The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I've just read one of the most fascinating articles on IGN.
The reason it did was because it was staring me straight in the face, a concept developing in my mind and there it was. The entire problem surrounding Nintendo's fall from grace. In a collection of words on a page.
It started to play on my mind when the latest DS title was announced. Super Princess Peach, a tongue in cheek role reversal of Nintendo's classic Mario franchise. The game could well be an innovative and enjoyable new franchise. But it isn't. Not really. Instead it is placed along Nintendo's other DS franchises. These are Animal Crossing DS, Wario Ware DS, Mario Kart DS, Mario Brothers DS, Mario 64 DS, Metroid Prime: Hunters, four swords, Pokemon Dash, Yoshi's Touch and go... and so forth.
All of the above titles try to use (and probably succeed) a new and original form of gameplay. Yet they all, every one of them, share a common issue. They are all established Nintendo franchises. Why could Nintendo not call "Yoshi's Touch and Go" something totally different and remove Mario and Yoshi. Introduce a few new characters. Suddenly a new world is born, suddenly a new franchise is born... Yoshi and Mario could help the game to sell well but... we will never truly know.
It is funny how Nintendo are trying to release the most innovative game system ever... and yet they have not got one original game in the line up. SEGA's XY/XX feel the magic, is in fact the only game I see that isn't a new breed of an old franchise.
You see I, you and the legions of avid Nintendo followers love Nintendo for Mario, for Pokemon and for Zelda. So Nintendo continue to keep their forever falling fan base happy with new iterations of Mario and Zelda. Yet by not making a new "Mario" or a new "Pokemon" how can Nintendo ever hope to expand their fan base?
Metroid Prime was Nintendo "re-inventing" the Metroid brand. It was clever and the game is genius. Introducing the gaming world to something totally new. So why Metroid? Strafio, a massive Metroid fan from these very forums, still craves for a third person action platformer. Was it beyond Nintendo's capacity to make this? This would have satisfied the fan base. And what of Metroid Prime? Well did we have to have Samus in it? Did it have to be based around the Metroid universe?
Sure, Metroid Prime may not have sold as much if Samus and his enemies were not part of the game. And yet I feel we could have seen the birth of a brand new killer Nintendo franchise. Metroid could take the crown from Tomb Raider in the action platform sides of things. Whilst this new innovative First Person Adventure from Nintendo will make Perfect Dark a distant memory.
I shall present Zelda as my next example. A perfectly lovely realistic Zelda would have kept all Nintendo gamers happy. But the Wind Waker ruled did it not? The Wind Waker was a great new addition to the series. Yet why did it have to be Zelda? Could we not have seen a new adventure title from Nintendo? Even an RPG game! A cartoon RPG is a good idea (Namco did it). It did not have to be Zelda. It could have been a different game. A whole new series of Nintendo titles. Maybe next year we'd have the cel-shaded new adventure RPG and a new Zelda game. And the series' need not have anything to do with eachother.
Pokemon saved Nintendo back in 1996 as sales started to fall. It was Nintendo "being original". There was no Mario. There was no Zelda. This was something new. This was to attract new gamers. This was a new game. And like Mario and Zelda before it. It was huge. Now though we do not get that. We get Nintendo putting all their money, resources and efforts into keeping the fan base happy with a new Mario title or a new "Zelda Four Swords adventure". If Nintendo can keep 2 20-year-old franchises such as Mario and Zelda feeling fresh imagine what they could do with a new idea? Imagine if they were asked to make a Bongo action game that had nothing to do with Donkey Kong? We'd be looking at a totally new franchise at the beginning of next year.
What could Nintendo create with that sort of freedom on the Gamecube? Let me tell you. Pikmin. Pikmin started life as a demo featuring 100 Mario's. Imagine if that had stayed the same. Imagine if Olimar was a big Mario and the Pikmin were hundreds of little Marios/Luigi's and Peach's being directed to do various tasks to defeat Bowser. Indeed the game would still be original and fun. But instead we got a different world. New characters, a new franchise, new iconography and new landscapes. We got a whole new Nintendo game. One that can stand besides Mario/Zelda and Pokemon as a game that had NOTHING to do with another game. Olimar was never a baddie in Mario Land and Pikmin was never a Pokemon.
This is what Nintendo need. New games. New franchises. They don't HAVE to be adult either, might be helpful but hardly essential. Why does Wario Ware have Wario in it? Is he needed? Why did Dinosaur Planet have Fox in it? It was obviously not a Starfox game!
