Gaming Forums => Nintendo Gaming => Topic started by: Mop it up on January 22, 2010, 08:37:01 PM
Title: What makes a sequel?
Post by: Mop it up on January 22, 2010, 08:37:01 PM
There has been an awful lot of talk about New Super Mario Brothers Wii lately, split in equal parts of praising it for its fun gameplay and chastising it for its decidedly lack of effort in its presentation. All of it has left me with one simple question: What makes a good sequel? Does it need to offer up an innovative gameplay feature to be worthwhile? Is being "more of the same" acceptable when the game was great to begin with?
The answer, at least to me, resides with the game to which the sequel is based. With the aforementioned New Super Mario Brothers Wii, which is a direct sequel to the DS game New Super Mario Brothers and a distant sequel to 2D Mario games of old, it uses an established formula for greatness. New Super Mario Brothers on DS was a good game, though the level designs were a bit uninspired. The fundamentals were there however, and there was nothing lacking or broken about it from a technical perspective. With the groundwork already done, this means the focus of New Super Mario Brothers Wii is on its level designs, making it a well-designed game based on its own merits. I'm perfectly content receiving "more of the same" when that same is greatness.
There are other games which were good for a start, but have some issues that should be ironed out; these are the games which need to bring changes to the table. Boom Blox comes to mind. Although its sequel, Boom Blox Bash Party, scraps the shooting stages which suffered from inaccurate control, it does little to correct its main problem of unpredictable physics. Quite a few stages eventually result with performing the same action over and over until the desired result is achieved. There were a few things added to the game such as new types of blocks, but without improvements to the gameplay itself, it wasn't something I was willing to purchase until it hit the bargain bin.
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: broodwars on January 23, 2010, 03:04:06 AM
I'd say probably the greatest thing you can say about a good sequel is that it makes you never want to play the original game ever again, through dramatic improvements in the presentation and game design. A frequent sequel I bring up as an example is...wait for it...the Broodwar expansion to Starcraft or the Frozen Throne expansion to WarCraft III. Both expansions add so many new tactics, locations, unit types, and abilities that it pretty much renders the original game obsolete (aside from the SP campaigns, which I enjoyed in all). Another good example is Uncharted 2, a game that took the original game's formula; added a few seemingly-minor improvements in areas that didn't really work in the first game to make them actually enjoyable now; and then upped the ante in the SP campaign through better pacing and increasingly chaotic situations.
What makes Nintendo games (and Square-Enix's Final Fantasy series) a bit odd here is that most of the games they do aren't "sequels" but extensions of a franchise concept, so you really have to evaluate them as separate entities. Twilight Princess is a very different experience from Wind Waker, which was a very different experience from Majora's Mask, and so on. Games within the franchise have sequels. I think where people have a problem with New Super Mario Bros. Wii is that if you throw out the multiplayer, it's essentially the same experience we've already played in Mario Bros. 3; Mario World; and New Super Mario Bros..
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: KDR_11k on January 23, 2010, 04:12:44 AM
A sequel should be "more of the same" in terms of user experience. That's different from the physical content of the game, if a major part of the first game was surprising you the sequel cannot simply reuse stuff, it has to surprise with new stuff.
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 23, 2010, 04:18:11 AM
4 of the same in 25 years isn't so bad... unlike other games that hit 4 in one fucking year!
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: Stratos on January 23, 2010, 04:25:18 AM
I'll agree with Broodwars on the RTS expansions. I also felt that Comand and Conquers Zero Hour made that game have a new and more exciting life for me. I can not ever go back and play the original after playing the expansion.
Civ 4 did a great job of making me never want to go back to Civ 3.
But some games actually make me want to go back and play the older ones too. Playing the Paper Mario games makes me want to go back and play Super Mario RPG. Playing NSMB Wii makes me want to go back and play NSMB DS, Mario 1-3 and Mario World.
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: Peachylala on January 23, 2010, 11:12:04 AM
I think where people have a problem with New Super Mario Bros. Wii is that if you throw out the multiplayer, it's essentially the same experience we've already played in Mario Bros. 3; Mario World; and New Super Mario Bros..
Considering that all of those games are great, I still don't see what's wrong about that. From what you've described in your post, it sounds to me like sequels have to contain a lot of new features and innovations in order for you to enjoy them.
