Hmm, other team-up projects. Inspired, perhaps, by Super Mario and Donkey Kong? Maybe a big platforming game with those two and their friends was considered.


Besides the sci-fi universes (F-Zero, Metroid, Star Fox) and the cartoon/whimsy universes (Donkey Kong, Kirby, Pikmin, Super Mario), I can't think of other Nintendo team-up combinations that have a chance of working out.


Maybe a cross sports game between Wave Race, Excite Bike, and 1080 snowboarding? Advance Wars, Fire Emblem, and Kid Icarus don't fit with any other series.

Thank Dog.

Seriously though, that is a far fetch rumor.  I never thought it was true (Regardless of how much I wanted it to be)  As long as there is a Wii U Starfox and Metroid game I will be good.

Hmm.... I just realized that in the Mario Galaxy games Mario is in a space setting, so that sets Mario up as a perfect candidate for a crossover with Metroid or Star Fox. ;)

For all we know Rosalina could be Samus' sister or something...

Epic Nintendoception.

we need to go deeper

This is literally Schrodinger's Cat. The game that may not have existed, may now not exist anymore. But did it exist because we wished it into existence?

*confused*

*whistles*...

Seriously, I mean, if the internet was informed about every idea that was ever discussed, well ....

"God/Gears/Guitar Hero of War may be in development!!"

Um, you might want to look up the word literal in the dictionary... :-P

Um, you might want to lighten up because you know what he means and it's not a big deal. Maybe you shouldn't take everything so literally...

This does pose an interesting question: what IS Retro working on? If it's another Metroid, I hope we get pointer controls because those were great.

1. New IP
2. Zelda
3. Metroid

Not all 3. Just in that order.

They've already done Metroid... thrice. Retro doesn't need to be tied-down to one franchise. It's time for them to spread their wings and broaden their horizons.

I'm hoping for Starfox.

EAD has regained my confidence with Skyward Skyward, so I'm fine with them continuing to handle Zelda for now.

So then by "literally", you mean it metaphorically? :-P

He made a mistake, and I pointed it out in good humor-- You're right, it's not a big deal which is why I chose to have fun with it in the first place.

Which one of us really needs to lighten up?

The list in my previous post is what i find most likely.

Skyward Sword was well-made but it didn't resonate with me so Zelda would be at the very top of my list of games for Retro Studios to work on. I feel like the series can benefit from a fresh approach. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing Nintendo shuffle the deck and let different teams work on projects they traditionally have not worked on. For example, what if Eiji Apnuma's team worked on Mario instead? He's a talented designer. I wonder what he could bring to the series.

Nice try. This isn't the first time you've been snippy with someone over something trivial. In good humor. Right.

Oh the irony, it's almost too much. I would suggest actually you read the dictionary meaning of literally before you try and "correct" someone on its usage.

lit·er·al·ly /ˈlitərəlē/ adv.
1. In a literal manner or sense; exactly: "the driver took it literally when asked to go straight over the traffic circle".
2. Used to acknowledge that something is not literally true but is used for emphasis or to express strong feeling.

If this was announced at E3 I would explode with joy.

I would be happy if Retro was working on DKCR2.

Although, much like with "NEW"SMB, I think they should drop the "returns" since, y'know, he's already returned..... just like the SMB games aren't "NEW" anymore.  and technically every game is "NEW" when it hits the shelves..... it's all so poorly named!!

Are you for rizzle? There's a big difference between not understanding someone and asking what they mean and this:

Come on, now... That's intentionally beligerent. No need to get snippy. Just ask.

Yeah, I hate those names, too.  They sound too much like product.  Could you imagine a great piece of literature called "Ernest Hemingway's New Novel"?  So why is something that is essentially "2009 Mario Product for Wii" an acceptable name?  But then Nintendo has done this for a while.  "Super Mario 64" makes ZERO sense out of context.  It is pretty much just "Mario Game for Nintendo 64".  I would prefer if Nintendo treated their game titles with a little more artistic integrity, like they do with Zelda.  They didn't call it "Zelda 64" and that was a good thing.  Zelda feels like more than a product because of its naming convention.

Regarding the Star Fox/Metroid rumour, it is interesting to note that Nintendo is at least thinking about the idea of crossovers.  Mario/Donkey Kong is hardly a crossover though since they both debuted in the same game.  It is already well established that they exist in the same universe (along with Wario and oddly enough Conker and Banjo).

The dream game though is SSB RPG - Nintendo's own Kingdom Hearts.  A few years ago I would have suggested Square work on it but they're, um, not so great anymore.  After Xenoblade, I'd assign this to Monolith Soft.  They're clearly capable of such a project and they're already a Nintendo dev.  Just make up some transdimensional portal storyline and you can mix all of the major IP together.