Nintendo are scared. Releasing a totally new game could mean a disaster. A flop. Would Viewtiful Joe have sold through the roof if it were a Megaman game? Hell yes. But would it be a new franchise on which Capcom can build on? No it could not.
Nintendo tried widening its appeal with new games. Metal Gear and Resident Evil remakes are a prime example. Yet these two games are still "old" games. Nintendo should never have bought the Resident Evil games because they had Eternal Darkness. This game could have been a new Nintendo franchise. An ideal new Nintendo franchise. As it happens it was never needed. It would never sell. Capcom's famous survival horror put pay to that.
RARE were never scared to release a new game. They did sequels too but next to the release of Banjo Tooie came Conker's Bad Fur Day. Next to Donkey Kong 64 came Jet Force Gemini. Besides Killer Instinct Gold there was Blast Corps and Goldeneye. Some were sequels. Most were totally new franchises that branched out to new gamers. What would the N64 have been without RARE? What new franchise did Nintendo create themselves? If it wasn't for the fact Nintendo's brand faces were moving into 3D we would all have wondered "what's new?" Just like we are now. If Nintendo still had RARE we would have had Grabbed by the Gholies and Kameo by now. 2 completley original and new games.
X-box gamers are lucky. Loads of totally new games to play, Knights of the Old Republic was a success, Blinx a failure but an attempt at least... and the biggest success story of this generation. Halo. A game that was so totally fresh that nearly every gamer in the world wants to own it. Even Sony, with Ico, the eye toy games, Rachet and Clank and Sly Cooper can risk a new franchise.
Are Nintendo just a bunch old golden oldies? Making nice games with the same faces over and over again? Are Nintendo out of touch? No I don't think so. Shigeru Miyamoto, a guy that made the original Donkey Kong game decades ago, made Pikmin. He hasn't lost it. He can still create a new world to exploit. A New World to delve into and explore.
Retro, Nintendo's latest acquisition, is one of Nintendo's greatest properties. Metroid Prime is almost a totally new franchise. Sure the name is the same but the game is not. Retro are original and Nintendo need to expand this team and bring Raven Blade and the companies back to the release schedule. Rare, Left Field and Silicon Knights have gone. It was a stupid mistake by the big N. But if only Nintendo themselves can make something new.
Nintendo are innovators. They were once the driving force in the gaming industry. Introducing new characters and new ideas. Now they are just a company growing old. Making the same great games... we need new great games.
Wake up Nintendo.
The reason it did was because it was staring me straight in the face, a concept developing in my mind and there it was. The entire problem surrounding Nintendo's fall from grace. In a collection of words on a page.
It started to play on my mind when the latest DS title was announced. Super Princess Peach, a tongue in cheek role reversal of Nintendo's classic Mario franchise. The game could well be an innovative and enjoyable new franchise. But it isn't. Not really. Instead it is placed along Nintendo's other DS franchises. These are Animal Crossing DS, Wario Ware DS, Mario Kart DS, Mario Brothers DS, Mario 64 DS, Metroid Prime: Hunters, four swords, Pokemon Dash, Yoshi's Touch and go... and so forth.
All of the above titles try to use (and probably succeed) a new and original form of gameplay. Yet they all, every one of them, share a common issue. They are all established Nintendo franchises. Why could Nintendo not call "Yoshi's Touch and Go" something totally different and remove Mario and Yoshi. Introduce a few new characters. Suddenly a new world is born, suddenly a new franchise is born... Yoshi and Mario could help the game to sell well but... we will never truly know.
It is funny how Nintendo are trying to release the most innovative game system ever... and yet they have not got one original game in the line up. SEGA's XY/XX feel the magic, is in fact the only game I see that isn't a new breed of an old franchise.
You see I, you and the legions of avid Nintendo followers love Nintendo for Mario, for Pokemon and for Zelda. So Nintendo continue to keep their forever falling fan base happy with new iterations of Mario and Zelda. Yet by not making a new "Mario" or a new "Pokemon" how can Nintendo ever hope to expand their fan base?
Metroid Prime was Nintendo "re-inventing" the Metroid brand. It was clever and the game is genius. Introducing the gaming world to something totally new. So why Metroid? Strafio, a massive Metroid fan from these very forums, still craves for a third person action platformer. Was it beyond Nintendo's capacity to make this? This would have satisfied the fan base. And what of Metroid Prime? Well did we have to have Samus in it? Did it have to be based around the Metroid universe?
