Yeah, I can't handle the fact that thousands of people I don't know or care about missed out on playing Wind Waker because they thought it would make them homosexual or something. "DUDE, IT'S GOT CARTOON GRAPHICS! A VIDEO GAME WITH CARTOON GRAPHICS, EEEEK MY LUST FOR WOMEN, FAILING" or that Acclaim did not care about the GameCube. We missed out on quality Acclaim goodness.
I must go commit suicide over these hard hitting deadly boring facts we were all aware of two years ago.
Post by: KDR_11k on October 31, 2004, 08:28:14 PM
Anyway, it's currently a slow phase in the home console market, all decisions have been made, the outcome is clear and everybody is waiting for this phase to end so they can reap big profits again without alienating people with an early release. The DS is where the battles will be fought next year and Nintendo seems pretty aggressive on that front.
Post by: Artimus on November 01, 2004, 01:24:55 AM
Personally I want to play Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, Grand Theft Auto, etc. but can just afford one system...
Post by: couchmonkey on November 01, 2004, 05:35:34 AM
I disagree somewhat with the second part, but I do agree with the first part. There are FIVE FRICKING MARIO GAMES this Christmas. Why? Paper Mario is awesome, but there's not a lot of reason for Mario Pinball Land, Mario Power Tennis, Mario Party 6, or even Super Mario 64 DS to exist. At E3 Nintendo showed us two Metroid games, three Zelda games, four Donkey Kong games, and around eight Mario games. I think it's well worth asking if some of these games might be better if Nintendo let it's developers try something new.
I disagree with quite a few of the article's points about why Nintendo is doing poorly in this generation. I don't think Nintendo will magically fix its problems by making more brand-new games instead of relying on franchises.
I'm as tired of the self-hating attitude of a lot of Nintendo sites as everyone else, but I think the guy has a good point about Nintendo's extreme reliance on it's franchises. The Pikmin games are (for me) the most exciting games Nintendo has made this generation. They're exciting because they're new. While I don't know if that's the key to making Nintendo more popular, I do think more brand-new games and fewer franchise spin-offs would be a dream come true.
Post by: PaLaDiN on November 01, 2004, 07:05:33 AM
Then buy a PS2 only. Nobody's stopping you.
Seriously, dude, the only reason to care about GC sales is third-party support. If you want third-party that bad, buy the console that has the most of it.
Nintendo consoles should come with a warning like, "Do not expect anything other than Nintendo games." Maybe then the bitching would stop.
And I did read the article. I disagree with it because I like Mario, Zelda and Metroid... they're the reason I bought the GC in the first place, and I doubt I'm the only one. As long as the quality is consistent I'm happy with what they're doing.
Besides, Animal Crossing, Wario Ware and Pikmin are new franchises. I think Nintendo making 2 or 3 new franchises per generation is pretty good, as long as they build upon them in future generations and let them grow into something big, like Smash Brothers from the N64 generation.
Post by: Artimus on November 01, 2004, 08:01:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: PaLaDiN
"Personally I want to play Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, Grand Theft Auto, etc. but can just afford one system..."
Then buy a PS2 only. Nobody's stopping you.
Seriously, dude, the only reason to care about GC sales is third-party support. If you want third-party that bad, buy the console that has the most of it.
Nintendo consoles should come with a warning like, "Do not expect anything other than Nintendo games." Maybe then the bitching would stop.
And I did read the article. I disagree with it because I like Mario, Zelda and Metroid... they're the reason I bought the GC in the first place, and I doubt I'm the only one. As long as the quality is consistent I'm happy with what they're doing.
Besides, Animal Crossing, Wario Ware and Pikmin are new franchises. I think Nintendo making 2 or 3 new franchises per generation is pretty good, as long as they build upon them in future generations and let them grow into something big, like Smash Brothers from the N64 generation.
Um...what part of 'can just afford one system' didn't you understand? I CANNOT AFFORD A PS2 AND XBOX. And your argument is idiotic. If Nintendo is going to waste money jsut so people can only play THEIR games, why bother? And why the heck shouldn't I want third party games? XBOX gets MGS, XBOX gets GTA. Why not Nintendo? Why wouldn't you want Nintendo aggresively court third party games and actually make their system something that people want? Then they get more money to make more games. You're acting like I'm saying Nintendo should never make another Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc. I'd never say that. But they're acting like stuck-up children.
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 01, 2004, 08:07:37 AM
Post by: PaLaDiN on November 01, 2004, 09:52:53 AM
I thought my argument was clear enough. If you can just afford one system and you like third-party support so much, why did you choose GC instead of PS2 or Xbox?
"And your argument is idiotic. If Nintendo is going to waste money jsut so people can only play THEIR games, why bother?"
Because people want to play their games? I know I do, for one.
"And why the heck shouldn't I want third party games? XBOX gets MGS, XBOX gets GTA. Why not Nintendo? Why wouldn't you want Nintendo aggresively court third party games and actually make their system something that people want?"
What the hell? The Gamecube is something that people want. I don't care how many people want it, as long as it has Nintendo games on it at least some people will want it, and I'll be one of them.
"Then they get more money to make more games. You're acting like I'm saying Nintendo should never make another Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc. I'd never say that. But they're acting like stuck-up children."
No, I'm acting like you're saying that Nintendo is making too many Mario, Zelda and Metroid games. Isn't that the point of the article, which you agreed with? I disagree. I can never have enough of those games, and I don't want Nintendo to make less of them so whiny little kids can have all their games on one system. The world doesn't work that way. There are always tradeoffs.