@Ian Sane

o.
m.
g.

Could you imagine a new Mario Nintendo RPG done by Monolith? Obviously you can because you just did, but, still .... that would be a big deal.

What if the SSB RPG was made by Team Ninja and directed by Sakamoto? ;)

Link would probably spend the whole time lamenting on waking up the Windfish... except he would keep referring to it as "the whale".

Well, I figured that the rumor was merely that, but it was nice to imagine Nintendo actually making a risky and potentially interesting move with two of their major franchises.  I'm sure whatever Retro's actually working on will be excellent, as they're Nintendo's best studio IMO, but I would have liked to see where this concept could have gone.

And as I said in the original thread on this rumor, I've been wanting an epic Nintendo crossover RPG since Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars on the SNES.  Unfortunately, RPG-hating Yamauchi ran the company back when Nintendo might have actually considered such a game, and today's Nintendo is probably too risk-averse to attempt such a thing.  But I can dream.

Nintendo does like their franchises though and any SSB RPG is going to have Mario in it.  NCL greenlighted Xenoblade and NOA would certainly not reject a game starring Mario.  The only real obstacle regarding it is that such a title done right would not be accessible to casuals in any way.

@broodwars

You don't think the following games were "risky and potentially interesting"? Keep in mind that risky, by definition, does not promise a good result.

Metroid: Other M
no explanation needed or, I suspect, wanted  ;)

Kirby's Epic Yarn
-no vacuum ability
-no copy ability
-... everything is yarn
-2P co-op
-can't "die"

honorable mention:
4P co-op in NSMBWii.  Going straight from only 1P platforming to <5 might seem like a lateral move at best.  However, before it was released, we didn't know if it would be hilariously annoying or just annoying.  Luckily, the game's design makes it much more the former.

I don't consider Epic Yarn especially risky. In fact, it was kind of the exact opposite of risky. Nintendo requested Good Feel make a completely new IP into a Kirby game, probably for marketing reasons. That's most likely the same reason Dinosaur Planet became Star Fox Adventures. Putting a character in unfamiliar territory is significantly less daring than marketing an entirely new product. You can sell a name far easier than you can sell an idea, no matter how good of an idea it may be.

Yeah, what he said on Kirby's Epic Yarn.

I also think the only thing "risky" about Other M conceptually was handing it over to Team Ninja, and Nintendo's no stranger to farming their properties out to 3rd parties.  Otherwise, a 2D Metroid game with heavy storytelling elements under the control of Sakamoto was a relatively safe bet on paper because of the 2D Metroids on the GBA, especially Metroid Fusion.

You want risky in a Metroid game?  How about Retro's idea for making Samus actually hunt bounties in a free-roaming area in Metroid Prime 3, which Sakamoto shot down because he didn't agree with that definition of "bounty hunter"?

As for New Super Mario Bros. Wii, that was probably the safest one of the 3.  They took a game that was massively successful on the DS, they put the bare minimum of effort into the level designs, and they added 3 more players.  And all adding 3 players did was make the game much harder and more annoying than it needed to be.  Nintendo allowed the Wii to become the casual, party-game system and they turned Mario Bros. into a party game.  That's as safe a bet on the Wii as you can get without making a mini-game collection.

Seriously, your going to act like anything with Mario and Pokemon in it is risky to Nintendo now?

An RPG crossover using Nintendo characters isn't risky at all.  The original Smash Bros sold over 5 million copies just on the fact it was a Nintendo crossover fighting game.  The most recent Smash Bros has sold close to 11 million copies by now and continues to sell.  Yeah something like Smash Bros has more appeal but all the Mario RPG have broke the million mark.  This show Nintendo has an audience of 1 million already that will buy an RPG with Mario in it which a Nintendo RPG would.

What about Pokemon and Nobunaga's Ambition? Anything risky there or still just plain vanilla risk-aversion?

No, I'll grudging give them that one just due to its sheer weirdness, though given that anything that has Pokemon stamped on it is a license to print money so it's not that much of a risk.

I'm a little curious.  Would the Dual Screens and Touch Screen on the DS and the entire Motion Controls on the Wii not be considered a pretty big risk?

I'd say the Wii was, but the DS was not since there was a decent spec bump and traditional controls, and they initially pushed it as "third pillar," while developing an alternative in case it didn't take off.

Whatever became of this alternative?

Even if it was a "Third Pillar" - considering the competition (which had far more than a "decent" spec bump) was poised to do some damage, I think if the DS had failed, the potential was there to really hurt Nintendo's handheld brand (which, at the time, was their bread-and-butter).