Sure, Metroid Prime may not have sold as much if Samus and his enemies were not part of the game. And yet I feel we could have seen the birth of a brand new killer Nintendo franchise. Metroid could take the crown from Tomb Raider in the action platform sides of things. Whilst this new innovative First Person Adventure from Nintendo will make Perfect Dark a distant memory.
I shall present Zelda as my next example. A perfectly lovely realistic Zelda would have kept all Nintendo gamers happy. But the Wind Waker ruled did it not? The Wind Waker was a great new addition to the series. Yet why did it have to be Zelda? Could we not have seen a new adventure title from Nintendo? Even an RPG game! A cartoon RPG is a good idea (Namco did it). It did not have to be Zelda. It could have been a different game. A whole new series of Nintendo titles. Maybe next year we'd have the cel-shaded new adventure RPG and a new Zelda game. And the series' need not have anything to do with eachother.
Pokemon saved Nintendo back in 1996 as sales started to fall. It was Nintendo "being original". There was no Mario. There was no Zelda. This was something new. This was to attract new gamers. This was a new game. And like Mario and Zelda before it. It was huge. Now though we do not get that. We get Nintendo putting all their money, resources and efforts into keeping the fan base happy with a new Mario title or a new "Zelda Four Swords adventure". If Nintendo can keep 2 20-year-old franchises such as Mario and Zelda feeling fresh imagine what they could do with a new idea? Imagine if they were asked to make a Bongo action game that had nothing to do with Donkey Kong? We'd be looking at a totally new franchise at the beginning of next year.
What could Nintendo create with that sort of freedom on the Gamecube? Let me tell you. Pikmin. Pikmin started life as a demo featuring 100 Mario's. Imagine if that had stayed the same. Imagine if Olimar was a big Mario and the Pikmin were hundreds of little Marios/Luigi's and Peach's being directed to do various tasks to defeat Bowser. Indeed the game would still be original and fun. But instead we got a different world. New characters, a new franchise, new iconography and new landscapes. We got a whole new Nintendo game. One that can stand besides Mario/Zelda and Pokemon as a game that had NOTHING to do with another game. Olimar was never a baddie in Mario Land and Pikmin was never a Pokemon.
This is what Nintendo need. New games. New franchises. They don't HAVE to be adult either, might be helpful but hardly essential. Why does Wario Ware have Wario in it? Is he needed? Why did Dinosaur Planet have Fox in it? It was obviously not a Starfox game!
Nintendo are scared. Releasing a totally new game could mean a disaster. A flop. Would Viewtiful Joe have sold through the roof if it were a Megaman game? Hell yes. But would it be a new franchise on which Capcom can build on? No it could not.
Nintendo tried widening its appeal with new games. Metal Gear and Resident Evil remakes are a prime example. Yet these two games are still "old" games. Nintendo should never have bought the Resident Evil games because they had Eternal Darkness. This game could have been a new Nintendo franchise. An ideal new Nintendo franchise. As it happens it was never needed. It would never sell. Capcom's famous survival horror put pay to that.
RARE were never scared to release a new game. They did sequels too but next to the release of Banjo Tooie came Conker's Bad Fur Day. Next to Donkey Kong 64 came Jet Force Gemini. Besides Killer Instinct Gold there was Blast Corps and Goldeneye. Some were sequels. Most were totally new franchises that branched out to new gamers. What would the N64 have been without RARE? What new franchise did Nintendo create themselves? If it wasn't for the fact Nintendo's brand faces were moving into 3D we would all have wondered "what's new?" Just like we are now. If Nintendo still had RARE we would have had Grabbed by the Gholies and Kameo by now. 2 completley original and new games.
X-box gamers are lucky. Loads of totally new games to play, Knights of the Old Republic was a success, Blinx a failure but an attempt at least... and the biggest success story of this generation. Halo. A game that was so totally fresh that nearly every gamer in the world wants to own it. Even Sony, with Ico, the eye toy games, Rachet and Clank and Sly Cooper can risk a new franchise.
Are Nintendo just a bunch old golden oldies? Making nice games with the same faces over and over again? Are Nintendo out of touch? No I don't think so. Shigeru Miyamoto, a guy that made the original Donkey Kong game decades ago, made Pikmin. He hasn't lost it. He can still create a new world to exploit. A New World to delve into and explore.