But some games actually make me want to go back and play the older ones too. Playing NSMB Wii makes me want to go back and play NSMB DS, Mario 1-3 and Mario World.
I usually feel the same way. It's too bad that neither of us can currently play New Super Mario Brothers. :(
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: Ian Sane on January 25, 2010, 06:12:27 PM
I see two approaches to making a good videogame sequel. At their artistic peak Nintendo was the master at these two approaches, so much so that I consider it a fundamental element of what Nintendo is and that deviation from this is un-Nintendo-like. If I owned a videogame I would make it a company standard that no sequels are to be made that do not follow one of these two models.
Model 1: seeking perfection. This is when you attempt to make the previous game obsolete. The core gameplay stays the same but new ideas and features are introduced and existing ideas are fine-tuned and refined. If the game is a "pure gameplay" kind of game most people would probably not want to bother playing the previous games because they would feel old. Genres like fighting or racing games would classify as "pure gameplay" while an RPG would have a unique enough story to not make the older games unnecessary. SSB Melee is like the ultimate example of this as it added a whole bunch of new characters and game modes, had superior graphics and sound, and was pretty much "SSB... only BIGGER!!" It effectively made SSB obsolete. Perfect Dark is also a good example since it contains the same basic gameplay as Goldeneye but adds tons more. That would be an example of a sequel that didn't make the sequel completely unnecessary though because in single player those games provide unique level design and stories so both are essential.
Model 2: change it up. This is when you take more of an overall gameplay concept and you change the elements of it in a way where it's similar but you certainly couldn't just take levels from the previous game and put it in the other. Sometimes it's a huge difference like Zelda II but I see it more as something that appears to be more of the same at first glance but isn't once you sit down with it. Super Mario 64, Sunshine, and Galaxy may all have similar gameplay but each game is quite different. Sunshine's waterpack element makes it very different from 64 and Galaxy has that whole planets thing. Neither game really feels like playing more of the previous game but with extra features thrown in. That is what a Model 1 sequel would feel like but not Model 2. Usually these games have different graphic engines and different HUDs. They often could be easily identified in screenshots from people with only a slight familiarity with the games (ie: most general videogame fans could identify SMB 1, 2 & 3 by screenshot alone.) Nintendo used to do this a LOT. This the anti-cookie cutter sequel. Instead of replacing previous games with the same but better you make every entry in the series essential by making them unique enough that one would want to seek out the entire series, not just for new levels to play, but for a new gameplay experience, even if it is one that is familiar. Final Fantasy is the absolute best example of this type.
A lot of great sequels also combine elements of both models. The Mega Man approach would be a great example of what is bad sequel design in that the games are pretty much just more levels. Though early on Mega Man wasn't that repetitive. Mega Man 3 for example added Rush, the slide move, and the requirement to defeat the bosses from Mega Man 2 as well as the new bosses for 3. All of those would be elements of good sequel design. Doom II is also bad sequel design as is it is pretty much the exact same game only with one slight variation of an existing weapon, some new enemies, and new stages.
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: that Baby guy on January 25, 2010, 07:10:01 PM
How would you say Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess fit in that, though?
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: Ian Sane on January 25, 2010, 07:59:14 PM
Quote
How would you say Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess fit in that, though?
Ocarina of Time is an amazing sequel. Because of the switch to 3D it was vastly different than the Zeldas that came before it while at the same time it clearly felt like Zelda and had similar core gameplay. It was also an incredibly original and innovative game PERIOD. It introduced ideas that no game had done before (like z-targeting).
Twilight Princess's most unique feature is its graphics. It looks way better than the N64 games and considerably different than Wind Waker. The wolf transformation is a new idea that had not been used in previous Zelda games, though I don't think the idea was that great. It's kind of like the waterpack in Mario Sunshine - it's new but do you care? Aside from that and a few new items I feel it's at best a refinement of 3D Zelda gameplay. It isn't a cookie-cutter glorified expansion pack but it's not very original. I figure if I was calling the shots though the designers could convince me to sign-off on the concept if they played up the wolf stuff enough. Some times unique ideas just don't turn out all that great.
