The day I stopped loving Nintendo

[FMW]

Huh, the day I stopped loving Nintendo... I guess the closest I come is back when I bought a PS2, it's the one time I purchased non-Nintendo hardware. The Gamecube library had run somewhat dry (though there were great games I didn't know I was missing at the time) and so I bought a Playstation. I'm glad I did, that system has a RIDICULOUS library of great games - I'll never come anywhere close to playing them all.

 

I have never felt the need to supplement my Wii with a PS3 because my DS has filled in any/all game library gaps. For this most recent generation I've never needed more than Nintendo hardware. So... I guess I love them again? How do you define love for a company anyway? All my favorite Wii games are Nintendo games, but all my favorite DS games are third party developed. The third party games have been filling most of my playtime, but they're on Nintendo hardware. Does that mean I love them as a hardware developer but not as a software developer? The whole concept is silly.

 

So yeah, that's my story with Nintendo. I'm not planning on buying a Wii U right now because so far I've been given no reasons too. No games, no hardware specs, no release date, no price, and no Metroid.

 

I think it's silly to try and analyze Nintendo's target market with the Wii U because they haven't announced any games yet. In their press conference they said broader and deeper, we and you. But of course they'll say that. Every company claims to be targeting everybody. Maybe Nintendo really will offer good software for both markets. Maybe not. Either way they'll SAY they will. There isn't sufficient data to draw any reasonable conclusions about the hardware right now.

[P4: Gritty Reboot]

They look hesitant, with one foot out the door and the other in the comfy position they want to retain. To me, linking their next-generation consoles with the previous ones so closely looks to me like they don't know how to "do the next thing". Nintendo definitely wants to bring back the core gamer with the Wii U, but will they even be able to? After focusing so much with casual titles and presentation of their products, are they going to be able to catch up to the rest of the gaming industry to deliver a wow-inducing game that pushes the boundaries of technology like they did during the SNES days? It's hard to say and I honestly don't think they can pull if off.

I'm not sure what you mean by "linking their next-generation consoles with the previous ones". I mean, "3DS" and "Wii U" are as indicative of a hardware successor as "Xbox 360" or "PS Vita" in my opinion. In fact, the PS Vita looks pretty similar to the PSP, as the 3DS does to the DS. Really not quite certain where you're getting that from: do you mean branding? Or something else entirely?

[RockyRan]

They look hesitant, with one foot out the door and the other in the comfy position they want to retain. To me, linking their next-generation consoles with the previous ones so closely looks to me like they don't know how to "do the next thing". Nintendo definitely wants to bring back the core gamer with the Wii U, but will they even be able to? After focusing so much with casual titles and presentation of their products, are they going to be able to catch up to the rest of the gaming industry to deliver a wow-inducing game that pushes the boundaries of technology like they did during the SNES days? It's hard to say and I honestly don't think they can pull if off.

I'm not sure what you mean by "linking their next-generation consoles with the previous ones". I mean, "3DS" and "Wii U" are as indicative of a hardware successor as "Xbox 360" or "PS Vita" in my opinion. In fact, the PS Vita looks pretty similar to the PSP, as the 3DS does to the DS. Really not quite certain where you're getting that from: do you mean branding? Or something else entirely?

 

Branding, presentation, general message being communicated.

 

Look at the difference between the N64 and GameCube, and the difference between the GameCube and Wii. Now look at the difference between the Wii and the WiiU. Same goes for the original GameBoy to the GBA to the DS, and then from the DS to the 3DS. Same general aesthetic (white minimalism with "soft" female hands), same name, same presentation, same "simplicity" message being communicated. It feels the same. Hell, for several minutes during their E3 presser people didn't even know if WiiU meant "tablet peripheral for Wii" or an actual different console. And yet when the GameCube and Wii were first shown people knew exactly what it was supposed to be.

 

This "blurring the lines" between generations probably sounds good on paper for some marketing exec, but it confuses the hell out of consumers. It certainly confused the hell out of people in regards to the 3DS, as shown that by one poll where a big chunk of people though it was just an upgrade to the DSi. It's sending a murky message and not at all one of "this is our NEXT generation of hardware". I look at the Wii U and it doesn't at all feel like the "next thing" from Nintendo. There's no differentiation or "rebranding" as you see from, say, the jump from the Xbox to the 360.

 

People like you and me know that this is a completely different console, but not the average casual gamer. They're going to look at the product and see an "upgrade" in the same way Apple goes form iPhone 4 to iPhone 4s. Then a whole bunch of them will remember that they already have a Wii and barely play it and put the Wii U box back in the shelf. This will happen unless Nintendo rebrands the console to make it abundantly clear this is an all new platform.

Edited October 22, 2011 by RockyRan

[CorgiShinobi]

I want to quote your entire post Rocky, but I'll just write my own for sake of length.

 

Just know this is for you.

 

1. I kept the concept of "innovation" simple, but if you want an example...

 

See, I can understand changing items in Zelda. It has happened, but quite frankly, changing the entire inventory is ridiculous. Your opinion is that it's stale, but given the discussion in the Zelda thread, that's really just a viewpoint as to how someone perceives it. There are people who hate the Wolf Link segments in Twilight Princess, but maybe liked the Triforce hunt in Windwaker, or vice versa. If anything, to do a complete overhaul of "what Zelda is" has the greatest potential to destroy the essence of the Zelda franchise. You might not even have a coherent franchise if everything built upon previously is flipped over and redone.

 

The boomerang has been altered a few times, but Link will almost always have a boomerang. If there's a hookshot, it might act differently, but there have also been other items similar to the Hookshot. We wouldn't even have the iconic Master Sword if we always changed the sword. Sometimes that happens, which is perfectly fine, but you go too far and you'll end up with something like... Metroid: Other M... Something that looks like a Nintendo game, but doesn't act in the slightest to what has been set upon.

 

Hey, if it ain't broke, don't fix it? Doesn't mean we can't add a fresh coat of paint, i.e. new items and new characters, but Link will be a hero, there will be a villian, there will be dungeons with key items, and so forth.

 

2. Maybe if Nintendo keeps the Wii on store shelves for 10 years, then maybe we'll get a similar number the PS2 has had for its 10 years on store shelves? It's true that it's not an inherent desire of the casual audience to buy hardware, but if you supply a benefit with a low cost, they'll bite. A roommate of mine sold his brand new Wii for $100 last week to someone I could label as "casual."

 

Still, the casual audience does try to keep the cost low. One flaw with the Kinect is that it's the "friend's item." I know a lot of people who have had fun with the Kinect, but it's usually preceded by "At so-and-so's house..." The Kinect has sold a lot, but it's something that's enjoyed most as a shared commodity. Where am I going with this again? If you keep the price low and have a benefit (something like "fun" actually works, believe it or not), you'll see people throw their money if not to see for themselves.

 

3. P4 pretty much said it... How about "Xbox 360" or "PlayStation" Hell, even when talking about the Xbox 360, people will simply refer to it as an "Xbox." Nintendo using "Wii U" and "3DS" isn't a strange practice of retention; it's what Sony and Microsoft have done.

 

EDIT: It would have helped if Nintendo showed the actual console instead of letting it sit in an obscure stock photo. Because it was just the controller, people were getting confused.

 

As for the 3DS... given how often Nintendo upgrades their handhelds, is there even a "generation" for handhelds? I mean, you can see the advancing tech, but there's always upgrades to a specific set of handheld.

 

GameBoy -> GameBoy Pocket

 

GameBoy Color

 

GameBoy Advance -> GameBoy Advance SP -> GameBoy Micro

 

Nintendo DS -> Nintendo DS Lite -> Nintendo DSi -> Nintendo DSi XL

 

Nintendo 3DS (EDIT 2)

 

Nintendo's not the only one guilty of "confusion." The different SKU sets for the Xbox 360 and PS3 can be confusing to consumers as well. It's the one thing I hope the Wii U can address in that it could be a base console, but the more dedicated have options rather than "Hey, buy more of our products!" (i.e. Microsoft brand Xbox 360 HDD, Microsoft brand Xbox 360 flash drive, or how about those MemoryStick Duo cards?)

Edited October 22, 2011 by Atomsk88

[FMW]

Everyone looks for something different in a video game. Everyone notices and cares about different parts of the game. It cannot be argued that Zelda games do not change drastically from installment to installment. There are clear, significant differences. It also cannot be denied that the franchise moves conservatively and keeps many elements the same.

 

The people who are more interested in the elements Nintendo doesn't change much (inventory, dungeons, combat, damsel saving, and enemy types to name a few) are going to see the Zelda franchise as going stale. Because yeah, all those things are the same. You use mostly the same items in mostly the same ways to slay mostly the same enemies in mostly the same dungeon types. You are still saving damsels in distress (mostly). The consumers who see Zelda as "stale" are not wrong. Parts of the franchise haven't significantly changed since Ocarina of Time.

 

The people who are more interested in the elements Nintendo does change continue to be enthralled with the franchise. The elements that change include, but are not limited to; narrative content, characterization, art, music, and overworld navigation. These things change drastically from entry to entry. If a person cares about these parts of a video game then Zelda games bring them a new and fantastic experiences with every release. People who love Zelda games are not necessarily "blinded by hype" as there are definitely aspects of the franchise that continually change and remain relevant.

 

And to tie this into the thread overall, I think this applies to most of what Nintendo does. They make very polished video games that only change part of the franchise they are based upon. This approach cannot please everyone. I would like to take Donkey Kong Country Returns as an example. It is, by most standards, a very conservative game design It changes some things in the franchise but leaves many parts untouched.

 

Many people dislike this game. For some, it's stuck in the past. It's a 2D platformer with an animal mascot - it's straight out of the SNES era! It lacks online multiplayer, DLC content, leaderboards, and HD graphics. It doesn't leave any room for player choice at all, it's just a simple obstacle course. This game doesn't take advantage of 10 years worth of technological advances and really gives players no reason to come back to it once it's completed. The game seems as though it would be better served as an XBLA downloadable title for $15.

 

For others, this game is untrue to it's roots. The graphics are ugly 3D rather than awesome 2D sprite animation. The music is made by a different (and infinitely inferior apparently) composer. King K-Rool isn't even here, nor is the tag gameplay of the originals! Some people feel that DKCR strips everything that made the franchise special away from it. The extended Kong family is gone, most of the animals friends are gone, and did I mention that the motion control is the worst thing that ever happened? Because it seems to be. These people feel Retro changed far too much.

 

And then, for some, the game is fantastic. I happen to fall into this category.

 

All Nintendo games face this same split audience problem. Some want Metroid to go back to 2D. Some want Metroid Prime to continue. NOBODY agrees on where Samus should go as a character Some want Zelda to go back to 2D and the 2D art style. Some people want Zelda to grow to the scale of an Elder Scrolls game and embrace player choice in an open world. Some people want Zelda to finally get voice acting. Some people want Zelda to cut back on the storytelling and become more of an abstract fairy-tale type yarn again. Some people think 2D Mario will always be the best. Some people think 3D Mario is best. Some say Mario should have open ended areas to explore like in SM 64. Some prefer more linear challenges for their Mario fix.

 

To summarize: Every Nintendo franchise is stale, and every franchise is full of new ideas. One glance at message boards will show that some people think EVERY franchise has changed too much or too little. Nintendo splits the difference, leaning usually conservatively.

[RockyRan]

I definitely agree with Wheats in that this all really depends on what the person is really looking for. I personally look for advancement, innovation, and deep changes and improvements to mechanics when there's a major sequel coming out. I don't really care if the story or the setting are changed, I need to feel the game being different before I consider it a good sequel. The more sequels that don't do this, the more bored I become of the franchise, which sadly has applied to nearly everything Nintendo has done the past 6 years.

 

And replying to Atomsk's post (I'll do the number thing so we don't have quote ping pong, mmk? )

 

1. Changing every single item in the inventory was pretty hyperbolic on my part, but I at least want the majority (as in, 3/4s) of the items to change from one game to the other. It'd be even better if the new items had strong tie-ins to the main game's theme. I'm not sure if Skyward Sword does this, but imagine if Twilight Princess had Twilit-themed weapons. Perhaps one of the large twists of the game was that every weapon you acquired had a Twilit-variation, a more dangerous variation implementing double-edged-sword-esque tradeoffs. (This is just off the top of my head, of course). My issue with the Zelda weapons is not only the fact that you keep finding boomerangs for instance, it's the fact that they're all practically used for the same thing across a BUNCH of games that are supposed to be set in entirely different eras.

 

You might not think so, but to me franchises in general need complete overhauls at least once every 10 years. Most of Nintendo's franchises are well past that point, and I've simply lost interest in them. I don't think I've ever agreed with the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" stance, either. I always say "if it ain't broke, spin something new on it and make it even better" back.

 

2. The point that the Wii won't last 10 years is a very important one. It's dropped off completely and won't last even a few months into the Wii U's lifetime, because it was a fast burner and doesn't really have anything that would make it last longer than its "normal" lifetime. When it dies it won't have sold as much as the PS2 in total sales and that is precisely my point. It might been the fastest selling console of all time, but it's not at all the most-selling one and when all is said and done, in terms of sales the PS2 would've still come out on top despite the Wii having its crazed mania in 2006-2008. My point is that the Wii's success wasn't long lasting, and Nintendo obviously knows it because they're perceptively changing their direction to appeal to the core gamer whereas 4 years ago they would've said "fuck you all, we're swimming in money right now". Had they thought the Wii's success was sustainable, they wouldn't have tried to appeal to the core gamer in E3 like they did.

 

3. You're talking about names, I'm talking about branding. Look at the branding of the Xbox 1 and the branding of the Xbox 360. They're completely different products. Same goes for PS1, PS2, and PS3. Same goes for N64, GC, and Wii. The fact that the name "Xbox" and "PlayStation" is in every platform really has very little to do with the point I'm trying to make. The branding for the Wii and WiiU are practically identical. I wouldn't be surprised if they even got the same lady to do the hand modelling for the WiiU.

 

And yes, Nintendo's handhelds did have very obvious "generations". The difference in tech and aesthetic between GameBoy Color and GameBoy Advance was gigantic. Same for the difference between the GBA Micro and original DS. The difference between DSi XL and 3DS? Very, very small. It looks very much like one of Nintendo's famed incremental upgrades to the untrained eye. Many people felt that way.

[excel_excel]

I definitely agree with Wheats in that this all really depends on what the person is really looking for. I personally look for advancement, innovation, and deep changes and improvements to mechanics when there's a major sequel coming out. I don't really care if the story or the setting are changed, I need to feel the game being different before I consider it a good sequel. The more sequels that don't do this, the more bored I become of the franchise, which sadly has applied to nearly everything Nintendo has done the past 6 years.

 

 

So then you must hate Uncharted 2 then yeah? What was different there? The story and setting were different yeah, but it was basically the same in terms of gameplay to Uncharted 1. And a game has to feel different to be a good sequel?.....Mario Galaxy felt the same as Sunshine? Point out what sequels you are talking about then.

 

"The difference between DSi XL and 3DS?"

 

So you can't see the difference. Besides knowing the difference yourself, you ignore it. Why?

Edited October 23, 2011 by excel_excel

[RockyRan]

I definitely agree with Wheats in that this all really depends on what the person is really looking for. I personally look for advancement, innovation, and deep changes and improvements to mechanics when there's a major sequel coming out. I don't really care if the story or the setting are changed, I need to feel the game being different before I consider it a good sequel. The more sequels that don't do this, the more bored I become of the franchise, which sadly has applied to nearly everything Nintendo has done the past 6 years.

 

 

So then you must hate Uncharted 2 then yeah? What was different there? The story and setting were different yeah, but it was basically the same in terms of gameplay to Uncharted 1. And a game has to feel different to be a good sequel?.....Mario Galaxy felt the same as Sunshine? Point out what sequels you are talking about then.

 

"The difference between DSi XL and 3DS?"

 

So you can't see the difference. Besides knowing the difference yourself, you ignore it. Why?

 

I don't know about Uncharted 2. I haven't played it yet. "Hate" is a strong word for same-y sequels. I've played plenty that I don't hate, but I think they're all "meh" at best and have never really been blown away by any of them. At any rate, I'm not really anticipating being blown away by Uncharted 2 either, with the range of "meh" depending on how many things it actively recycles. Other than that I don't really know much about that game.

 

Games that feel different to be good sequels? I can give you plenty. I felt BK: Nuts & Bolts was amazing given the sheer innovation it sported. People whined and bitched it was "too different", I absolutely loved it for being different. Assassin's Creed 2 is another worthy sequel that truly improves the core mechanics in a very meaningful way, even if it did recycle the combat system without adding anything truly meaningful in that regard. The jump from Half Life 1 to Half Life 2 was amazing as well, and even if I didn't like Portal 2 as much as Portal 1 it was definitely neater.

 

Mario Galaxy is definitely a worthy sequel. SMG2, on the other hand, was definitely a cash-in. Note I said "nearly everything", not truly "everything". SMG was definitely one of the exceptions, even if I personally enjoyed Mario Sunshine more because I like exploration-based platformers better.

 

So you can't see the difference. Besides knowing the difference yourself, you ignore it. Why?

 

I don't think I ever said I "can't see the difference". I know what the difference is. That's not what I'm talking about, and I have a feeling you know exactly what point I'm trying to make

[FMW]

Reading this thread, I noticed one super interesting comment and it leads me to another way to frame this. Rocky said that Super Mario Galaxy 2 was a cash in. Super Mario Galaxy 2 was filled with new music, new levels, and new powerups. The content the player runs through is almost 100% new stuff (I think there are two repeated boss battles? So I guess that would make it 118/120 new content. So... 98.3% new).

 

BUT: The way the player runs through the content is exactly the same as in the original. The moves and physics are ripped directly out of the first, it's the same exact thing. It is, in essence, a level pack.

 

The player isn't given any new ways to interact with the game, they're given more of the game to interact with.

 

I feel like Nintendo does that a lot, and perhaps is the root of much of the discontent expressed in this thread. I personally am pretty alright with just being given more of the game to interact with. The new levels are high quality levels, and there are a lot of them. I feel like I got a good deal when I bought the game. I had a lot of fun.

 

I feel like there's a very valid argument to be made against such a design philosophy. Video games are interactive, so when a sequel doesn't give a player any new way to interact with it then the merit of the game becomes entirely dependent on how clever the level designer/story writer is. That's the same way non-interactive mediums work. I could build a strong argument that taking all the new ideas out of the player's hands is inherently less than the medium can achieve. Such a sequel is an opportunity for a designer to strut his/her stuff and the player is simply permitted to come along for the ride.

 

I'm not going to expand on that argument because I don't subscribe to it. I think that it's a valid argument though and Nintendo definitely doesn't cater much to people with that mind set.

 

I would like to leave two questions for Rocky:

 

1: Is what I said a fair assessment, or am I extrapolating your views in a totally incorrect way?

 

2: Would you be interested in hearing the counter-argument to what I just described?

[RockyRan]

1: Is what I said a fair assessment, or am I extrapolating your views in a totally incorrect way?

 

No, you're exactly spot on. You articulated my thoughts better than I could, actually. It's a bit creepy

 

2: Would you be interested in hearing the counter-argument to what I just described?

 

Sure. I know you didn't subscribe to what you just said, so I think it's fair to post what you do believe

[FMW]

I'd like to preface this by saying that this is how I feel but I don't by extension believe anything else is wrong. I just aim to articulate the other point of view as well. After this we'll both say "cool, I still like/don't like modern Nintendo" and nothing is going to have changed. I'm not aiming to convince anyone of anything, that's why I asked before posting this.

 

Nintendo games tend not to allow for much player freedom. There is one and only one correct solution to everything, the player runs through the games like a mouse in a maze just trying to overcome the obstacles presented. It's exceedingly rare in a Nintendo game to make your own fun, you just experience the pre-developed fun. The downsides to this were listed above.

 

I think perhaps the best way to describe the good side of this is to call back to Zelda again. Zelda games are, in the dungeons, totally linear. The dungeon experience hasn't really changed since Ocarina of Time. The puzzles in a Zelda dungeon are rarely individually difficult, but each has the potential to trip a player up. There's almost always a larger meta-puzzle to the dungeon that you'll need to wrap your head around to get everywhere within it. In the best dungeons there is an "aha" moment, it's the moment where you see how it all fits together. This is where you figure out how to get to the boss door (which was usually right under your nose) or how to change the water flows to get somewhere or how all the puzzles in the Temple of Time are actually designed to be reversed with a statue in tow. This moment of epiphany doesn't make me smile because I'm clever for figuring it out. Most of the fun is in seeing how the meticulously designed dungeon fits together like clockwork. It isn't so much an "aha" moment as it is an "oh, wow, that's how it works" moment.

 

To step back from individual examples, think of the "rats in a maze" comparison. In a Nintendo game the player willfully jumps into the maze and does what they're told because the maze is filled with cool shit. The player submits to the authorial intent of the game creators in return for a more polished experience than other styles of game design have yet been able to create. The player cedes control over the experience because he wants to see what the designers have created.

 

I feel like there are two ways video games can give us an experience no other medium can. One is what I described to you previously. A game can offer the player new ways to interact with virtual worlds, creating new opportunities for fun. No other medium can do this, no other medium can change the user input so drastically. The sky is the limit for video game potential.

 

Video games offer something else that no other medium can though - discovery. No other medium lets a player explore every nook and cranny of the game universe, no other medium has the user dictating where he goes and when he goes there. My point of view is that Nintendo games have never gotten dull because they've never run out of new things for me to discover. There's always something else to find, something around the next corner, something over the next horizon.

[Thorgi Duke of Frisbee]

Well-said, Frosted. I also understand where you're coming from on the discovery bit, because I'm still finding every little inch of content and side-story in Arkham City. The game, along with titles like Darksiders, are excellent testaments to how far-reaching and powerful Nintendo's trademark mechanics have been. Without Metroid or Zelda, I doubt Arkham City would be the same game it is today.

[CorgiShinobi]

Eh, Frosty covered this pretty well. Might just "/thread" right now.

 

I will say this, if I should be allowed to follow through...

 

The strict philosophy of "ain't broke, don't fix" I don't inherently adhere to either, but there are a few games that I honestly believe should not be "refined" too drastically lest we see something horrific. That's where I get with Zelda, my favorite video game series. There are changes, small and significant, but we've also reached a point where there's the phrase "for a Zelda game..." (or any other Nintendo game.)

 

Depending on how one speaks, it can have a negative or positive connotation. Something that can signify that it has become "typical" or "stale." However, you might also see it as how the franchise has sustained itself long enough to where it's a pseudo-genre of video games. With the topic of Nintendo game influences, such as Zelda to Darksiders, if Zelda didn't do what it typically did, there might not have been the same influence.

 

I'm not honestly sure how to correctly articulate this, especially after reading Frosty's posts, but when you look at Zelda, Mario, Kirby, or even Metroid, one does expect certain recurring elements. In Kirby 64: The Crystal Shards, it was awesome to have the ability to combine powers into new attacks, but Kirby still had to absorb enemies. Even having his friends help out was used before in Kirby's Dreamland 2. Same concept, but different execution. Now this isn't to say Kirby games like Canvas Curse and Epic Yarn were "bad." It's nice to explore a bit, just so long as you remember what's at the core of the franchise.

 

Now I'd like to talk about a certain game again.

 

Metroid: Other M... I mean, it's alright, but it's one of the furthest Metroid titles that illustrates what Metroid is aside from Metroid Prime Pinball on the Nintendo DS. Even basic attributes like enemies and navigation rooms were drastically altered from their defined characteristics. Enemies solely existed to cause damage and there were dozens of navigation rooms scattered about simply to heal Samus Aran along her linear escapade. In short, the foundation laid before previous games was shattered to create a "new" experience that didn't live up to the "Metroid" name. It's not like change is frowned upon in the Metroid universe, especially when you consider how well received the Prime series was and still is. Maybe that's because, for the most part, it merely added to the franchise without taking away anything that was defined as "Metroid."

 

I mean, a gamer might scoff at the idea Samus Aran loses her abilities nearly every game, but then you look at Metroid: Other M and see how ridiculous it is for her to hold back on using her abilities.

 

If I can drive home a point it would be that unlike most other video games, Nintendo games have (as I said before) a built foundation that essentially defines what they are. All you can really do is add onto them because when you begin to look backward, you're altering years of gaming progress. We don't have Roc's Cape anymore as Link can jump in his 3D realm, or even if you don't like the Hookshot, it has evolved over the last few games. It's not like just because an item might look the same or even have the same name that it will actually be the same.

 

Again, I'm not sure I'm even making sense, but games like Assassin's Creed or any other modern title may not have a lasting legacy. Assassin's Creed 2 made much more progress over the first game because, well, AC2 was the second game. Not to mention the first had some pretty big problems, so improving was pretty much required. Still, then you look at Brotherhood. It's not much different, just a little refined in some areas. Alright, great for the third game. Revelations isn't out yet, but so far we have the hook blade and bombs. Alright, a new item and game mechanic.

 

I dunno, isn't that what Zelda does too? Maybe if we gave Assassin's Creed 20 more years with a few more titles, we might be having the same discussion of "stale vs. formula." I'm probably going to get flak for the example, but what other games do I have to compare to Zelda? More Nintendo games? Oh, well, there are Sonic games. Those have been holding up, right? Constantly altering itself to find something that will satisfy a large enough audience. Now we're at "Sonic: Nostalgia." Not to knock the game down, but that is its number one selling point.

 

One last bit, as it just came to mind, Nintendo could be defined as "Hardware: Innovative, Software: Traditional." Not to say everything Nintendo has crafted in hardware has been amazing (oh Vitality Sensor), but in some sense it's good to have a company who wants a console to do more than "more graphics!" On the forum, there has been the discussion of where gaming will go aside from making objects "more round." If you ask me, if we didn't have Nintendo (at least) trying out wacky ideas, Sony and Microsoft would be comfortable with selling us graphics machines. Then the idea of "innovation" would be brought up last minute and then, if anything is going to be stale, it would be the industry.

 

EDIT: Oh, but Nintendo does need to get its "online" in order. I would be more comfortable with purchasing more VC titles if it wasn't so awfully basic.

 

Atomsk Tangents: Closed.

Edited October 24, 2011 by Atomsk88

[P4: Gritty Reboot]

I would be more comfortable purchasing VC titles if I could actually transfer them off the Wii they were bought on.

[CorgiShinobi]

I would be more comfortable purchasing VC titles if I could actually transfer them off the Wii they were bought on.

Seriously. Unlike the other two consoles, there's no account functionality other than, "Hey, you wanna download/delete this game? It would be cool to have a red or black Wii and give my old one to my sister, but then she would have my games...

[Strangelove]

Yeah, thats the same reason I also never bought anything on VC. Not to mention the fact that they never even attempted to make it possible to transfer over those games to the DS. Maybe not the 64 games, but the NES and SNES games could sure as hell have been possible on the DS. I do hope some day they do get their shit together, cus they have tons of great properties available to them.

[RockyRan]

I totally get where you're coming from, Wheats. I understand Nintendo's never been really about "player choice" or anything even close to open world gameplay, but I just keep getting that feeling on practically every first party game that I've done this before. It wouldn't really matter if we're talking about games like the Assassin's Creed series, which has only been around since 2007, but when these series have been going on for as long as they do it just gets tiring.

 

I'd love Nintendo to come up with a new IP with every intention of making it part of the "classic" line-up that they have and just pour all their effort into it. I want them to start fresh and design something from the ground up with contemporary technology in mind. I feel that basically everything they do at this point is stuff they have done before, adapted for their current hardware. I feel like they're limiting themselves to pumping out sequels for something they invented 15 years ago, and despite the incremental changes with every iteration it still doesn't beat the freshness of a completely new IP from the brain of some of the best people in the industry.

 

I know they can do better. I'm just frustrated that they're not, even though they know they can.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

Nintendo is the Apple of the video game industry. Microsoft is the Microsoft of the video game industry (but pre-7/metro era.)

[CorgiShinobi]

It's kinda a double-edged sword. With Skyward Sword, I'm seeing a lot of additional content. Without spoiling much, there seems to be more focus on RPG elements like forging items and side quests.

 

There is also focus on music/instruments again. I personally believe that the inclusion of musical elements has been one of the greatest defining Zelda game mechanics of the series. However, what if someone is tired of it? At this moment it has been infused to the Zelda franchise that if you reverse, well, I think you'd find a lot of upset people. Then we get into the issue of believing problems persist, but developers can't locate "the problem." That's where we get tweaking and further into disputes.

 

Nintendo has had new IPs, but they easily become dwarfed by the veteran franchise games. Don't forget, Zelda celebrated its 25th Anniversary. There is Pikmin, a Nintendo IP that dawned in the sixth generation, but the last I heard of it was years ago when Miyamoto basically said, "There's going to be Pikmin 3."

 

I'm at least glad Mario and Zelda can identify themselves. Look toward Spyro for an example of lost identity. While Skylanders has an interesting concept, it's in no way "Spyro the Dragon." It's kinda a shame Sony never really kept a mascot. It seems most of the iconic PlayStation [1] games have faded into "classic" territory. Yeah, there were PS2 iterations, but Sony found new icons to associate with.

 

It makes you think, with the "Michael" television spot, how many of those characters are going to be relevant in 5 years? There will certainly always be a Final Fantasy, and LittleBigPlanet has a lot of potential to live on, but God of War is seems finished. Killzone and Uncharted might have more years after their PS Vita debuts. I dunno, but maybe we'll see more resurrections like Halo 4.