Next generation, you should really reconsider if you want Nintendo games badly enough to warrant purchasing a console just for them. That's all it comes down to.
Post by: Perfect Cell on November 01, 2004, 10:37:54 AM
After 2002. Nintendo promised us new franchises... E3 2003 would be all about New Franchises ? yeah right...
Pikmin, thats it.
Nintendo needs to get its junk in gear today.
Post by: The Omen on November 01, 2004, 01:19:44 PM
Quote
Next generation, you should really reconsider if you want Nintendo games badly enough to warrant purchasing a console just for them. That's all it comes down to.
The sad part is, a lot of peole are going to decide against buying the Rev if something doesn't change. They need to hype the Rev from e3 with commercial after commercial and game announcements for the launch. Thats about the only way to gain some of these people back, including me.
Post by: Hostile Creation on November 01, 2004, 01:23:15 PM
Quote
After 2002. Nintendo promised us new franchises... E3 2003 would be all about New Franchises ? yeah right...
And WarioWare. And Animal Crossing. It didn't say a million franchises. I think three is pretty good. Besides, second party games like Geist and Eternal Darkness came out (or are coming out), no?
Nor is it like Xbox and PS2 have a huge variety of great new franchises, either. Splinter Cell 12, everybody, within two years of the original being released. We're on the fifth GTA game. The cleverly titled Driv3r? And at least Nintendo adds something new to their old franchises (new graphics for Zelda, bongos for DK, FP for Metroid, microphone for the upcoming Mario Party 6, etc.), whereas most other games offer little or no improvement upon the older games, updated graphics and a few ignorable details aside. GTA3 was a step up, albeit an obvious one, but why bother getting Vice City or GTA3 if you can get San Andreas? No reason whatsoever. But I would still get Pikmin 1 and Pikmin 2 if I could afford both of them.
Post by: Savior on November 01, 2004, 01:26:07 PM
Post by: Hostile Creation on November 01, 2004, 01:35:23 PM
Still: WarioWare, Pikmin, Eternal Darkness, Geist, and whatever other games I couldn't think of offhand are hardly a lack of new franchises, and it's no less than most other gaming companies have put out this generation.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 01, 2004, 01:43:32 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 01, 2004, 02:35:42 PM
I don't give a flying **** for new franchises, I want new ways to play games...(DS, hello?)
Post by: Savior on November 01, 2004, 02:39:31 PM
Thats the basis for IGNs rant, and by god, they might be on to something
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 01, 2004, 02:55:18 PM
Post by: Savior on November 01, 2004, 03:58:46 PM
I dont see whats the problem Bill. Do you disagree with IGN? Do you belive their editorial is some sort of senseless Nintendo bashing?
What they are saying makes sense... Nintendo needs to stop depending on their old franchises to sell games......
Quote
(Iwata)We thought that for our second year (2002)with Nintendo GameCube and Game Boy Advancethat it was really important to focus on our strengths And that's why we see this really historical presence of Nintendo franchises at this year's show. And I think that it'd be difficult to repeat in the future. We've never seen a lineup like this. But at the same time it's extremely important for us to continue to put out new products and new ideas and new franchises Because, if we don't, there's really no future for us. And so that's going to be our main focus going forward.
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 01, 2004, 04:13:54 PM
Considering that all CubeIGN does, yes...
"What they are saying makes sense... Nintendo needs to stop depending on their old franchises to sell games..."
It doesn't! Nothing is ultimately gained from creating a new franchise...I will repeat, I will continue to support the use of old mascots in new games as long as they stay fresh and unique...While something like Mario Party may not fit in that category, a game like Donkey Kong Jungle Beat certainly does...
And please, IGN completely contradicted themselves considering just a few days ago they put up an article on how cool a ZELDA FIGHTER would be...
Post by: Savior on November 01, 2004, 04:20:09 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 01, 2004, 04:41:39 PM
Post by: Infernal Monkey on November 01, 2004, 04:50:52 PM
"Hey everyone, here's Stinky the Moo Cow! Stinky can shoot milk at enemies"
"What's this crap?"
*Bails out*
Post by: Savior on November 01, 2004, 04:58:28 PM
Post by: Infernal Monkey on November 01, 2004, 05:04:49 PM
"SO DID YOU SEE LINK IN SCII? LOL THAT WAS SUCH A PATHETIC MOVE! I AM A SINGLE OPINION!"
Post by: Mario on November 01, 2004, 05:09:03 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 01, 2004, 05:11:52 PM
And I am STILL waiting for evidence that new franchises are needed...What is wrong with making a completely new game idea and giving it an extra push with a known mascot? Does that deter from the game in any way? That really depends on what kind of game it is, but for games like Mario Tennis and Donkey Kong Jungle Beat it works and adds a charm that just wouldn't be there without them...Without the Mario franchise, Mario Tennis would be what? Magical New Franchise Tennis? Why? It doesn't make any sense...There's no change in the game itself so why is it absolutely NECESSARY for new characters to be made only to then fall victim to obscurity due to lack of consumer recognition? The only reason is because CubeIGN is a bunch of ignorant casual gamers that don't really care about Ninty's franchises in the first place...They want more "mature" games that would need new characters...They want Nintendo to change what they are...And I don't care for that at all...I'm happy with the way Ninty is thank you very much...
Post by: Savior on November 01, 2004, 05:32:22 PM
Quote
They want Nintendo to change what they are..
Quote
It is obvious that Nintendo needs to knock on a few new doors. Its core franchises will always be important, but cannot be solely relied upon to reach out to new audiences. Nintendo needs to start developing new franchises for a new generation.
Yeah Sounds like the guy who wrote the article hates Nintendo
Quote
Nintendo has been working together with 3rd party developers much more than they probably ever have before
Something yo yourself like to point out Bill...
Quote
If Nintendo doesn't start taking serious steps to attract fans of all genres, it is going to find itself fighting a continual uphill battle in the years to come.
.
Also very true. Just compare the SNES with the Gamecube... The SNES had Fighting Games, Sports Games, RPGS, Multiple plataformers ect .... the Gamecube doesnt have enough of many genres. Fighting games for example.
Must be lies right? I coudl go on an on...
Post by: Hostile Creation on November 01, 2004, 05:38:10 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 01, 2004, 05:42:22 PM
"Yeah Sounds like the guy who wrote the article hates Nintendo"
I would have thought my extreme sarcasm would have been detected, but whatever...It IS obvious that IGN marks down Cube game scores because of silly things like "lack of skins in Mario Kart" and "lack of voiceacting in Paper Mario 2" which are hints of CubeIGN being incredibly ridiculous in terms of their nitpickiness...They also have a bad habit of talking about how good a game is in a preview and/or review and then giving it a mediocre score...Very unprofessional...
"Nintendo has been working together with 3rd party developers much more than they probably ever have before"
Um, this is fact...You really can't change fact around unless you outright lie... <_<
Where did I say I didn't agree with every little fact in the editorial? As a WHOLE the editorial talks about Ninty's lack of innovation and new franchises which is hilarious in its own right...I do not agree with the main gist of the editorial that is making new franchises based on what the consumer wants, because the average consumer doesn't know jackshit about what makes a good game...And yes, Ninty IS and will continue to fight a hard battle against casual gamers, but I know there are others like me that will continue to support Ninty and their "kid-friendly" games as long as they continue to give them to us...
Post by: Darc Requiem on November 01, 2004, 06:25:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJimQuote
Originally posted by: Darc Requiem
I don't understand the view of "but hey they are still making a profit." Yes its the silver lining to darc cloud of Nintendo's situation but that doens't make the situation okay. Look at the software sales of Nintendo's top titles. Now imagine what they'd be if GC's sales were just double what they are now world wide. When you makes the worlds best titles and can't even post 2nd place in world wides sales, It shows that Nintendo as company is failing inspite of its quality software.
It isn't just that Nintendo is still profitable. They are the *most* profitable as well. Even with all of Sony's tens of millions of Playstations sold, they are moving a lot more money around, but the bottom like is still not as strong as Nintendo's. Popularity is important, but profitability is what keeps a company alive. As "minimized" as Nintendo appears in the marketplace, of course there is room for a lot of improvement, but it's also hard to argue with success.
My feeling about them is, "OK, they've done good. Now do great."
I for one have been quite energized by Nintendo since E3. The DS has momentum. Zelda will likely sell a good load of new consoles in the system's late cycle, and if the DS is any hint at Revolution, I think they will have a system much more competitive than GameCube. I'm just one person, but I've been pretty hard to impress lately. I think the sleeping giant is waking up.
If anybody expects Nintendo to suddenly be a Sony ass-kicker tomorrow, they're going to be disappointed. There's simply not much point in trying to be so aggressive this late in GameCube's life. At this point it is all about the people looking for cheap fun. There's less profit to be had going forward than there was the last 3 years.
I think the "new" Nintendo is showing itself in the DS. They are going to try to fend off the PSP to the death to keep their monopoly. They also appear to be working on some aggressive plans for Revolution. It's certainly going to be pretty close in spec to Xbox2, and it will have a hell of a much more timely launch. The only question to me, really, is 3rd party support. They've been given general guidelines, but there probably won't be actual dev kits distributed to them until next year.
Yes but their userbase has been shrinking with each generation. Which means they sell less games, which mean they make less money. Do you think EA would sell more games than Nintendo if the GC userbase was comparable to the PS2? Most likely not. If they continue to let the userbase for their consoles decline they will eventually not be able to make a profit.
Darc Requiem
Post by: Savior on November 01, 2004, 06:56:47 PM
Quote
And still my question hasn't been answered...
How hard is it to understand? With new Franchises, you atract new gamers, not the Mario or Zelda fans like myself.
Quote
Ninty's lack of innovation and new franchise
Well its true. Pikmin and Warioware...
and even Wario Ware is getting Milked, Wario Ware GC, Wario Ware DS, Wario Ware GBA 2... ect.
thats the problem.
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 01, 2004, 07:18:51 PM
The kinds of games CubeIGN is wishing for are games that Ninty doesn't do...Say Ninty stays with their "kid-friendly" philosophy...How can a new franchise make a difference? It can't, because it's still the same game, just with different characters...The kind of game that would benefit from new characters the most would be a game that deviates from the "Ninty-norm," and I don't see an inhouse game of that sort ever...
"and even Wario Ware is getting Milked, Wario Ware GC, Wario Ware DS, Wario Ware GBA 2... ect. "
What!? Hello! Each game is different except for WWGC...Wario Ware 2 uses a motion device and Wario Ware DS uses a stylus...COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MECHANISMS HERE...
"Ninty's lack of innovation and new franchise"
PLEASE STOP REPEATING YOURSELF, I'm sick of saying the same thing over and over...And apparently, Donkey Kong Jungle Beat lacks innovation...The DS lacks innovation...Four Swords Adventure lacks innovation...OH WAIT...The fact that the editorial seems to take "innovation" and "new franchise" to be the same thing is hilarious...
Post by: Mario on November 01, 2004, 07:24:55 PM
Post by: Urkel on November 01, 2004, 08:29:36 PM
I want these games to exist. Warioware DS is going to play unlike any other game before. The fact that it happens to share the same title with a couple of GBA games does not make it any less fresh.
Sorry, I'm just a really huge Warioware fan. The next person that complains about there being too many WW games will answer to
Post by: PZ on November 02, 2004, 04:20:40 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 02, 2004, 04:35:52 AM
Thanks for reading just the last post and assuming everything else was just fluff...FOR THE LAST TIME: Sure you could stick new characters on a game, BUT IS IT NECESSARY? Does it change the game? Does it change the way it plays? It doesn't, not one bit! The only REAL reason to add new characters is if the current mascot list Ninty has would not fit it the style of the game they are making(which isn't going to happen)...Your example with Wario Ware: Would changing the characters do anything to the game? IT WOULDN'T CHANGE THE GAME, it would just be without Wario...In fact, the idea that Wario is in the game only attracts more gamers that are familiar with the mascot(Noone dismisses a game because it says Mario on it...They do so because they are opposed to its "kiddy looks" Changing the characters wouldn't do anything since the game would still look "kiddy")...So why would you sacrifice sales just to add new characters to a game that wouldn't change it? IT MAKES NO SENSE...PERIOD...
Post by: DrZoidberg on November 02, 2004, 04:38:23 AM
Post by: Mario on November 02, 2004, 04:44:23 AM
Post by: PZ on November 02, 2004, 05:02:03 AM
Post by: odifiend on November 02, 2004, 05:14:12 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
And I am STILL waiting for evidence that new franchises are needed...What is wrong with making a completely new game idea and giving it an extra push with a known mascot? Does that deter from the game in any way? That really depends on what kind of game it is, but for games like Mario Tennis and Donkey Kong Jungle Beat it works and adds a charm that just wouldn't be there without them...Without the Mario franchise, Mario Tennis would be what? Magical New Franchise Tennis? Why? It doesn't make any sense...There's no change in the game itself so why is it absolutely NECESSARY for new characters to be made only to then fall victim to obscurity due to lack of consumer recognition? The only reason is because CubeIGN is a bunch of ignorant casual gamers that don't really care about Ninty's franchises in the first place...They want more "mature" games that would need new characters...They want Nintendo to change what they are...And I don't care for that at all...I'm happy with the way Ninty is thank you very much...
More franchise are needed for more playable characters in Super Smash Bros. 3
. Seriously though, Nintendo has entered the point of no return and is trapped in a vicious cycle of sorts. As somebody was saying, if they don't use their mascots the game won't do well, but if they do many are starting to dismiss the games. Mario Tennis was a bad example, Bill, and you know it. A game like Zelda: Four Swords, however, is in essence a mix of cooperative and competitive play. The game is fun and new and it would have been an opportunity to create new characters because it was justifiably different from its root franchise. The same could be said for Donkey Konga. I personally do have a problem with giving an idea an extra push with a known mascot. It is kind of a cheap ploy and it is a crutch that Nintendo has been using frequently as of late that gets less effective every time. They adapt an original idea to fit into a preconceived world which in many cases wouldn't be necessary if Nintendo had the ability to market.
As for charm being absent, I think your standards for Nintendo must have fallen to think there can only be charm in a game only if you are familiar with the characters. Honestly as a gamer you are not gaining any personality at all if a Nintendo mascot is in the game. In the Mario universe, dialogue is kept to one liners and exclamations, and in Hyrule and on Zebes your main character doesn't talk. Nintendo could make a new mascot that speaks and is not confined to short, Terets-like outbursts. That alone would be a different experience (well from Nintendo anyway).
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 02, 2004, 05:19:17 AM
We aren't talking a different style game...We are talking about replacing the known characters in a Ninty game with new ones...
"By using brand new characters, maybe some people who arent Nintendo fans would have given it more of a chance."
There's no evidence to support this...People who don't buy Nintendo games don't buy them for a "reason" and that reason is that the games are "too kiddy." As I have already stated, adding in new characters won't change the game...The only way a new round of characters would be justified is if Ninty made a game that would actually NEED new characters(an M game, for example) and I don't see Ninty making a game like that...Perhaps a 2nd party, but not in-house...
Post by: odifiend on November 02, 2004, 05:50:53 AM
Actually the reason is probably that they don't own a gamecube. Jak & Daxter and Sly Cooper were 'kiddy' as well.
"The only way a new round of characters would be justified is if Ninty made a game that would actually NEED new characters(an M game, for example) and I don't see Ninty making a game like that...Perhaps a 2nd party, but not in-house... "
How about an original story as a reason? Nintendo has never made a mature first party game, you are right. But yet they still have quite a few franchises. I guess it is good that in the past they didn't wait until they NEEDED new characters to make new characters, eh?
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 02, 2004, 06:37:42 AM
Sony did everything they could to make them as "cool" as possible...*points at J&D2* =P
"How about an original story as a reason?"
Stories don't change games, sorry...I am talking on a purely gameplay basis, since we play games, not read/watch games, right? RIGHT? *looks over at Squenix*
"I guess it is good that in the past they didn't wait until they NEEDED new characters to make new characters, eh?"
Whoa, HARDLY a fair comparison...Nintendo needed to make franchises because they didn't have many...Say you have an empty room, and start filling it up with furniture...As you add more and more you begin to add less and less as you begin to run out of space...There IS a limit to how much furniture you can put in that room just as there is a limit to how many franchises you want to support...
Post by: MaleficentOgre on November 02, 2004, 07:20:18 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Hostile Creation
Seems to me the Gamecube has plenty of fighting games. Bloody Roar, Soul Calibur 2, not to mention SSBM which kicks both their asses (standard fighting game or not; if you bitch about needing new franchises and turn around to say it's not a fighting game, your opinion drops to zero validity). Those are the ones I have played, which is a lot, considering I do not enjoy fighting games and seldom play them. Only fighter I played for N64 was Clayfighter. SNES was Killer Instinct and Mortal Kombat. Oh wait Gamecube has Mortal Kombat, too. Really, how many fighting games do you need? It's got enough in that genre to satisfy someone who likes those games. I've never met anyone who owned more than two or three fighting games, nor anyone who bought fighting games exclusively.
No its not. I enjoy fighting games and cube has crap. It also has no racing games, no sports games, and no rpgs. Lets play a game. Ready, its called lets name all the fighting games worth playing cube doesn't have. Lets start. Guilty Gear #2 reloaded, Marvel vs Capcom 2, Street Fighter Anniversary Collection, Capcom Fighting Jam, Guilty Gear Isuka, MK deception (the port won't include the only reason to buy the game), SVC Chaos. And you come with this bloody roar crap. Give me a break. You can do the same thing with racing games, sports titles and RPGs and RPGs. And for those of you that keep pissing on EA, know that without them the cube would fall even lower into obscurity than it already is. EA is the only company bringing sports games to cube. Hell, without them, ubisoft, and namco the gamecube wouldn't exist right now.
Post by: Savior on November 02, 2004, 07:43:18 AM
LOL Whatever...
Just look at Nintendos Market Share. It slips each year. The Xbox is smoking Sony now. You dont think Nintendo could?
Im not satisfied with Nintendo as a distant third place. I want Nintendo up Front. Thats the Difference.
Making Mario Pinball, and Mario Party 112, and Pokemon Pinball and Pokemon TV, and Pokemon Race are not new ways to play games, or new franchises.
Nintendo is stagnant, the DS seems like it might finally kick things up a notch, but like the article says, only Segas game seems new and fresh.
Whens the last time Miyamoto delivered a hit after Pikmin? Im waiting for Buzz, and for the Dog game and the other promises that Nintendo has given us... Im wating for a new Nintendo.
Nintendo could certainly learn from its competitors. You dont have to make GTA Mario, just to sell games.
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 02, 2004, 07:56:44 AM
It only looks that way because the Playstation 2 has hit market saturation...
"Nintendo is stagnant, the DS seems like it might finally kick things up a notch, but like the article says, only Segas game seems new and fresh. "
Oh, and Kirby Magical Paintbrush, Another, Yoshi Touch 'N Go, Nintendogs, etc aren't? I get it now...
"Whens the last time Miyamoto delivered a hit after Pikmin?"
Wind Waker
"Nintendo could certainly learn from its competitors. You dont have to make GTA Mario, just to sell games. "
Just guns and lots of blood...
Post by: Hostile Creation on November 02, 2004, 08:00:01 AM
Quote
No its not. I enjoy fighting games and cube has crap. It also has no racing games, no sports games, and no rpgs. Lets play a game. Ready, its called lets name all the fighting games worth playing cube doesn't have. Lets start. Guilty Gear #2 reloaded, Marvel vs Capcom 2, Street Fighter Anniversary Collection, Capcom Fighting Jam, Guilty Gear Isuka, MK deception (the port won't include the only reason to buy the game), SVC Chaos. And you come with this bloody roar crap. Give me a break. You can do the same thing with racing games, sports titles and RPGs and RPGs. And for those of you that keep pissing on EA, know that without them the cube would fall even lower into obscurity than it already is. EA is the only company bringing sports games to cube. Hell, without them, ubisoft, and namco the gamecube wouldn't exist right now.
Pff, give me a break. I made it pretty damn clear I don't like fighting games and know little about them. I'd listed the ones I'd played or knew of.
By the way, racing games, sports games, and rpgs are not fighting games. Why bring those into the equation? I own three racing games and I don't even play racing games, but OH WAIT THEY ARE NOT THE COOL CAR I lose.
RPGs? I don't play those either, but I'll still be getting Paper Mario 2. Yeah, the Gamecube does lack many RPGs.
Sports games are also uncommon, but you have one good basketball game and you have them all. If you buy two basketball games, you're just retarded.
The Gamecube would exist. I'm sure all the people who bought their Gamecubes bought them for EA sports and not Nintendo games. Psh, please. The Gamecube would be doing just as well as it is now, or very nearly so.
Post by: odifiend on November 02, 2004, 08:02:25 AM
You were originally saying that only a mature game would justify Nintendo creating new characters. I say that story and atmosphere along with it should also be a reason. I disagree, the story of a game can have an effect on the gamer's expericence and therefore can change the game. Gameplay does come first, but a story can really complement its game.
The furniture analogy could further be extended... "That piece of furniture we've had in here since 1981, why don't we give it a rest and stop sitting on it for a while?" The article's point is a dependence on the same characters to the point where we are seeing original games and ideas adapted for these same characters. I really don't see a need for this. What really irks me is that it doesn't have to be so blatant. If you're going to adapt a game for a franchise, why not use a less used franchise? I am a huge fan of revivals (which really is sort of hypocritical but i like what i like
). And who says Nintendo has to continue supporting a story with new characters? It is sad that is definition of the industry now. Games must have sequels whether it is waranted or not.
Post by: KDR_11k on November 02, 2004, 08:32:42 AM
Bill: So if someone would make a game where you run from room to room killing zombies and solving the occasional easy puzzle without any form of story you'd hold that as high as Eternal Darkness? Story creates emotion and emotion is a part of the gaming experience. Take Ico. I don't believe that game got all of its praise for innovative gameplay, it's praised for the experience it delivers. Realize it, themes and stories have a tangible effect on how a game is perceived and with entertainment perception is reality.
Creating a new franchise means discovering new things. Discovery is fun. I'm one of those people addicted to absorbing information (yes, seriously, you can get addicted to the substances released when you learn something). Reliving an experience is nice once in a while but without new material it becomes less fun.
Also, you shouldn't act solely out of necessity. Nintendo doesn't HAVE to create franchises, hell, they could use stickmen as their characters, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't do it nonetheless. Acting upon necessity makes you only take the minimum effort required and that's what Nintendo is often blamed for: They make a memory card, sure, but it's only 59 blocks. But hey, it's a memcard, right? You can save stuff on it so it's enough, right? They put their old NES games on GBA carts and they sell, why do anything more than the bare minimum? Hell, they gave third parties the option to make online multiplayer games, right?
Sometimes the bare minimum isn't enough. Well, "sometimes" is an understatement.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 02, 2004, 09:11:09 AM
Games like Mario Party 5 are the problem. They're redundant games. They're sheer product and have no artistic reason to exist because they don't do anything that hasn't been done before. The original Mario Party was an innovative title and created a sub-genre of sorts. Putting Mario characters in that game was a good idea because a lot of the charm of the title were all the Mario themes. Releasing a Mario Party title each year with no real changes or improvements was bad.
And no using original characters instead of Mario doesn't make it okay. Camelot shouldn't have used new characters in Mario Power Tennis. They shouldn't have made the game period because Mario Tennis for the N64 nailed it perfectly and thus the sequel is redundant. Camelot should have used the time and effort to make something completely different. What's the more relevent title: Mario Power Tennis, Generic Character's Tennis game, or completely original Camelot game?
Warioware is good because it's new. Warioware for the Gamecube isn't because it's a glorified port. The new Wariowares for the DS and GBA are good because they're doing something different, they're doing what the Mario Party games should have been doing this whole time.
Nintendo's legacy is built around innovation and quality. That's why I became a Nintendo fan. But they seem to think right now that it's based around their franchises which is false. The NES wasn't a hit because it had Mario games. It was a hit because Nintendo made games that were unlike anything else at the time. Nintendo has to stop releasing titles like Mario Pinball because they offer nothing new and rely solely on a familiar face to sell them. They have to stop releasing so many damn ports. The rule should be that every game has to have an artistic reason to exist.
There's also the problem with perception. I think Nintendo is releasing redundant rehash titles but even if they weren't they would still give the public that perception if every year five Mario games were released, even if they were all different. So aside from just making an effort to make original content they also have to space out their franchise games better. Super Mario Sunshine had a reason to exist. It was the first Mario platformer in nearly six years and it had a new water pack dynamic (which I didn't really care for but I'll give them credit for trying something new). It should have made a bigger splash than it did. The problem is that the general public couldn't tell this was a new Mario platformer because they didn't notice that none had been made for so many years because there was a least one Mario related game released each year since then.
Plus not everyone identifies with the existing franchises so they have to be more selective when deciding if a game needs a franchise attached to it or not. Some times a franchise fits really well. The Mario theme makes Paper Mario a better game. Part of the thrill of it is that it's an RPG with Mario. Star Fox Adventures however is an example of a shoehorning a franchise into a game where there's no need for it. Actually Nintendo hasn't been too bad with this as they tend to make good choices in regards to adding a franchise to something. The important thing is that it makes sense to use the franchise. A Zelda Fighter would be a poor use of the franchise.
I'd say the best thing Nintendo could do for the Revolution is to beforehand not release any Mario titles for at least a year and then make a brand new (none of the this Mario 64 DS stuff) Mario platformer for the Rev launch. And then compliment that familiar title with something completely different. Something that's completely unique that plays unlike any other Nintendo game and features unique themes and characters. Something that targets an older demographic than Mario and focuses on a genre Nintendo normally doesn't make games for. Two major launch titles both providing completely different experiences but both with the Nintendo quality of gameplay.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 02, 2004, 09:49:42 AM
Nintendo just doesn't take as many risks anymore and that's really turning them into an old fuddy duddy. I didn't become a fan of "play it safe" Nintendo. I became a fan of "pushing the envelope" Nintendo. It's rather ironic that playing it safe is in fact more dangerous to their future.
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 02, 2004, 09:54:19 AM
And since when have Nintendo-deved games been story-driven?
We are talking about Nintendo here, and taking into account their "gameplay first, story tacked on later" attitude let's think in that direction...My point was that making a new franchise doesn't really make a difference on Ninty's game philosophy..."So if someone would make a game where you run from room to room killing zombies and solving the occasional easy puzzle without any form of story you'd hold that as high as Eternal Darkness?"
In my opinion, you take away ED's story and that's what you get...It wasn't a very fun game for me...Story adds very little for me if the game isn't fun...
"Something that targets an older demographic than Mario and focuses on a genre Nintendo normally doesn't make games for"
Which will most likely be done by a 2nd-party...Don't look forward to in-house games of that sort...
Blah, I'm done ranting...Anything more I'd say would just be further repeating of my previous posts...
Post by: Ian Sane on November 02, 2004, 09:58:59 AM
That's fine. I liked it when Nintendo had 2nd parties like Rare and Silicon Knights. They had some more variety then. And what do you mean by inhouse? I don't expect EAD to make that but I wouldn't be surprised to see that sort of thing come from Retro Studios.
Plus part of my point is that we should be getting some different stuff like that from Nintendo's inhouse teams. The fact that they always make the same stuff is the problem.
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 02, 2004, 10:25:11 AM
Post by: Savior on November 02, 2004, 03:35:41 PM
Nintendo themselves are making the next Zelda more mature...
It doesnt have to have Nudity and Blood to be Mature.
Oh and I really hope Nintendo gives Retro free reign after Echoes. Let them make Raven Blade or whatever the hell they want, and not Metroid Prime Revolution
Post by: Renny on November 02, 2004, 04:23:15 PM
Anyway, the main point of the article is mostly right. Pikmin is the magical game that it is because it wasn't crafted around any preconceived theme. It still had the Nintendo feel, without having Daisy's microplane voice grating your ears.
But relying on Nintendo icons doesn't always hurt games. WarioWare wasn't harmed by its main character's legacy. He was there as a reference to Nintendo games more than anything else. I mean it bombed anyway; it's a new, ingenious idea that had no chance with the mainstream. Why not use an old character to help its sales a little and provide for some family-friendly my post is a train wreck-bashing? Mostly just saying what others have said here....
Still, Nintendo does continue to create new franchises. They're just taking small steps. They can't throw out their entire foundation over night. Here's hoping Another gets some recognition.
Post by: KDR_11k on November 02, 2004, 07:54:10 PM
Variety is good. So far pretty much all of Nintendo's games are colourful and "happy". What people are complaining about is that there's no real variety. How does the world of Mario feel to you? Which emotions can it evoke? Can any of Nintendo's games evoke fear, anger or sadness?
And keep in mind that a setting is more than a story. Mushroom Kingdom is a setting, Zebes is a setting and Hyrule is a setting. Surely you feel a difference between Mushroom Kingdom and Zebes?
Post by: Ian Sane on November 02, 2004, 08:22:49 PM
Nintendo can make a game that appeals to those that like GTA and Halo and appeals to Nintendo fans and is not an exploitive bloodfest. We know this because they did it in 1997 with Goldeneye. It's like Nintendo forgets that title existed and that it was one of their biggest hits EVER.
Post by: Caillan on November 02, 2004, 09:13:41 PM
Quote
I think for one thing "mature" would mean a story that goes beyond what you would find in a children's book.
Conventional storytelling in games tends to be very, very poor. Few games go beyond the character development and story arcs found in a standard short novel written for pre-teens. Games simply aren't (for now) a medium that lend themselves easily to such a technique. Sure, there are exceptions, such as Chrono Trigger and Majora's Mask, but even heavily story-based games can get away with telling something overly cliched in an intersting way. Take Eternal Darkness, for instance.
Smaller, less significant 'stories' propagated naturally by the setting are what videogames can express the best of any medium. Not even movies can do this as effectively as games can.
Books for children overwhelmingly focus on creating mystery. For very young children with little experience, mystery will be an element of almost any story. As the target demographic grows older and older (and I'm not talking about teenagers here, I mean kids aged 8-12), and the stories take more function and form, happiness as a theme just ceases to feature in them. If the Mushroom Kingdom invokes the emotion of happiness, what makes it less significant than Zebes evoking fear or mystery? Happiness is under-represented enough everywhere else, it should not be erased from games.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 02, 2004, 09:18:57 PM
Nintendo "can't/won't" make these games (as it seems), so they must pay someone else to do so. Yeah, Nintendo should find/pay even more of these kinds of developers.
Post by: odifiend on November 03, 2004, 01:41:15 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on November 03, 2004, 05:31:00 AM
One important thing is believability of a setting. This invokes a certain feeling, too. Having a country called Mushroom Kingdom inhabited by antropomorphous mushrooms isn't exactly believable. There are ways to make the most absurd scenarios sound believable but children's stories often fail to do so. When you're told that the Space Pirates were researching a new form of energy and stumbled upon Metroids, which they saw great potential in and their experiment went wrong that sounds a lot more believable than a talking mushroom telling you that an evil, large dragon/tortoise crossbreed stole the princess for some unknown reason. The world of Mushroom Kingdom is not consistent and they're not taking any effort to hide it. Sometimes we want to get immersed into a world* and that's just not possible when we're constantly reminded of the artificiality of the world we're seeing on the screen. Reusing plot devices is also very bad style (why does every Metroid game have to start with a distress call?), a done story is a done story, reviving a plot that was already complete can break believability. That's why movie sequels often suck (or why movies these days come with open endings), because the story was already complete and the conflict resolved, adding after completion often looks forced.
*= Yes, Bill, you don't but nobody cares about what YOU want, we're talking about normal people here
Post by: PaLaDiN on November 03, 2004, 06:06:34 AM
I don't think Metroid 1 did. Neither did Metroid Prime, if I remember... Samus was hunting down the rest of the Space Pirates.
Post by: Hostile Creation on November 03, 2004, 06:21:36 AM
Quote
(why does every Metroid game have to start with a distress call?)
Not every game has, but she is a bounty hunter, so it makes sense that she would only go to places where she was told to go.
Also, I find the Mushroom Kingdom to be pretty immersive, as a game world. It changes, sure, and they make no effort to hide that, but it's still the same place and has the same feel to it.
Besides, not including Nintendo, I can't think of a single franchise that has a consistent, immersive world. Sonic? No. Final Fantasy? No. GTA? No. Hardly any games do, so complaining about Nintendo, who so far as I can tell does it best, is rather pointless. They could improve, always room for improvement, but you're implying that someone else is better than they are, and I don't see anyone offhand.
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 03, 2004, 06:23:06 AM
Apparently Nintendo cares about what I want, considering I'm fine and dandy with the types of games they make...
Post by: Ian Sane on November 03, 2004, 06:33:27 AM
I know. Which is why it bugs me that Nintendo has made no effort to replace Rare. It's not a coincidence that Nintendo is more franchise happy on the Gamecube than they were on the heavily Rare supported N64.
"Apparently Nintendo cares about what I want, considering I'm fine and dandy with the types of games they make..."
Maybe that's part of their problem.
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 03, 2004, 06:36:49 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on November 03, 2004, 06:54:53 AM
Ideally the group to target is the on-the-fence guys, the guys who are Nintendo fans but have been losing patience with the same problems being unresolved. These are the people who love Nintendo's games but want good third party support as well and want more variety. They're the ideal target because they're like a bridge between the really hardcore fans and the more casual market. If Nintendo appeals to that group they won't lose the hardcore fans but they'll also attract some casual fans. It would allow them to keep their niche audience without being limited to a niche developer and a niche console maker.
Nintendo could release one Mario game, one Metroid game, one Pokemon game, and one Zelda game and release nothing else but completely new stuff for the Revolution and they could steal keep the really hardcore Nintendo fans. I don't want them to be that selective but they could keep the core group with just that.
Post by: Savior on November 03, 2004, 07:24:30 AM
Quote
Nintendo should find/pay even more of these kinds of developers
Problem is, when they do, they force them to use their franchises, like the Advance Wars Shooter..
but anyways, Nintendo doesnt have to outsource itself to make games that appeal to wider audiences. Prime Hunters is made In-House
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 03, 2004, 07:31:17 AM
Advance Wars: Under Fire isn't a shooter...
"Prime Hunters is made In-House"
And so is Metroid Prime 2 now...
Post by: Savior on November 03, 2004, 07:50:46 AM
and hopefully it stays that way for quite some time...
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 03, 2004, 02:38:26 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: PaLaDiN
"(why does every Metroid game have to start with a distress call?)"
I don't think Metroid 1 did. Neither did Metroid Prime, if I remember... Samus was hunting down the rest of the Space Pirates.
Metroid Prime DOES start with some kind of distress call. Samus responded to a "distress beacon," boarded Orpheon, and eventually found it it was Pirates who were in distress thanks to a MAJOR BUG PROBLEM. So Samus is like "Oh cool, i don't like these guys, so i'll kill them all." Then she got rapped up into bigger problems.
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 03, 2004, 02:45:01 PM
Post by: kennyb27 on November 03, 2004, 05:12:50 PM
I'd have to agree with Hostile, Nintendo's games involve some of the most immersive gaming universes out of any games. I'll pick up a PS2 game (like Ratchet and Clank) and I'll play it: Sure it's fun, but I don't feel any need/want to keep going. I end up playing for, say, 45-60 min and put the game back down because it doesn't interest me the way Nintendo's universes do.
And I know this point has been brought up (or at least I thought it has), but what I find really ironic is that IGN is the same site that praises and seems to fawn over games like Halo 2, GTA:SA, etc. Other games that do exactly what this article seem to point out and criticize Nintendo for. I mean, the review for GTA:SA gave it a 9.9 and called it the best PS2 game ever. Now what kind of message does that send to other developers that look to Rockstar:
"Oh, if they can develop the same game 5 times and still get raving reviews like that, let's do that then"
And then as soon as Nintendo makes an incredible game such as Paper Mario 2, then they get jumped on because they don't have enough innovation, and when they do they just use old franchise mascots? What the hell?
Sure the editorialist can pine for new games from Namco and Sega instead of co-developing Donkey Konga and F-Zero, and I respect that. But, Nintendo is certainly providing, what I consider, a good equilibrium between new gameplay and old experienced that are revitalized.
Post by: KDR_11k on November 03, 2004, 10:45:29 PM
Nintendo's franchises are a bit too old. A franchise that started three years ago is still considered fresher than one that started thirty years ago.