Well, I don't think it was a risk, as such. Nintendo had never pushed handheld specs as hard as Sony did and wouldn't have been able to get something ready cost-effectively. In that respect, the decision to try a new direction was almost less risky.

But they really did the same thing with the DS as they did with the Wii.  Instead of going toe-to-toe spec-wise, they came up with a feature (neé "Gimmick") and used that to sell the system (well, that and GAMES).

I think Nintendo was really in a high-risk situation whatever they tried.  The PSP stood a chance of being a real threat.  In the end, it was the selection of games that won the DS over the PSP - and many of the most popular games made heavy use of the DS's features (/gimmicks).  Much to the dismay of some posters around here. :D

It's hard to say what would have happened if Nintendo had tried to match/1-up Sony feature-wise on the PSP, but the route they took was a path less traveled and was a bit of a risk.  I seem to remember a lot of doom and gloom forecast for Nintendo when they unveiled the DS (not from me, I knew from the beginning it would be AwESOME!)... I think I even remember their shares taking a bit of a hit...  The feature (/gimmick) route was NEVER a sure thing and could have greatly backfired.

Granted, I'm not sure how much they had planned ahead at the time, but I think in some alternate universe where the dual/touch screened DS failed, the Nintendo of that world got scared of any motion controlled Wii plans and ended up making a Nintendo version of the PS360.

If you want the DS and Wii to be risks, fine, but I would point out when these risks occurred: last console generation, when Nintendo was struggling in 3rd place and desperate to make something that was a hit.  That was also the Nintendo that allowed a Western Studio to bring Metroid into 3D First-Person Gameplay; gave us a Mario game where the primary game mechanic was a squirt gun; turned Zelda into a cel shaded, sea-faring, cartoon adventure despite a very public outcry; and gave us Miyamoto's 1st new IP since the NES days.  That was a completely different Nintendo than the one we have now, flush with DS and Wii money and now very reluctant to take big risks for potentially big gains.  Today's Nintendo plays it safe because there is no longer an economic imperative to push the boundaries and try new things.  Instead, we get incremental upgrades and nostalgia-placating.

In many ways, I almost wish Nintendo was on the brink of irrelevance once again, just so they would feel the need to push their boundaries and do new things that surprise me.  I never feel positively surprised by anything Nintendo does anymore (the Nobunaga-Pokemon crossover nonwithstanding), and I miss that feeling of excitement when Nintendo is truly being creative.  These days, it's more exasperation at Nintendo doing X thing in Y game despite it not being the best way to execute a particular idea.  "Desperation is the Mother of All Invention", indeed.

It wasn't quite the same situation though because the home consoles require a significantly higher up-front R&D cost. Nintendo had also already designed the DS before the PSP and its specs were revealed. Furthermore, Nintendo still had a solid grip on the handheld market, but that wasn't true with consoles. But you're right that if it wasn't for the DS, the Wii would have been even riskier. I don't think the system itself was a risk, but perhaps their focus on the casual market was.

The DS was supposed to be a 3rd pillar, selling alongside the GameCube and GBA. If the DS failed, then Nintendo would have just continued the Game Boy line.

And yes, it doesn't really make sense, that's why it's a little bit of a contentious definition, but it has been that way for a long time.

I know the Wii is greatly underpowered, but it *is* the newest major console on the market and all.

But, since you somewhat brought it up... WiiU.  Is the tablet controller playing it safe?

Pretty good conversation going here.

My 2 cents is, in order from biggest to smallest risk:

Wii
As much as up-off-the-couch gaming and swinging around a virtual sword may seem like no-brainers, it remained to be seen if anyone would actually want to do it.  In my opinion? Huge risk.

Wii U
Not much of a risk.  I mean, I just can't imagine any legitimate concessions someone would have to make to play Wii U games if they don't like the tablet.  ("I hate this second, informative screen!").  The only "risk" per se is the timing and the potential leap-frogging when the neXtBox/PS4 arrive.  However, people have been predicting Nintendo's demise based on forth-coming stronger hardware for years.  Hasn't played out that way yet.

DS
The DS was absolutely a huge innovation.  It was the first truly popular consumer touch screen device and now look how ubiquitous they are?  However, I don't see it as much of a "risk" because if no one wanted to use the touch screen, games could easily have just been made to operate like a standard GameBoy with a vertical screen.

Metroid: Other M was somewhat of a conscious effort to make Metroid appeal more to Japanese gamers.  That's not really risky.  If anything that's the opposite.