Retro, Nintendo's latest acquisition, is one of Nintendo's greatest properties. Metroid Prime is almost a totally new franchise. Sure the name is the same but the game is not. Retro are original and Nintendo need to expand this team and bring Raven Blade and the companies back to the release schedule. Rare, Left Field and Silicon Knights have gone. It was a stupid mistake by the big N. But if only Nintendo themselves can make something new.
Nintendo are innovators. They were once the driving force in the gaming industry. Introducing new characters and new ideas. Now they are just a company growing old. Making the same great games... we need new great games.
Wake up Nintendo.
Page:
PsYİHo FoX 19 wrote:
> Um going back to the first post you were saying that we could do with
> a new cartoon rpg game. Well we already have one, it's called Tales
> of Symphonia ever heard of it?
Yes I know. Namco made that one though.
> Um going back to the first post you were saying that we could do with
> a new cartoon rpg game. Well we already have one, it's called Tales
> of Symphonia ever heard of it?
Yes I know. Namco made that one though.
Dringo wrote:
> It is all well and good Nintendo sticking Mario in many games such as
> Tennis and Golf and Kart because it keeps the fanbase happy.
Mario Kart, Mario Tennis... I never had a problem with those, but Nintendo are starting to over do it.
Mario Golf? I guess I just don't like golf games. :-)
> I think you'll find Wind Waker's combat system is a little more than
> "greased up" it was superb, unbelievable and at least 20
> times better than OOT.
Alright. Greased up and selotaped to a counter move.
And that made it 20 times better.
I wasn't dissing it, but it was just an evolution on the mechanics of OOT's also very good system. It was exactly how it should've been.
My point being that the best parts of Windwaker were the evolutions of OOT, and anything too radical - experimentation for the sake of "originality" like you say, went weird.
But yeah, agreed with pretty much everything else you said.
> It is all well and good Nintendo sticking Mario in many games such as
> Tennis and Golf and Kart because it keeps the fanbase happy.
Mario Kart, Mario Tennis... I never had a problem with those, but Nintendo are starting to over do it.
Mario Golf? I guess I just don't like golf games. :-)
> I think you'll find Wind Waker's combat system is a little more than
> "greased up" it was superb, unbelievable and at least 20
> times better than OOT.
Alright. Greased up and selotaped to a counter move.
And that made it 20 times better.
I wasn't dissing it, but it was just an evolution on the mechanics of OOT's also very good system. It was exactly how it should've been.
My point being that the best parts of Windwaker were the evolutions of OOT, and anything too radical - experimentation for the sake of "originality" like you say, went weird.
But yeah, agreed with pretty much everything else you said.
Um going back to the first post you were saying that we could do with a new cartoon rpg game. Well we already have one, it's called Tales of Symphonia ever heard of it?
It is all well and good Nintendo sticking Mario in many games such as Tennis and Golf and Kart because it keeps the fanbase happy.
BUT Paper Mario does not need to star Mario and could have coaxed a new type of gamer to the console.
I think you'll find Wind Waker's combat system is a little more than "greased up" it was superb, unbelievable and at least 20 times better than OOT.
Zelda is a game that showcases Nintendo's expertese. Not kiddy, not silly (not THAT silly)... just pure Nintendo. A well made game and each one takes Nintendo so long to produce.
The thing is Wind Waker wasn't this epic. It felt like the 900 Mario games, experimental with a main character used to sell it. It mainly worked but not totally.
Zelda isn't normally a game where Nintendo are risking innovation. It is just the pinacle of where Nintendo were at, at that moment in time.
Hence Wind Waker feeling slightly odd.
I'm glad the new game is just a relistic extension of the last. Cutting out what didn't work and putting in good old fashion Zelda.
BUT Paper Mario does not need to star Mario and could have coaxed a new type of gamer to the console.
I think you'll find Wind Waker's combat system is a little more than "greased up" it was superb, unbelievable and at least 20 times better than OOT.
Zelda is a game that showcases Nintendo's expertese. Not kiddy, not silly (not THAT silly)... just pure Nintendo. A well made game and each one takes Nintendo so long to produce.
The thing is Wind Waker wasn't this epic. It felt like the 900 Mario games, experimental with a main character used to sell it. It mainly worked but not totally.
Zelda isn't normally a game where Nintendo are risking innovation. It is just the pinacle of where Nintendo were at, at that moment in time.
Hence Wind Waker feeling slightly odd.
I'm glad the new game is just a relistic extension of the last. Cutting out what didn't work and putting in good old fashion Zelda.
...
So Windwaker's fighting system was running on a bit more grease, but it was the exact same style of fighting as in OOT.