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: Mop it up on January 26, 2010, 06:57:24 PM
The interesting thing about Nintendo sequels is that very few of them seem to make their predecessors obsolete. All of the games in series like Mario and Zelda are still playable and enjoyable today, no matter how many new ones are created. I guess it just goes to show that a well-made game will stand the test of time, regardless of what is released after it. The only Nintendo series I can think of which makes the previous entries worthless is Mario Kart; I can no longer stand to play the ones on the SNES, N64, and GBA, though the GameCube installment is still playable because of its unique double-character element.
Sequels which change things up will inevitably displease certain fans of the game, so it can be a dangerous thing to do. Two recent examples are Super Smash Brothers Brawl and Mario Strikers Charged. Both games go in completely different directions than their predecessors, which resulted in them being extreme disappointments to me.
Quote from: Ian Sane
The Mega Man approach would be a great example of what is bad sequel design in that the games are pretty much just more levels.
It may be a bad sequel design, but does it make for a bad game? How can a game which closely follows a great game suddenly become bad?
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: Ian Sane on January 26, 2010, 07:31:45 PM
Quote
It may be a bad sequel design, but does it make for a bad game? How can a game which closely follows a great game suddenly become bad?
It doesn't make for a bad game but it makes for a bad sequel. When it's more of the same you get burned out on the concept and lose interest. So something like Guitar Hero, where they just keep pumping out stuff mere months apart with very little changes, just grows stale. And these games aren't bad and the general game design concept is really solid. The whole thing is just so played.
Milking a franchise is a successful strategy in the short-term but it can kill a franchise off. Guitar Hero is pretty much DONE after only five years. Meanwhile Nintendo has shown restraint with Zelda and each new game is STILL a big deal after over 20 years. The old games have also stayed relevant and continue to be successful in re-releases.
This would mostly all be from a business perspective. Keeping your series fresh gives it more longterm market relevance. Though I personally do prefer the practice as a gamer. I like it when each game feels essential. I think that's more fun for a fan.
I always saw SSB Brawl as a very conventional sequel. I don't like it as much as Melee because of that. It isn't as big of a step-up from Melee as Melee is from the original. It felt like I had experienced most of it before. I've grown bored of Mario Kart for the same reason. I think that concept is just too hard to keep fresh.
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: Luigi Dude on January 26, 2010, 08:40:00 PM
I always saw SSB Brawl as a very conventional sequel. I don't like it as much as Melee because of that. It isn't as big of a step-up from Melee as Melee is from the original.
That's because it's impossible to do this again. Brawl would have to have had over 50 characters and 80 stages in order to match the gap from the original and Melee. And then the next Smash Bros would have to have over 100 characters and 240 stages. Not to mention the insane amount of new gameplay modes they'd have to keep adding to each new installment as well in order to keep up the gap.
Seriously, the only reason the gap between the original and Melee was as big as it was is because the first game was made on a low budget and in a short timespan because Nintendo originally thought it wouldn't be a big seller and would remain a Japan-Only title. Because of this, Sakurai wasn't able to do many of the things he originally wanted to do.
Had Nintendo allowed Sakurai the time and money he wanted for the first game, the gap between N64 and Melee would be the same as the gap between Melee and Brawl. In other words, instead of saying Melee was "SSB... only BIGGER!!", it's more like "It's SSB the way it was planned on being had Nintendo actually had faith in the first game".
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: Mop it up on January 26, 2010, 08:54:10 PM
That's because it's impossible to do this again. Brawl would have to have had over 50 characters and 80 stages in order to match the gap from the original and Melee.
If they hadn't wasted time on a lackluster single player mode, this would have been easily possible.
And then the next Smash Bros would have to have over 100 characters and 240 stages.
This, however, probably wouldn't work.
Honestly, I'd kind of preferred it if from here, they created a Smash Brothers game specific to each Nintendo franchise. Like one for Mario, one for Zelda, etc. They'd also need to have an art style befitting of that series, and not the dreary, dramatic style of Brawl.
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: Ian Sane on January 27, 2010, 12:57:59 PM
Quote
Honestly, I'd kind of preferred it if from here, they created a Smash Brothers game specific to each Nintendo franchise. Like one for Mario, one for Zelda, etc.
I don't know. I think a lot of the appeal to me is having all the franchises crossing over.
I think the best idea was putting Snake and Sonic in it. Since the Nintendo franchise concept only goes so far making the game a big multi-company crossover would be a good way to keep things fresh. I only question how feasible this is.
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: Chozo Ghost on January 27, 2010, 02:35:00 PM
Honestly, I'd kind of preferred it if from here, they created a Smash Brothers game specific to each Nintendo franchise. Like one for Mario, one for Zelda, etc.
I don't know. I think a lot of the appeal to me is having all the franchises crossing over.
I agree with both of you, which is why I say why can't there be both? We already have Smash Bros. What a Zelda fighting game? Zelda TP alone had enough interesting characters that you could make a fighting game with. That's not even counting the many other Zelda games with their numerous one-hit characters who appear once and then disappear forever. BRING THEM BACK!
And what about the Mario granchise? Characters like Mario, Luigi, Peach, Yoshi, etc. have appeared in Smash Bros. But what about Birdo, Toad, Boo, Gumba, Koopas, etc. What about the Koopa Kids? What about the "one-hit wonder" characters from games like Super Mario RPG, such as Malo and Geno and those Mole Kids and those Power Ranger parodies?
The thing about Smash Bros. is it includes characters from all of the big Nintendo Franchises, but it only includes the MAIN characters. There are lots of secondary and tertiary characters who are left out, but are still cool.
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: broodwars on January 27, 2010, 02:56:17 PM
We don't need another Smash Bros.-style fighting game for the individual franchises, as the whole appeal of that game is seeing the Nintendo universes beating the crap out of each other. We just need to bring an end to all the cloning in the Smash Bros. lineup, which keeps the lesser-known characters out.
Back in the SNES days, I longed for an RPG in the style of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars that brought all the Nintendo universes together. I still want that game.
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: Chozo Ghost on January 27, 2010, 03:30:26 PM
So something like Super Smash Bros. but of a different genre than the beat-em-up? I'm cool with that. An RPG would be awesome, as would a platformer or anything really.
But you know what gets me is we have Smash Bros. which covers all the franchises, but things like Mario Party and Mario Kart and the Mario Sports games only cover the Mario characters. What about Link, Zelda, Samus, and the rest of the game? Why can't we have Samus show up in a baseball game and pitch balls out of her arm canon? Why can't we have Link swing his sword as a bat? Why can't we have Zelda driving a Kart in a racing game? Why can't Star Fox be in a golf game?
Mario is hogging it all up. Smash Bros. is the only game which genuinely covers all the franchises. Everything else is locked up by Mario and friends.
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: Stratos on January 27, 2010, 04:35:27 PM
I always thought that a Zelda or Fire Emblem fighting game similar to Soul Calibur would be awesome. We got Link in SC2 which only whetted my appetite for such a game.
Would anyone dig a Tatsunoko/Capcom/Whatever VS Nintendo type of game?
Maybe it's just perception, Chozo Ghost, but I can't imagine Samus or Zelda in a kart or sports game. They just feel out of place. Though it may just be decades of seeing Mario & Co be in them that allows that to make sense over the other.
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: MoronSonOfBoron on January 27, 2010, 04:40:12 PM
Back in the SNES days, I longed for an RPG in the style of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars that brought all the Nintendo universes together. I still want that game.
Stickers = Badges?
And hey, if Kirby could make a fun and memorable foray into the racing genre (Kirby's Air Ride), then why can't other series wet their feet outside their home genre? Not sure if we should count Link's Crossbow Training or Metroid Pinball, but the older series have plenty of room to expand. Only pray they don't go the way of Star Fox.
(Metroid MMO plz?)
You want to know what I think was a poor set of sequels? Halo. Don't get me wrong, I love Halo to pieces. Ask Kairon. I've stated numerous times that I would buy an XBOX just for Halo. It's kind of like being gay for a specific male celebrity, but in video games.
Now, Halo is what one might call the "perfection" route for sequels, as each iteration tightened and modified the control schemes and gameplay modes—dual wielding, melee weapons, vehicles and level design, etc—but a close examination shows that between 1, 2, and 3, these were very incremental changes. The only big sweeping change or innovation was the inclusion of online multiplayer, and that has been the major selling point for the series since its addition. So was the gameplay good to begin with? Actually, yes, it was, otherwise Halo wouldn't have had much to sell itself on, being of an age where online console multiplayer wasn't in the zeitgeist.
But even with tweaking, some new additions, and online multiplayer, there didn't appear to be an overall "improvement" or "expansion" in the experience, single- or multiplayer. It was more of a good thing, but better. And that's terrible.
Truth be told, as good a game as Halo 3 is, it sits in that uncomfortable halfway point between the mentalities of "game-as-product" and "game-as-service", where the multiplayer has overtaken the game as the overall experience, and in turn the community has become the primary determinant in the quality of the game experience. Ask any blogger or forumgoer, they'll mention the cesspool of profanity that is XBOX Live, merely a symptom of the sociopathically dissociated experience that defines online multiplayer. So are people to blame, and not the developers?
I would argue both. Bungie can make good games, they can make great games, and they struck gold with Halo being the right product at the right time for the right people, but that may have ultimately doomed the series to a level of stagnance. Halo 3 is a work of quality, but it lacks longevity in the gameplay experience, even given multiplayer, because it does not add significant depth to the established gameplay, laden as it is with Achievements, an "epic" single player, and bloody matchmaking. As the next generation of over-shoulder action/shooter games crop up amidst glorified multiplayer deathmatch simulators and first-person RPGs, Halo is simply the last great shooter, erect in its posture but cro-magnon in its conduct. The era of great shooters is over.
And that's really terrible.
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: Stratos on January 27, 2010, 04:47:54 PM
I always thought a 3D Zelda MMO would have been interesting.
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on January 27, 2010, 04:52:28 PM
<insert talk of Pokemon MMO here>
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: Mop it up on January 27, 2010, 05:36:03 PM
We don't need another Smash Bros.-style fighting game for the individual franchises, as the whole appeal of that game is seeing the Nintendo universes beating the crap out of each other.
Maybe for you it is, but not for me. What I like about the game is the chance to use characters that are uncommonly seen (at least as playable). There are at least 50 Mario characters that I can think of which I'd love to use in Smash Brothers, but since the current games focus mostly on major characters then almost all of them stand no chance of inclusion if all franchises are to be represented. The same goes for locations: there are dozens which would be suitable but only 3 or 4 are in a Smash Brothers game.
The existing Smash Brothers games were great as a goofy fighting game featuring Nintendo's All-Stars, but after three games that concept alone is wearing thin. One reason I don't like Brawl is that it tries to incorporate too many franchises and ends up being a contrived mess, so I think that more focused Smash Brothers games could be just the ticket.
As for third-party characters, I personally hate them and hope that none of them are in future Smash Brothers game. I like it better as an homage to Nintendo. If they wanted to create a crossover game then they should do something like Nintendo vs. Capcom instead.
But you know what gets me is we have Smash Bros. which covers all the franchises, but things like Mario Party and Mario Kart and the Mario Sports games only cover the Mario characters. What about Link, Zelda, Samus, and the rest of the game?
Mario characters seem better suited for games like that, I should think. Zelda and Metroid are both story-driven games, so it would be really weird to see Samus serving up pitches using her arm cannon. That would be so out-of-character for her. Mario characters are very simple and have no real character development that would make any such task seem out of place, and any depth they have is given to them by how the player infers them. That's what I like about them, anyway.
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: Ian Sane on January 27, 2010, 05:39:08 PM
Quote
Back in the SNES days, I longed for an RPG in the style of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars that brought all the Nintendo universes together. I still want that game.
Awesome idea. Needs a better story than anything from SSB though. Some sort of a tran-dimensional portal storyline would probably be the best way to combine the worlds. Or you use different planets and use space travel characters like Samus and Fox to combine the worlds. The Zelda world would just be a planet that has yet to discover space travel.
Years ago the idea of Link or Samus in a kart racing game seemed irreverant. But the spin-off train already left town for both franchises now so why not?
Regarding Halo it appears that the sequels initially came out as a business need for additional product. Halo 2 came from the need for an online Halo game (one could argue this is a significant enough change from a creative point of view). Halo 3 came out because there had to be a way to play Halo online with an Xbox 360 (This is more or less the rational for new Mario Karts - need to have one available for the current system). Anything since then is milking the franchise. Maybe they can do something significant enough to beat that trend.
I think multiplayer-focused games get stale the quickest. They're kind of like a sport in a way. The rules of a sport don't change that much. You get little revisions but no much else. If you go back and overhaul things, well, it isn't really the same sport anymore. People want to play Halo so Halo multiplayer has to continue to play like Halo. Since the single-player is obviously going to play similarly it also cannot be altered that significantly.
Single player games provide much more flexibility for introducing new ideas. I don't think it's a coincidence that Nintendo franchises like Mario Kart or SSB that rely on multiplayer have gotten stale for me but Zelda, Metroid or Mario have not. Just the ability to introduce new settings, characters and stories allows for one to keep single player content fresh.
The industry seems to be moving towards multiplayer games. MMOs, FPS deathmatches, band focused music games, and Nintendo goes on and on about the multiplayer in NSMB Wii (despite the fact that the game is a strong title even if played alone.) I predict this trend will result in games getting stagnant and we'll start to see a return to more single player games.
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: broodwars on January 27, 2010, 05:42:45 PM
Back in the SNES days, I longed for an RPG in the style of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars that brought all the Nintendo universes together. I still want that game.
Awesome idea. Needs a better story than anything from SSB though. Some sort of a tran-dimensional portal storyline would probably be the best way to combine the worlds. Or you use different planets and use space travel characters like Samus and Fox to combine the worlds. The Zelda world would just be a planet that has yet to discover space travel.
Sounds like Kingdom Hearts, though hopefully without the utter lameness that that franchise imbues in each world's individual stories (seriously, if you've seen the various Disney movies there's absolutely nothing new about each world).
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: Chozo Ghost on January 27, 2010, 06:02:31 PM
Maybe it's just perception, Chozo Ghost, but I can't imagine Samus or Zelda in a kart or sports game. They just feel out of place. Though it may just be decades of seeing Mario & Co be in them that allows that to make sense over the other.
But I'm sure that is EXACTLY how everyone felt back in 1992 (or whatever year it was) when the first Mario Kart game was released. Kart racing was never featured in any of the original Mario games, and it just didn't make any sense at all at that time.
But even in those days, Nintendo was pimping Mario out into franchises that he kinda had no business being in. Like Mario Paint, for example, or Dr. Mario, or Mario's Time Machine. All of those were games that seemed out of place compared to the platforming stuff Mario was known for.
But that was then, and nowadays we take all of this for granted. If Nintendo announces a Mario Football game, who here is going to be shocked? But if you take Link and try to have him do anything like that then it is a shock, because it is completely new for him.
But the Zelda franchise has KINDA taken a small step in that direction with Link's Crossbow training. AFAIK this was the first time Link got pimped out instead of Mario and the gang, and it was a refreshing change. Hopefully there will be some more Zelda genre crossovers in the future.
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: Mop it up on January 27, 2010, 06:14:15 PM
I never once questioned Mario's existence in any of those first Mario spin-off games. Mario is a multi-talented fellow who seems to be skilled at anything he tries. Games like Dr. Mario and Super Mario Kart didn't sound foreign or blasphemous when I first heard about them, but rather fun and exciting with characters I already know and love.
Technically, Super Mario Brothers is a spin-off of Mario Brothers, which is in turn an off shoot of Donkey Kong. So a "traditional" Mario game would actually be something akin to the Donkey Kong arcade game.
But, you have a point here. Mario has been in spin-offs ever since the beginning; that was all a part of the development and establishment of Mario, so we're all used to that now. Zelda and Metroid have always been focused on just the main series, and after all this time, it might be too late for many to accept them in any other type of game.
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on January 27, 2010, 06:14:22 PM
But I'm sure that is EXACTLY how everyone felt back in 1992 (or whatever year it was) when the first Mario Kart game was released. Kart racing was never featured in any of the original Mario games, and it just didn't make any sense at all at that time.
I don't remember ever talking to anyone who had that reaction. It was just cool. Maybe that's because Mario's never felt all that genre- or story-locked, or maybe it's because none of Nintendo's franchises had had enough releases yet to feel constrained. Maybe a Zelda spin-off would have been easier to sell back when there had only been three Zelda games and only two of them even played similarly.
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: Ian Sane on January 27, 2010, 08:07:17 PM
Quote
But even in those days, Nintendo was pimping Mario out into franchises that he kinda had no business being in. Like Mario Paint, for example, or Dr. Mario, or Mario's Time Machine. All of those were games that seemed out of place compared to the platforming stuff Mario was known for.
As a kid I remember being interested in Dr. Mario when I first heard of it and then being INCREDIBLY disappointed when I found out it was a puzzle game. It seemed very wrong and inappropriate at the time. I only knew Mario as being in action games (I was unaware that Wrecking Crew existed). Of course I think Dr. Mario is an awesome game now. Yoshi was even more disappointing as I wanted something like what Yoshi's Island would eventually be.
By the time Super Mario Kart came out I didn't find it irregular as Nintendo had already made some spin-offs. I recall not being interested in it though since I wanted more and more "real" Mario games. I didn't get into Mario Kart until the N64 so I don't share much appreciation for the original like most do. I still have never bothered to add it to my SNES collection despite it being a obvious inclusion.
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: NWR_insanolord on January 27, 2010, 08:47:15 PM
Back in the SNES days, I longed for an RPG in the style of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars that brought all the Nintendo universes together. I still want that game.
Awesome idea. Needs a better story than anything from SSB though. Some sort of a tran-dimensional portal storyline would probably be the best way to combine the worlds. Or you use different planets and use space travel characters like Samus and Fox to combine the worlds. The Zelda world would just be a planet that has yet to discover space travel.
How about they take advantage of the fact that Samus is a bounty hunter and have someone hire her to catch Fox, who has been framed for some kind of crime. She chases him all over the galaxy to the worlds of all the Nintendo characters, with the two of them recruiting the rest of the Nintendo lineup, with them all eventually figuring it out and working together to take down whoever framed Fox.
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: Chozo Ghost on January 28, 2010, 04:49:52 AM
Now that I think about it, Mario also appeared as the Referee in the original Punch-out game.
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: Stratos on January 28, 2010, 05:05:28 AM
Mario appeared as a ref in every Nintendo made sports game on the the NES and GB as I recall. He even freaking appeared in Alleyway, Nintendo's Breakout clone as the beginning of every game shows him jumping into the paddle as if he was controlling it from the inside to bounce the balls.
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: Chozo Ghost on January 28, 2010, 05:19:01 AM
If you look at the boxart you can see that it in fact is some spaceship type thing with Mario inside at the controls. in gameplay terms its really just a simple paddle like in any other game of that type, but pretending it is a vehicle with Mario inside sorta makes it more interesting. But it doesn't really effect anything gameplay wise.
The lesson seems to be that there is no genre of game Nintendo isn't willing to give Mario a cameo in to boost sales, and the sad thing is, it works.
Edit: BTW, wasn't he also in Tetris? I could be wrong...
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: King of Twitch on January 28, 2010, 05:23:16 AM
Yes, the multiplayer.
All these cameos and we're not even in the 90s yet.. talk about franchise burnout.
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: Chozo Ghost on January 28, 2010, 08:57:13 AM
I think that's a huge advantage Nintendo has over its other competitors. The only one who even came close was Sega with their Sonic mascot, but Sonic was nowhere near as totally pimped out as Mario is, and also Sega is now a 3rd party and not really a competitor anymore per se.
Back in the early days of the Playstation I remember Sony KINDA had its own mascot in the form of that Bandicoot thing, but for some reason they lost it and it became a multiplatform character. AFAIK Microsoft never had its own Mascot, and doesn't even seem interested in creating one.
I think certain people might look at Mascots as childish, and so if you're aiming for the hardcore crowd you probably don't want to be linked up to something cartoonish. But Nintendo has always had Mario from the beginning, and I think its worked out very well for them. There are people out there who sadly will never even try games like Mario Kart or the Mario Sports games or anything like that just because they see the characters as "childish", but for every player like that there are many more who either don't care or actually love the characters. And a lot of the adult gamers these days grew up with Mario and friends, so that just makes it more appealing for them.
Title: Re: What makes a sequel?
Post by: Mop it up on January 28, 2010, 06:59:56 PM
Don't forget the NES game Pinball, that had Mario in it too.