The Wii was an insanely huge risk.  I thought for sure the Wii would be in bargain bins less than a year after its release and the whole thing would potentially kill of Nintendo for good.  Nintendo became an incredibly conservative company immediately after its success.  The Wii was Nintendo's plan to grab casual gamers and part two of the plan seemed to be "... and then we won't have to try anymore."  Getting the casuals took a huge risk but the ultimate benefit of doing so was that would allow them to be conservative and release mostly sequels and glorified motion control tech demos.  The mass market expects less from you if you can find the formula that works with them.  The only risk is in finding the formula.  Once you have it you can coast for years.

The Wii U isn't even a new idea.  It's pretty much a console DS and tablets are "in" these days, while motion control was nothing until the Wii showed up.  The risk with the Wii U is that core gamers might not go for it and casuals may have switched to the iPad or possibly Kinect.

Nintendo has always been conservative. They make games for a fraction of the cost of other companies and sell tons. That's low risk, high reward. Nintendo's reliance on sequels and characters isn't even new. Nintendo has been doing that since the 1980s. With Mario Bros. and Super Mario Bros., Nintendo just took an existing character from a popular game (Mario from Donkey Kong) and put him on his own games.

The only difference between then and now is that Nintendo had to create characters and IPs in the 1980s and 1990s because they didn't have any back then. I have no real issues with sequels. I like sequels. I only find it disconcerting when Nintendo takes what is already planned as a new IP and turns it into a spin-off of an existing one, like Kirby's Epic Yarn, because then they're just unecessarily restricting creativity. I don't really understand the obsession with new IPs nor do I understand how sequels suddenly equates "not trying." Nintendo doesn't release many bad games. In fact, they're notorious for throwing out nearly completed games because they're not good enough. Don't get me wrong. I'm not against new IPs. However, as long as Nintendo keeps releasing high quality games, I don't see why it's so important to introduce new IPs. Will it draw in people who don't like Nintendo games? Maybe even though a brand new Nintendo IP is still a Nintendo game by definition. If that's the only reason, that's not a very good one.

the could go on the strategy they had with n64, just show something amazing and everyone will want it. I love how the Wii U is super futuristic by 1992 standards.

Let's not forget, if we're going to compare Nintendo's level of risk aversion to other companies, Sony and Microsoft can afford to hemorrhage money in their games division because they have soooooooo many other streams of revenue.

Nintendo does gaming.

... and also Love Hotels.

Yeah. I loved the N64. Too bad it only sold what, 35 million units of hardware while the PS1 went on to move about 100 million? Yeah, certainly "everyone" wanted one.

Hmmm... maybe the best way to think of today's Nintendo is like this:

Fiscally conservative.
Idealogically radical.

When you're a Nintendo gamer you're not betting on $599 machines and silicon.
You're gambling on ideas and surprises and heart.

To me what really sums up the difference between yesterday's and today's Nintendo is a lack of ambition in their sequels.  You didn't get crap like Pilotwings reusing elements from Wii Sports Resort or Punch-Out having literally only ONE new opponent in the past.  NSMB is a series that has gotten flack for being unoriginal, in stark contrast to the creative Super Mario Galaxy.  The whole Wii Series is built on being INTENTIONALLY unambitious.

Part of the problem might just be timing.  Nintendo used to really make each sequel count but back then it was easier to do so because the series only had a few entries each and the hardware upgrades made a huge difference.  The NES was usually the first go.  The SNES polished the NES games that were rough.  The N64 had the advantage of a dimensional shift that meant restarting virtual every one of their existing series.

Of course that's what I consider Nintendo's golden age and to acheive that standard again they HAVE to make new IP.  Super Metroid is great because it's the logical peak of the 2D Metroid formula.  You can't make a better 2D Metroid unless you do something different with it like Fusion did (and later that other game but we'll ignore that one).  Ocarina of Time was the logical peak of the Zelda formula and that's why Twilight Princess got a lukewarm reaction.  Twists on the formula like Majora's Mask are the only direction they can go.  New IP is the easier way to maintain the high standard of Nintendo game design and it doesn't carry the risk of fan backlash like twisting up the existing franchises does.

One reason Pikmin 3 has so much hype is because the series is fresh and new.  There are still ways to improve the formula.  They have not yet reached a point where they either have to make generic Pikmin games or completely change what Pikmin is.  Playing the same bullshit again and again is not the normal Nintendo experience.  Nintendo as a game designer has typically been ambitious.  Most of their franchises have been milked too hard to continue that ambition so they have to turn to new content.

Hell, the gimmicky features of the Wii and DS partially come across as desperate attempts to recreate the industry changing impact of the switch to 3D polygons.  All of their existing franchises got a second chance by moving to 3D.  So maybe there is new life in Mario or Zelda if you use motion control or a touchscreen to play it.  Of course that didn't work and the implementation was forced but it seems like that was Nintendo's hope.  "This new control scheme will inspire us with new ideas like the N64 did!"  That's why they force it.  It's a vain attempt to avoid making a generic sequel.  Instead we get a generic sequel that plays like crap.

Xenoblade has been one of the most enjoyable Nintendo games I have played in years.  But that makes sense.  It's an ambitious game and is a new IP still trying to see what works and doesn't.

Wii Sports was very ambitious and innovative because it introduced new types of gameplay and made motion controls mainstream. If Wii Sports was a flop, Microsoft and Sony wouldn't have had a reason to "copy" Nintendo.

That's the best argument for new IPs I've heard yet! "Because your past games were perfect and can't be beat, so don't even try."

... I want them to make a Wii Music 2. That's a new IP with HUGE room for improvement!

Wii Sports was innovative and successful, but I wouldn't call it ambitious. Granted, it was a glorified set of tech demos and was included free with the system, so I think it's easy to forgive that.

I would call it ambitious given that virtually nothing like it ever existed before it appeared. Also, that it was sorta perfect at demonstrating a never-before-seen control scheme. For Wii Sports to be what it was, Nintendo had to stick the landing with unprecedented input methods and an unprecedented target audience on their first attempt.

This is where you're losing me. Both of those games are Mario games. So... then, ambition isn't inherently tied to newness. One team made a Mario game that was unoriginal yet another team made a Mario game that was creative. He's the same Mario, red hat, blue overalls, and mustache. Ambition is limited by a development team's willingness to be ambitious. Replace Mario in those games to an arbitrary new character, call it something else yet you still have the same level of creativity. You're blaming the creation; I'm blaming the creator.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes...

How are you coming to these conclusions? Of course some developer can make a better Metroid game than Super Metroid. The IP isn't holding itself back. Creativity or the absence of it is. I don't see the connection between ambition and age. You can be ambitious with something new and you can be ambitious with something old. Find someone who's passionate about the material and they'll make you a great product.

And how do you figure that Twilight Princess got a lukewarm reception? In general? How do you plan to prove that? From the media? Pretty sure that's wrong. From you? Me? I didn't like the last 25% of the game, but I'm fairly confident that I'm in the minority of that belief. I didn't like Skyward Sword overall. Probably in the minority thewre too. Again, not for you ≠ bad.

I wouldn't say that. A collection of mini sports games has been done many times over the years, such as this one for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_games

Wii Sports was only original in that it had motion controls, but if you take that away its pretty much all been done before many times.

Dangit, Kairon. I can only put so many of your quotes in my sig. Geez.

Yeah, I was referring to the title's use of motion controls.

Aww shucks, Rachtman. My ego will feast on this comment for the next 12 hours or so.

Yea.  I'm a fan of this.

Is NWR looking for more t-shirts to print up? =P

Kairon is indeed very quotable for his concise insights.

However, Wii Sports isn't the first motion controlled sports game, as something called the XavixPORT offered the same sports with motion controls and was released in 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XaviXPort_gaming_console

Coincidentally, it is also the last home system to use cartridges, and not the Nintendo 64.

Considering no one ever heard of it does it really even count? Its like that deal where a tree falls in the woods and no one is around.

@_@

Dear me. Dear god. Wow! I checked out a video of their tennis game, and the basic idea is there. I still have to commend Nintendo's ability to really add their gameplay magic (and Miis) and then take it mass market, but it's pretty awesome to learn of this system's existence!

It's the kind of stuff you'd see at E3 back when Kentia Hall was populated.

Hmmm... makes you wonder when we'll see mass-market videogames controlled with your MIND!!!

Back on the "No new IPs"/no risks topic... Endless Ocean?

Disaster 2: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies

Yeah no. Xavix = Some obscure toy company from Thailand that no one has ever heard of.

And technically the FC Twin is the last home system to use cartridges.  ;D

Nintendo made motion controlled gaming popular, and they were the first mainstream company to do it.

Yeah, the FC Twin doesn't count because it's just a famiclone that only plays NES and SNES games (no original games).

I know that. I was being sarcastic, hence the smiley face.

Someone forgot to close a "bold" tag.

Honestly, a Metroid/Starfox crossover could work. Samus could track a Space Pirate signal to the Lylat System and find a base they have created amongst the stars. Fox, curious, may also investigate and they decide to team up. The gameplay can have similar features to both games. Adventure, discovery and gadgets from Metroid and Flying around space and other planets from Starfox.