Did you only play OOT when it came on the bonus disk.
Sounds like you played OOT and WW at the same time...
But anysway, the point stands.
The bits you liked best were the bits that were most like OOT:
The OOT style battles and dungeons, a little touched up.
The sailing was pretty much irrelevant to Zelda, and while it seemed like a nice-ish idea at first, it really wore down, especially when most of the "islands" you'd spend hours sailing to were just a piece of dead rock!
Damn tangents!
Now stop nit picking sentances and answer the PROPER question.
Do you, or don't you, agree that Nintendo are stretching Mario too far, thereby weakening his name and alienating people who never liked him anyway? That's what's the topic about, you little minx, you! :-P
So Windwaker's fighting system was running on a bit more grease, but it was the exact same style of fighting as in OOT.
Did you only play OOT when it came on the bonus disk.
Sounds like you played OOT and WW at the same time...
But anysway, the point stands.
The bits you liked best were the bits that were most like OOT:
The OOT style battles and dungeons, a little touched up.
The sailing was pretty much irrelevant to Zelda, and while it seemed like a nice-ish idea at first, it really wore down, especially when most of the "islands" you'd spend hours sailing to were just a piece of dead rock!
Damn tangents!
Now stop nit picking sentances and answer the PROPER question.
Do you, or don't you, agree that Nintendo are stretching Mario too far, thereby weakening his name and alienating people who never liked him anyway? That's what's the topic about, you little minx, you! :-P
Strafio wrote:
> So you liked the bits that was done like OOT, and the thing that made
> Windwaker completely different, the sailing around, didn't work so
> well and didn't seem to fit in so right?
No, I hated fighting in OoT, it was terrible, and teh dungeons were far better in WW.
> So you liked the bits that was done like OOT, and the thing that made
> Windwaker completely different, the sailing around, didn't work so
> well and didn't seem to fit in so right?
No, I hated fighting in OoT, it was terrible, and teh dungeons were far better in WW.
Dringo wrote:
> Nintendo would want Free Radical because of the fact they make
> different games to what Nintendo make.
>
> The reason I suggested Free Radical is that games like Second Sight
> and Timesplitters are 2 fantastic new reasons to own a Gamecube.
Ah, I see.
I agree with that it'd be good for Nintendo. :-)
> Nintendo would want Free Radical because of the fact they make
> different games to what Nintendo make.
>
> The reason I suggested Free Radical is that games like Second Sight
> and Timesplitters are 2 fantastic new reasons to own a Gamecube.
Ah, I see.
I agree with that it'd be good for Nintendo. :-)
It starts like that, but then Nintendo start to get ideas on what sort of games they do want. And even if there's a good chance they'll see eye to eye, if they don't the Nintendo'll get the last say.
I don't know what Rare felt about having Starfox plonked in Dinosaur Planet, whether Retro trully agreed that their original Metroid plans were in the wrong direction, or what Silicon Knights left over, and who cares if it's for the best.
He started Free Radical to do what he wanted.
Not be limited by Nintendo.
Without being owned they can STILL make Nintendo games exclusively if they want, just not HAVE to. And they probably like the Playstation better anysway! :-P
I don't know what Rare felt about having Starfox plonked in Dinosaur Planet, whether Retro trully agreed that their original Metroid plans were in the wrong direction, or what Silicon Knights left over, and who cares if it's for the best.
He started Free Radical to do what he wanted.
Not be limited by Nintendo.
Without being owned they can STILL make Nintendo games exclusively if they want, just not HAVE to. And they probably like the Playstation better anysway! :-P
Nintendo would want Free Radical because of the fact they make different games to what Nintendo make.
The reason I suggested Free Radical is that games like Second Sight and Timesplitters are 2 fantastic new reasons to own a Gamecube.
The reason I suggested Free Radical is that games like Second Sight and Timesplitters are 2 fantastic new reasons to own a Gamecube.
He loves Nintendo from a distance.
Basically, working directly for Rare and Nintendo meant he had to do what they say. Now he's his own develloper and can make what he wants.
I'm sure he still loves Nintendo in terms of their attitude to gaming and the industry and the games they make, but that doesn't mean he'd want them telling him what to do again. :-)
Basically, working directly for Rare and Nintendo meant he had to do what they say. Now he's his own develloper and can make what he wants.
I'm sure he still loves Nintendo in terms of their attitude to gaming and the industry and the games they make, but that doesn't mean he'd want them telling him what to do again. :-)
Page: