Topic: Nintendo Wi-Fi Recieves Two New Titles

[Kairon]

I think it's definitely debatable about whether Hunters needed to be a Metroid game. There are those who will see nothing wrong with the application of the Metroid Franchise, and there are those who are wary of such franchises overstaying their welcome.

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

[Smash_Brother]

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?

[Kairon]

Look, we all know that Nintendo is great and that their "sequels" are definitely not sequels, they are games in and of themselves. This isn't at all about games or game quality, but just with where and how often we see Nintendo characters.

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

[Ian Sane]

"Can you point out a single instance where a franchise's sales suffered from overexposure? You keep talking about it like it's this big threat... where's the threat? Metroid becomes what Mario is, or what Sonic was in the later Genesis days. We should be so lucky."

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.

[Strell]

God Ian.  They put out 3 Metroid games in the last 4 years, after having none for something like 8 years, and you call it whoring.

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.  

[Smash_Brother]

So you're saying you'll personally subsidize Nintendo for all of the new franchises that fail?

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.

[Ian Sane]

"Blame the consumer for buying it, not Nintendo for trying to make what sells in order to remain profitable."

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.

[jasonditz]

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.

[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.

[31 Flavas]

Quote
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.

Wow, this isn't acting selfish or as if the video game world revolves around you.....

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.  

[jasonditz]

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?

[Ian Sane]

"And so you won't be buying New Super Mario Bros. or Mario Revolution?"

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.

[EasyCure]

"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."


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.

[Smash_Brother]

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.

[EasyCure]

"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.

[Infernal Monkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here!
 

[Mario]

Personally I think they should get as many quality Metroid games out that they can. People still haven't even heard of the damn series, i'd only start worrying about Metroid being "overexposed" if people start walking around with Metroid keyrings, Metroid ring tones, Metroid shirts and wearing Samus Boots. Overexposed would be something like Pokemon, and each new main Pokemon game continues to sell 10 million on release. What now Ian?

[EasyCure]

i hear hot topic will be carrying a line of samus boots this spring

[jasonditz]

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.

[Smash_Brother]

On another note, MPH multiplayer is excellent and I haven't even tried out the variety in the hunters yet...

[IceCold]

Quote
By this logic, Pikmins 1 and 2 should have been multi-million sellers.

It's true... in the perfect world they would have been the top selling games from all the consoles this gen.

[Infernal Monkey]

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

[jasonditz]

Quote
Originally posted by: Infernal Monkey

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

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.

[Shin Gallon]

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...

[Smash_Brother]

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.