Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on March 20, 2006, 09:57:22 AM
Metroid Prime Hunters and Tetris DS Begin a New Era of Competition
Nintendo's Wireless Gaming Service Sets a New Standard
REDMOND, Wash., March 20 /PRNewswire/ -- Nintendo's wireless gaming service welcomes two incredible new games that will raise the level of competition to dramatic new levels. Metroid(R) Prime Hunters is Nintendo's first real first-person shooter for Nintendo DS(TM), while Tetris(R) DS features classic puzzle action remixed with retro Nintendo themes. Both games launch today, and both are playable on Nintendo(R) Wi-Fi Connection, Nintendo's wireless gaming service. Together they reinforce Nintendo's commitment to making games that appeal to both hard-core and casual gamers.
"These two games really showcase the range of abilities of the world's favorite new portable game system," says George Harrison, Nintendo of America's senior vice president of marketing and corporate communications. "They will further help drive Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection as the hottest Wi-Fi format ever introduced to games."
In Metroid Prime Hunters, the legendary Metroid franchise continues with new hunters, new abilities, new weapons and new alternate forms. With worldwide Wi-Fi connectivity, there's always a band of hunters eager to challenge a player's skills. Metroid Prime Hunters is also the first Nintendo DS game to offer real-time voice chat, letting players talk to one another before and after they face off in a multiplayer match. The chat technology functions much like a two-way radio and lets players intimidate opponents with some friendly trash talk. With this free service, players who have exchanged their Nintendo DS friend codes can converse through Nintendo DS across the Americas. Players must be logged on to Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection to use the chat feature.
Metroid Prime Hunters lets players battle in more than 20 action-packed arenas across seven multiplayer modes, including Battle, Capture, Bounty, Survival, Defender and Nodes, as well as the exciting Prime Hunter mode, where players battle to become the most powerful hunter in the arena. New hunters join the Metroid universe, including Trace, Sylux, Noxus, Spire, Kanden and Weavel, all battling against Samus in both single-player and multiplayer games. Each new hunter has a unique background, fighting style and individual alt forms to match up against Samus' Morphball.
Not to be outdone, Tetris DS includes six modes, each based on a theme from a famous Nintendo character or game. The classic block-building game finds new ways to entertain. Some of the modes make use of the Nintendo DS touch screen. Newcomers and longtime fans alike will find new surprises. Using Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection, up to four players compete in two- or four-player battles against friends or strangers. And with just one game card, up to 10 players can clash using DS Download Play.
The wildly popular Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection recently reached an all-time gaming record of more than 1 million unique users worldwide in less than four months. That represents more than 29 million game-play sessions. In November 2005, Nintendo of America's agreement with Wayport brought free wireless access to users at participating McDonald's restaurants in the United States. Since that union, players have connected at almost 6,000 McDonald's locations across the country.
Metroid Prime Hunters is Rated T for Teen and Tetris DS is Rated E for Everyone. To learn more about Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection or the extensive online stat tracking, log onto www.nintendowifi.com. For more information about Tetris DS, visit www.TetrisDS.com. And for more information and videos of the bounty hunters in action, visit www.metroidhunters.com.
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 20, 2006, 10:12:50 AM
Post by: vudu on March 20, 2006, 10:29:19 AM
Plus, these two games are aimed are pretty different markets. While it's true that there will be some overlap (especially on forums such as this one) DS owners (and potential DS owners) will only be interested in one of these titles.
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 20, 2006, 10:33:41 AM
I guess I'm also stuck in GC logic where AAA titles cannot afford to be released together, but this is the DS where million+ sellers are rapidly becoming commonplace.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 20, 2006, 10:40:18 AM
I remember in 2002 on the GBA Metroid Fusion literally was the only first party title released that wasn't a port. I having already owned all the Mario games saw no reason to repurchase them and thus was left with not much to play. Some people never buy ports of games they already own so it's not really fair to only release a port and then have nothing for a few months. No one is going to enjoy every game but with a port there is a percentage of the userbase that just plain will not buy it while with a new title 100% of the userbase is a potential buyer. So it's good to also release a new game alongside a port so that everone potentially has something to play.
Of all the reasons given for not buying a game you have to admit "already own it" is the best one.
Post by: vudu on March 20, 2006, 10:43:13 AM
QuoteI thought "because it's made by Sonic Team" was the best one?
Of all the reasons givien for not buying a game you have to admit "already own it" is the best one.
Post by: UncleBob on March 20, 2006, 10:58:19 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 20, 2006, 11:04:56 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Technically one game's a port so it's nice to have an original game come out at the same time for those that already own Tetris and don't necessarily want to buy another version of it.
I suggest you watch this video about the new gameplay modes and then say that it's a port.
That plus online play with a leaderboard and TEN PLAYER local play should be evidence enough that this is a game all its own.
Post by: Dasmos on March 20, 2006, 11:44:09 AM
Post by: Guitar Smasher on March 20, 2006, 11:50:30 AM
It's not really a matter of fairness. When it comes down to it, it's about the money. Sure, an original game may have the greater possible userbase, but a port is usually an easier sell.
Like you said, though, it's best when an original game is released concurrently with a port.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 20, 2006, 12:07:06 PM
Well I'm assuming New Super Mario Bros has entirely new levels completely different than any other Mario game. Tetris DS at it's core is still Tetris. It's still the same shaped bricks consisting of four "pieces" falling at the same speed and the goal is still to assemble horizontal lines to clear them away from the screen. They can add all sorts of cool doodads but it's still the same game you played on the Gameboy in 1989. I look at the other modes and such like I would the special features on a "Special Edition" DVD. Plus who really plays new modes for classic puzzle games?
Technically most "ports" are slightly more than ports. There usually are some special features or updated graphics or bonus levels and such. But the core game is still the same. The reason I don't usually buy ports is because I don't feel the money is worth it for the recycled content. There might be some new stuff but it's usually not worth paying the full price to get it. It's like buying a greatest hits album for that one new song when you already have all the other albums.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 20, 2006, 12:09:51 PM
Post by: ShyGuy on March 20, 2006, 12:16:50 PM
Post by: hudsonhawk on March 20, 2006, 12:22:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Technically most "ports" are slightly more than ports. There usually are some special features or updated graphics or bonus levels and such. But the core game is still the same. The reason I don't usually buy ports is because I don't feel the money is worth it for the recycled content. There might be some new stuff but it's usually not worth paying the full price to get it. It's like buying a greatest hits album for that one new song when you already have all the other albums.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
A port is when existing code is used to move an application to a new platform.
I think the word you're looking for is "remake." Resident Evil on the DS is a port. Resident Evil on the Gamecube is a remake.
Tetris DS is neither, though if you had to call it one of those it would be a remake.
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 20, 2006, 12:26:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
F-Zero GX should not have been released next to Soul Calibur 2.
Agreed in full. F-Zero was an excellent game and was overshadowed so badly.
Quote
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
PRINCESS BRIDE REFERENCE, WOOT!
Post by: stevey on March 20, 2006, 12:53:08 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 20, 2006, 01:03:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_BrotherQuote
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
PRINCESS BRIDE REFERENCE, WOOT!
LOL YOU GOT TO IT BEFORE I DID
INCONCEIVABLE!
Post by: Kairon on March 20, 2006, 01:09:35 PM
I mean...think of it this way. There are tons of ports on the PS2 or XBox that are the same game, but add network code or new costumes or some added gamemode styles or whatnot. Tetris DS is basically Tetris ported onto the DS with network code and some added game modes.
People accuse Ian of wanting to see everything that Nintendo does negatively. Now, is it about people who want to see what Ian says negatively?
Edit: Hudsonhawk is technically correct, but the common use of the word "port," like so much of the wonderful english language, goes above and beyond the word's literal definition. Given the choice between literally correct words and the much more flavorful everyday english that allows for word mutability and the insinuation of connotation, I am perfectly ready to call Tetris DS a "port."
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Caliban on March 20, 2006, 01:11:11 PM
Post by: Kairon on March 20, 2006, 01:13:37 PM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Caliban on March 20, 2006, 01:21:15 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on March 20, 2006, 01:27:57 PM
Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on March 20, 2006, 01:34:04 PM
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 20, 2006, 01:34:59 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666 LOL YOU GOT TO IT BEFORE I DID
INCONCEIVABLE!
Get used to disappointment.
Post by: Kairon on March 20, 2006, 01:36:09 PM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Shin Gallon on March 20, 2006, 04:54:11 PM
Post by: IceCold on March 20, 2006, 04:55:15 PM
QuoteAnd that's the truth...
Originally posted by: Professional 666
F-Zero GX should not have been released next to Soul Calibur 2.
CARE BEARS REFERENCE WOOT!
EDIT: ShinGallon, I think they're working on a new 2D Metroid (Dread); there were all sorts of rumours, but it's not yet confirmed.
Post by: jasonditz on March 20, 2006, 04:58:40 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Shin Gallon
Am I the only one that would much rather have had an awesome new 2-D side scrolling Metroid game ala Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow instead of Hunters? Think about how good a Metroid side-scroller on the DS could be and then tell me that wouldn't be way boss.
Maybe we'll get both... Hunters is another great addition to the fledgling online library though, and 2D Metroid probably wouldn't make a great online game.
Post by: animecyberrat on March 20, 2006, 05:11:43 PM
Post by: hudsonhawk on March 20, 2006, 06:06:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
You all owe Ian an apology, lol.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
There's no shame in being pedantic : )
Post by: KDR_11k on March 21, 2006, 12:13:49 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: vuduQuoteI thought "because it's made by Sonic Team" was the best one?
Of all the reasons givien for not buying a game you have to admit "already own it" is the best one.
Nope, there's no better reason than "But it says EA on the box!".
I was going to write Acclaim but then an EA banner appeared on the top of the page.
Kairon: You mean "port" can mean "port" or "not port", kinda like how "literally" now can mean "figuratively" as well?
Shin:
Am I the only one that would much rather have had an awesome new 2-D side scrolling Metroid game ala Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow instead of Hunters?
You mean like Zero Mission? While I think I'd prefer that over Prime 3 Arena (slightly) I'd say diversification should have priority over straight sequels. Now a definite case where I'd rather see a 2d game than a 3d one is Zelda TP. 3D Zelda is average at best, 2d Zelda is vastly superior.
Post by: Shin Gallon on March 21, 2006, 03:35:57 AM
Also, Sonic Team has only fallen from grace recently. Go back about 5 years and everything they made was like pure spun gold. And with how good Sonic Rush is, and how not crappy Riders is (aside from the awful English voices), they seem to be making a return to glory.
Post by: KDR_11k on March 21, 2006, 04:16:44 AM
Post by: 31 Flavas on March 21, 2006, 05:07:28 AM
QuoteSony exec: More like Tetris 1.5
Originally posted by: stevey
Tetris DS isn't a port, it more like Tetris 2.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 21, 2006, 07:13:22 AM
No you're not. I'm not particularly interested in Hunters as it seems to me like Nintendo is making that Metroid Prime FPS that all the jerks who didn't like Metroid Prime because it didn't play like Halo wanted. I would also prefer in general that Nintendo not use their franchises so often in otherwise unrelated games. So I have a similar opinion about Metroid Pinball. Too many spinoffs overexpose a franchise. I would rather Metroid stick entirely to the 3D Prime games by Retro and the 2D games by Intelligent Systems. I look at Mario and Pokemon and how after so many sequels and spinoffs I just don't care when a new game in those franchises is annouced anymore. I don't want that kind of overexposure for Metroid or Zelda or any other Nintendo franchise I'm a big fan of. Plus I just find that games are better when every title means something. Once something gets treated more like a product brand to milk the quality noticeably starts to drop.
I'm hopeful that we'll still get new 2D Metroid games and this isn't a replacement.
Post by: IceCold on March 21, 2006, 07:16:59 AM
QuoteAnd yet another one falls into the trap..
And with how good Sonic Rush is
Short story shorter, Rush is made by Dimps, and "created by Sonic Team" is a bald-faced lie..
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 21, 2006, 07:23:54 AM
MPH is the Halo of the DS, except with a vastly better control scheme and you don't need TVs to have LAN parties.
Post by: Kairon on March 21, 2006, 07:25:17 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Kairon: You mean "port" can mean "port" or "not port", kinda like how "literally" now can mean "figuratively" as well?
No, I mean "port" can mean "original code reworked to run on another system" or it can be generally understood as "a non-ancient game that is reproduced on another system which has been translated relatively faithful to the original copy, with few, if any, additions or modifications."
For example, was RE:2 on the N64 a port? There's no possible way they kept a lot of original code, the hardware differences between the PSX and N64 are so stark, from graphics hardware to processor to data medium to feed rate.... yeah. Of course, a general gamer doesn't care about this, he knows what is meant when RE:2 for N64 is called a port.
Sorta like how we call centipedes or ants bugs. Bugs are technically a very specific subset of insects, according to Dictionary.com a "true bug" has a "beaklike structure that allows piercing and sucking." Neither centipedes or ants HAVE this structure, they are not literally bugs, but we can call them bugs anyways, because seriously, you know what we mean.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Kairon on March 21, 2006, 07:36:22 AM
I'll confess, I was never a Metroid Fan to begin with. Gumpei Yokoi is no Shigeru Miyamoto in my book.
That's why I'm not exactly eager to see another 2D metroid. I wouldn't be interested in the least. I most probably wouldn't buy it.
Metroid Hunters, on the other hand, takes the Metroid Universe and expands the lore, it finally has characters who are Samus' peers, and it has an open-ended non-linear adventure campaign. Plus it uses that sweet DS touch screen. So whereas I didn't give Zero-Mission a second glance, I am definitely buying this Hunters game within 2 weeks of its release.
*shrug* Just wanted to voice a dissenting opinion.
Oh, and another exciting thing for a Nintendo fan is that this looks to be the first mostly-original game by NST. Sure, they did Wave Race:Blue Storm and 1080: Avalanche, but those were relatively straightforward. This is their coming-out-party, and our first chance to evaluate them on their game design merits as opposed to programming merits.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: EasyCure on March 21, 2006, 07:42:20 AM
some gaming mazine that i get sent to me that i don't really want but it helps pass the time by on the can when my gba is rechargins said so.
oh well i was looking fwd to a new metroid side scroller.
i did however just see footage of hunters and it looks like an awesome multiplayer game.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 21, 2006, 07:50:12 AM
*GASP*
This is pretty much exactly my point. If you're not a Metroid fan then you don't deserve to have Nintendo create a very non-Metroid game to please you. If you don't like the real Metroid then tough sh!t. You shouldn't have any Metroid then.
This is no different then Ubisoft making Warrior Within specifically for people that didn't like Sands of Time.
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 21, 2006, 07:53:04 AM
That notion seems to run counter to your point that they're always telling people what they want instead of giving it to them, Ian.
Post by: KDR_11k on March 21, 2006, 07:59:36 AM
It's called a port when the game logic and graphics are translated pretty much unchanged from one platform to another and the plan was to make it the same game. Tetris DS has six additional modes. It's a sequel, not a port.
I think Prime Hunters is a lot more justified than the other Prime games scenario-wise. Prime was an unnecessary addition to the Metroid timeline. Prime Hunters seems like an event not significant enough to go down into her CV, it's just the usual job.
Post by: jasonditz on March 21, 2006, 08:11:37 AM
Post by: Strell on March 21, 2006, 08:37:38 AM
No matter what Nintendo does, they cannot win.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 21, 2006, 08:47:11 AM
I fail to see how said FPS has to be a Metroid game. You make it sound like it's Metroid Prime Hunters or bust and that NST couldn't have made a different FPS instead.
"It's called a port when the game logic and graphics are translated pretty much unchanged from one platform to another and the plan was to make it the same game. Tetris DS has six additional modes. It's a sequel, not a port."
By your logic Super Mario Bros DX for the GBC could be considered a sequel because it has extra modes not found in the original NES game. Most games can add new levels and areas and thus create a sequel even if the gameplay is exactly the same. But puzzle games are odd in that they have this sort of basic game engine and regardless of extra doodads or special modes you still are pretty much doing the exact same thing. It's not just Tetris. I don't really consider all the different Puyo Puyo or Puzzle Bobble or Columns or Panel De Pon games to really be sequels either. Tetris 2 is a sequel because the puzzle part of the game is different. Same with Tetris Attack though technically it's not a Tetris game. If that "box" area where all the pieces fall down is the same then I consider it the same game because with a puzzle game that "box" is everything. Do you consider Tetris Attack and Pokemon Puzzle League to be different games? I sure don't.
If hypothetically we discovered some alien race and it was your job to supply them with the Earth's greatest games would you give them both Tetris and Tetris DS? I sure as hell wouldn't. I would just take all the nifty extra doodads from different versions of Tetris, put them all in one game and call it Tetris.
Post by: jasonditz on March 21, 2006, 09:02:55 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on March 21, 2006, 09:14:44 AM
To avoid overexposure of the Metroid franchise and to demonstrate that Nintendo, supposedly infamous for rehashing, is capable of busting something new out without a franchise shoehorned into it. They didn't NEED to make this a Metroid game. They could have made a successful new franchise that's fresh and exciting and thus would have more life left in it. This is a DS game. It would probably have sold a million copies just by being a portable game in a popular genre made by Nintendo. I think "Nintendo's take on Halo" is strong enough association to attract attention.
Nintendo is treading on dangerous ground with all this franchise whoring. They're already approaching this awkward niche where they're becoming known purely as a nostalgia company that pumps out tried and true franchise titles but little else. The longer it continues the harder it will be for Nintendo to sell anything new and the more they milk their franchises the more people will get sick of them and their selling power will diminish. Eventually people are going to just be so bored and tired of the same franchises that they're not going to buy them and Nintendo won't have any new stuff to pick up the slack.
Post by: Pale on March 21, 2006, 09:26:48 AM
I'll be on tonight if anyone wants to play me!
Post by: jasonditz on March 21, 2006, 09:27:57 AM
Post by: Kairon on March 21, 2006, 09:29:12 AM
Of course, this is all of secondary concern to whether Hunters sells well or is critically received... Anyone out there got their hands on it yet?
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 21, 2006, 09:52:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
They're already approaching this awkward niche where they're becoming known purely as a nostalgia company that pumps out tried and true franchise titles but little else.
So what's the name of that game company which constantly brings new and fresh franchises to the market and never milks sequels?
Oh, right, there ISN'T one...
But what about Nintendogs, Brain Training, Electroplankton, etc.? These are new concepts which aren't the same old franchises. Doesn't Nintendo get any points for those?
Post by: Kairon on March 21, 2006, 10:14:47 AM
Ian is just being wary of Nintendo going overboard on branding. Maybe they've already gone overboard (Super Mario World Gummi Pops), maybe they never have (Samus, unlike Halo's Spartan soldier, hasn't been added to a fighting game yet...), or maybe they're treading that thin line between over-saturation and competitive franchise leverage.
I think that at this moment in time, at such a period of transition and coming out of the GC's life cycle, we can't agree definitively on where Nintendo stands on the "over-franchising" issue. On one hand Miyamoto promises new IPs for the Rev, on the other hand we've just passed through an extended period of Mario this, Mario that, Baseball, Basketball, Soccer, Soul Caliber whatever!
The point I'm trying to make is that I believe this particular subject to be too subjective at this point with regards to Nintendos current and future plans. The past can be explained away logically, leaving no set pattern for Nintendo's future actions and leaving us only with subjectivity.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Ian Sane on March 21, 2006, 10:17:55 AM
I'm thinking more in terms of system selling capabilities and overall quality. Just from experience franchises that get rehashed to all hell drop in quality. There's only so much one can do with an idea before it gets boring and the faster the idea gets milked the quicker it runs out of steam.
Mega Man can still sells okay and so does something like Bomberman. But neither series means anything anymore. It's not significant when a new game comes out. If you miss one game it doesn't matter because you've pretty much played it. On the NES Mega Man was an essential purchase. Now he's totally optional. No one aside a hardcore Mega Man nut would buy a new console for Mega Man. Mario is in danger of becoming the same thing or perhaps he's already there.
Nintendo already has the problem with the Cube. Did Mario sell Cubes? No. Neither did Zelda or Metroid or Star Fox or Kirby or Pokemon. So what person who didn't feel that playing Mario games was worth buying a Cube for is going to think playing Mario games is worth buying a Rev for or any Nintendo system that doesn't have a near portable monopoly surrounding it? New ideas and new games are what sell systems. Sequels and spinoffs sell to a userbase that is already there. If Nintendo wants a bigger userbase they need to expand beyond the same franchises.
"So what's the name of that game company which constantly brings new and fresh franchises to the market and never milks sequels?"
Nintendo about ten years ago used to be pretty good at balancing new stuff and sequels while keeping a fair bit of space between sequel releases and adding significant enhancements and new ideas to their sequels so that almost every game meant something. Back then there was only three Metroid games and four Zeldas and neither series had any spinoffs at all.
Post by: Strell on March 21, 2006, 10:45:34 AM
Meanwhile, on the PS2/PSP, we've seen no less than 5 Jak and Daxter games, including 3 platformers, a racing game, and a portable platformer. Hell, we could argue that the Ratchet and Clank games are hardly different, and there's been 4 of those, and I gaurantee one will appear on the PSP. 9 so far, 10 likely, and more to appear on the PS3.
In contrast, we've seen one true Mario platformer, two incredibly well-made not-rushed FPA games, a deathmatch game on the DS, and several new franchises.
EVERY COMPANY REHASHES. Nintendo will do it so long as it remains profitable. But they don't even come close to other companies. It's laughable to accuse them of that in light of what other people are doing.
Also, you claim to be worried about system selling capability, yet you think not using an appropriate and known franchise is a bad way to do so? You can't have it both ways, period. That would be like not calling the next Mario game a Mario game.
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 21, 2006, 10:56:47 AM
When Zelda, Metroid and Animal Crossing are all booming successes, how can you blame Nintendo for making them repeatedly? They're going to MAKE what SELLS. We as the consumer dictate what Nintendo makes by buying what we want them to make when they make it.
Luckily, Japan is EATING UP games like Brain Training and Nintendogs because these are new concepts in games, showing Nintendo that new franchises can indeed be profitable if they give them the right platform.
The Rev will be host to MANY new franchises, be they Nintendo or otherwise. The DS is already showing us that innovation sparks new franchises.
That said, what are Nintendo's competitors doing aside from churning out piles of sequels, spinoffs and rehashes? I understand being pissed at Nintendo if they're the only one doing it, but when the entire INDUSTRY is doing it, it must mean that SOMEONE is buying them.
Blame the consumer for buying it, not Nintendo for trying to make what sells in order to remain profitable.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 21, 2006, 11:40:25 AM
I've always wondered if consumers are reluctant to try new ideas or if they're just buying lots of sequels because there isn't really much else. Naturally it's easier to rehash then come up with new content so I figure most companies would do this anyway unless it proved to be really unprofitable. I wonder if the opposite of what everyone says is true. Companies rehash because it's easy and consumers eat it up because it's what they're used to. The consumer buying habits may be in relation to what the game companies train them to like. Every gen some amazing new franchises become major successes or previously niche franchises explode in popularity. Obviously somehow new games break through and become hit franchises. I think people are willing to try a new game out if it's really good and is marketed well enough that they actually know it exists. People bring up examples like Beyond Good & Evil. That game is decent but nothing too special and I didn't see any ads for it. I don't see many awesome games with good marketing campaigns that totally crash and burn.
How many really awesome amazing Nintendo games have come out that have bombed anyway? Most of the duds are wishy-washy titles that even the loyal fanbase is split on. When has EAD released a bomb? Most of the first party "flops" tend to be games like Geist that are not really on par with Nintendo's best efforts. I don't see too many situations where AAA non-franchise Nintendo titles lose Nintendo some serious money.
Post by: jasonditz on March 21, 2006, 11:52:58 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Mega Man can still sells okay and so does something like Bomberman. But neither series means anything anymore. It's not significant when a new game comes out. If you miss one game it doesn't matter because you've pretty much played it.
Exactly...
and where has everyone already played Metroid Prime Hunters?
The recent Metroid branded games aren't like the legion of Mega Man Battle Network games, or even the Pokemon for the GB/GBC games (although in Pokemon's case all the games sold tremendously well)... Metroid Prime Pinball was not a rehash of a previous Metroid game, and neither is Hunters, they're entirely different games in different genres that just happen to feature a recognizable character.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 21, 2006, 12:00:52 PM
Just like all the Mario games that I've gotten sick of. I will admit Nintendo isn't as horrible as Capcom for that kind of stuff with the obvious exception of Mario Party.
Post by: 31 Flavas on March 21, 2006, 12:15:07 PM
QuoteWow, this isn't acting selfish or as if the video game world revolves around you.....
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
If you're not a Metroid fan then you don't deserve to have Nintendo create a very non-Metroid game to please you. If you don't like the real Metroid then tough sh!t. You shouldn't have any Metroid then.
Edit: I always wondered, if it was that Ian wants Nintendo to do the "right" thing. No, it's that Ian want Nintendo to do what HE wants.
Post by: jasonditz on March 21, 2006, 01:04:24 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Metroid Prime Pinball was not a rehash of a previous Metroid game, and neither is Hunters, they're entirely different games in different genres that just happen to feature a recognizable character."
Just like all the Mario games that I've gotten sick of. I will admit Nintendo isn't as horrible as Capcom for that kind of stuff with the obvious exception of Mario Party.
And so you won't be buying New Super Mario Bros. or Mario Revolution?
Post by: Ian Sane on March 21, 2006, 01:26:01 PM
I probably will assuming they turn out good, which is pretty likely. But I used to pay attention to every Mario game.
I just think that the quality will remain higher for longer if Nintendo doesn't spinoff all of their franchises and tries to make each sequel mean something and doesn't just shoehorn something into a different type of game for a quick buck.
I also don't want Nintendo to think that we fans only care about the franchises. I hated it that Nintendo turned Dinosaur Planet into Star Fox Adventures and that they initially were going to call Battalion Wars "Advance Wars" like all we care about is the name. I don't want "Metroid" or "Zelda" to just be brand names to throw on any old product. I want them to mean something and when a game has that title associated with it I want it to play a certain way and feel a certain way. I want Nintendo to realize that when we say we want this or that that we want the fundamental gameplay and not just a name on a box. That's one thing I didn't like about Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles. It wasn't a real Final Fantasy game. When we said "we want Final Fantasy" that wasn't what we asking for but Nintendo didn't seem to realize that. Or we said "we want Metal Gear" and we got a remake. It's like Nintendo didn't get it and thought all we wanted was the brand name and it made no difference what the actual game was like. Now in those situations they were at the mercy of a third party but when Square offers Final Fantasy and you say "it needs connectivity" it suggests to me that you don't know what the hell Final Fantasy even is.
It's important that Nintendo knows that we're Nintendo fans because they make great games and not because of a couple mascot characters.
Post by: EasyCure on March 21, 2006, 02:10:17 PM
I'd actually rather play a game with a well known franchise character these days soley because almost everything else is re-hashed crap that plays exactly the same because companies find a formula that works stick with it and mass produce it across the board seven-fold. i dont know about you but i cant play a new madden game every year, or games as generically boring as god of war. sure nintendo can slap a new character on an original idea and make a new franchise up but familiarity sells a whole lot better. if thats what gives them the dough to keep on making good games, so be it.
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 21, 2006, 02:11:44 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I've always wondered if consumers are reluctant to try new ideas or if they're just buying lots of sequels because there isn't really much else. Naturally it's easier to rehash then come up with new content so I figure most companies would do this anyway unless it proved to be really unprofitable. I wonder if the opposite of what everyone says is true. Companies rehash because it's easy and consumers eat it up because it's what they're used to. The consumer buying habits may be in relation to what the game companies train them to like. Every gen some amazing new franchises become major successes or previously niche franchises explode in popularity. Obviously somehow new games break through and become hit franchises. I think people are willing to try a new game out if it's really good and is marketed well enough that they actually know it exists. People bring up examples like Beyond Good & Evil. That game is decent but nothing too special and I didn't see any ads for it. I don't see many awesome games with good marketing campaigns that totally crash and burn.
By this logic, Pikmins 1 and 2 should have been multi-million sellers.
Nintendo tries new game types, like Pikmin, Chibi Robo, etc. and most of them crash and burn. If you're a game company, which are you going to produce: a game you at least KNOW players will buy, or a completely new, untested franchise which could easily crash and burn?
Think of all the franchises which have outright failed and you'll see what I mean. They're bringing out the Rev and DS because they inspire new concepts and new forms of gameplay. Meanwhile, Sony and MS just rehash, sequel and recycle the SAME crap over and over again without any sign of stopping.
Nintendo is the lesser of three evils in this case.
Post by: EasyCure on March 21, 2006, 02:23:55 PM
"Mega Man can still sells okay and so does something like Bomberman. But neither series means anything anymore. It's not significant when a new game comes out. If you miss one game it doesn't matter because you've pretty much played it. On the NES Mega Man was an essential purchase. Now he's totally optional. No one aside a hardcore Mega Man nut would buy a new console for Mega Man. Mario is in danger of becoming the same thing or perhaps he's already there."
the difference there is mega man had countless sequels before any significant changes to its formula. you cant play mario bros. 1, 2, 3, super mario world, yoshis isle. (not story), mario 64 and Sunshine and call them the same. it took megaman 3 games to charge his buster or slide (its been awhile so i don't remember). in the origial mega man series very few things were introduced to keep the games fresh and appealing. the X series had capsules and other hidden items as well as a fresh new story (i mean really how many times can wily escape and design/steal robot masters) with a few crazy twist, although some do argue that the story sucks hard.
i remember when megaman NEO (aka legends) was first announced and i was so excited. i thought it would be to megaman what mario 64 was to that franchise. boy was i wrong. that transition to 3d blew big time. i cant say the same however for x7, 8 or the Command Mission game beacuse i havent played them.
anyway, sequels are cool as long as you don't over do it in that sense. jumping from super metriod to Prime was a BIG deal, l ike it or not. same goes for A link to the past and OoT. as long as a sequel is a TRUE sequel in the sense that it not only retains the appeal of the original while adding some sort of drastic, but not crippling change to the gameplay.
Post by: Infernal Monkey on March 21, 2006, 03:15:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here!
Post by: Mario on March 21, 2006, 03:33:11 PM
Post by: EasyCure on March 21, 2006, 04:00:15 PM
Post by: jasonditz on March 21, 2006, 06:06:29 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
It's important that Nintendo knows that we're Nintendo fans because they make great games and not because of a couple mascot characters.
Of course, but that doesn't mean those mascot characters can't sometimes fit well in those games.
And I still don't see what the harm is. Honestly, back when all the Mario games were good platformers, you bought all the Mario games. Now some of the Mario games are other things, and you still buy the good platformers, and then you pick and choose among the other stuff.
The Mario franchise is kind of a Nintendo guarentee of quality. The game in question might not be your cup of tea, but every single Mario game Nintendo has released (and we'll put aside some of the 3rd party travesties of 15 years ago like Hotel Mario and Mario Is Missing) are well polished games that deliver what they promise.
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 21, 2006, 06:17:14 PM
Post by: IceCold on March 21, 2006, 06:36:39 PM
QuoteIt's true... in the perfect world they would have been the top selling games from all the consoles this gen.
By this logic, Pikmins 1 and 2 should have been multi-million sellers.
Post by: Infernal Monkey on March 21, 2006, 07:16:14 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: jasonditz
The Mario franchise is kind of a Nintendo guarentee of quality. The game in question might not be your cup of tea, but every single Mario game Nintendo has released (and we'll put aside some of the 3rd party travesties of 15 years ago like Hotel Mario and Mario Is Missing) are well polished games that deliver what they promise.
Whoops. =D
Post by: jasonditz on March 21, 2006, 07:37:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Infernal MonkeyQuote
Originally posted by: jasonditz
The Mario franchise is kind of a Nintendo guarentee of quality. The game in question might not be your cup of tea, but every single Mario game Nintendo has released (and we'll put aside some of the 3rd party travesties of 15 years ago like Hotel Mario and Mario Is Missing) are well polished games that deliver what they promise.
Whoops. =D
Hey, it may not be high art, but it definitely gives what it promises. If you're in the market for a GBA pinball game... well first you should probably ask "why am I in the market for a GBA pinball game", but the Mario one probably deserves as much consideration as any. It's pretty, if nothing else.
Post by: Shin Gallon on March 21, 2006, 07:52:22 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: jasonditz
You same people griping about MPH being too far afield from a traditional Metroid game know darned well you'd have been complaining if Nintendo had kept their Wifi library full of Mario Karts and Animal Crossings and didn't release a robust FPS.
Actually, I prefer my FPS games on the PC where I can use a mouse and keyboard and actually, you know, AIM...
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 21, 2006, 08:02:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Shin Gallon Actually, I prefer my FPS games on the PC where I can use a mouse and keyboard and actually, you know, AIM...
Stylus = mouse grade aiming. Seriously, it's on a smaller scale, but the feeling of PC FPSs comes RIGHT back.
Post by: Mario on March 21, 2006, 08:24:51 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on March 21, 2006, 11:12:47 PM
That has nothing to do with ports. You wouldn't want to give them games that are similar where one is superior, this would also mean sending only one Final Fantasy, only one Mario sidescroller, etc. You wouldn't give them all Metroid games, just Prime and Super.
They could've made the exact same game and not used the Metroid license, but why should they? Metroid is a recognizable name, the characters aren't out of place in an FPS, and it makes marketing that much easier.
Metroid is a name recognizeable as a certain kind of game.
So what's the name of that game company which constantly brings new and fresh franchises to the market and never milks sequels?
Oh, right, there ISN'T one...
No but noone does it as excessively as Nintendo. You know it is a sad thing when you can say Capcom is creating more franchises than you.
Did Mario sell Cubes? No. Neither did Zelda or Metroid
Zelda sold some and Metroid Prime was a major console seller. It was a complete makeover for the franchise, after all. You know, like OOT and Mario 64.
i remember when megaman NEO (aka legends) was first announced and i was so excited. i thought it would be to megaman what mario 64 was to that franchise. boy was i wrong. that transition to 3d blew big time.
Nonsense. Rockman Dash wasn't a bad game. Capcom didn't learn from Quake what strafing can do to a game but other than that it was pretty good. Lots of exploration, hidden stuff, a nice story (even though it was another case of franchise shoehorning), villains with personality, etc.
Post by: Infernal Monkey on March 21, 2006, 11:55:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: jasonditz
Hey, it may not be high art, but it definitely gives what it promises. If you're in the market for a GBA pinball game... well first you should probably ask "why am I in the market for a GBA pinball game", but the Mario one probably deserves as much consideration as any. It's pretty, if nothing else.
It certainly delivers the Mario part, but it's got as much pinball style gameplay as a cook book. Sonic Pinball Party, Pokemon Pinball, Pinball of the Dead and Hardcore Pinball destroy it.
Infernal Monkey more like PGC's resident pinball nerd. =(
Post by: jasonditz on March 22, 2006, 04:49:35 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Infernal MonkeyQuote
Originally posted by: jasonditz
Hey, it may not be high art, but it definitely gives what it promises. If you're in the market for a GBA pinball game... well first you should probably ask "why am I in the market for a GBA pinball game", but the Mario one probably deserves as much consideration as any. It's pretty, if nothing else.
It certainly delivers the Mario part, but it's got as much pinball style gameplay as a cook book. Sonic Pinball Party, Pokemon Pinball, Pinball of the Dead and Hardcore Pinball destroy it.
Infernal Monkey more like PGC's resident pinball nerd. =(
I'm not a huge pinball game fan (though I loved Video Pinball for the Atari 2600), but the difference between Mario Pinball and the other games strikes me a lot like the difference between Mario Golf and Tiger Woods, or Mario Kart and GT.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 22, 2006, 07:00:09 AM
Nintendo tries new game types, like Pikmin, Chibi Robo, etc. and most of them crash and burn."
I doubt Pikmin crashed and burned. They made a sequel to it so it must have sold well enough to make a profit. And I don't recall the good marketing that's a crucial part of my theory. Nintendo obviously isn't going to have many successful new franchises if they don't fix their marketing. As for Chibi Robo well I didn't buy it because it got creamed in reviews. If a game isn't all that good then it doesn't deserve to sell anyway. Actually my example doesn't really work that well with Nintendo because I can't think of ANY Cube game that was actually marketed well so all of them fail to meet my suggested criteria.
"Zelda sold some and Metroid Prime was a major console seller."
Nothing really sold consoles like Nintendo really wanted. Nothing sold Cubes like how GTA3 sold PS2's and Halo sold Xboxes. Metroid Prime lost out to Splinter Cell and the Xbox overtook the Cube around the same time. I wouldn't consider it a major console seller. Let's put it this way: if Nintendo franchises sell Revs like how they sold Gamecubes then the Rev is in trouble.
Post by: jasonditz on March 22, 2006, 07:15:05 AM
Likewise, maybe Mario Sunshine didn't move Cubes, but that's no reason to believe Mario Revolution might not be the system seller of this generaiton. Or maybe it'll be Metroid Prime 3, or maybe it'll be SSBM: Online, or Zelda Revolution. Or maybe it'll be some new franchise.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 22, 2006, 07:53:00 AM
You're right. It might be, particularly if there's some big overhaul like with Super Mario 64 or more recently GTA3.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on March 22, 2006, 08:57:04 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I doubt Pikmin crashed and burned. They made a sequel to it so it must have sold well enough to make a profit. And I don't recall the good marketing that's a crucial part of my theory.
You don't recall Nintendo getting a kind of flower named Pikmin? That was the most awesomest marketing ever! (No, I don't believe that.)
Quote
As for Chibi Robo well I didn't buy it because it got creamed in reviews. If a game isn't all that good then it doesn't deserve to sell anyway.
What reviews did you read? According to gamerankings, Chibi Robo is at a respectable 76 percent. The individual reviews vary quite a bit, with some scored quite high, which just shows that it's the kind of game that deserves a rental first. I liked it a lot. It was full of quirky humor and had a surprisingly touching story.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 22, 2006, 09:18:10 AM
I just realized that I was reading this as Custom Robo the whole time which did get creamed in reviews. Sorry about that.
Post by: KDR_11k on March 23, 2006, 12:32:09 AM
