The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 Mario’s/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 Mario’s/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:
I'm sorry, we get a lot of e-mails.... blah blah blah
*e-mails Nintendo HQ...*
Tonty would have no use with such ideas.
Nintendo would.
Nintendo would.
EGAD - Design your own Nintendo franchise
*e-mails Tony...*
*e-mails Tony...*
The thing is Nintendo do keep re-inventing Mario and Zelda very well. Zelda is one of the most anticipated games on the Gamecube at the moment, we are longing for the game. A game that is launching on Zelda's 20th anniversary.
Look at Pacman, Sonic, Bomberman etc... although the DS may save some of these franchises a lot of them are growing stale and losing appeal. Pacman still sells as does Bomberman but only just and are terrible games.
Mario, Zelda, Metroid... ancient franchises now still sell and are still superb.
But they won't coax new gamers like a new franchise. I'm not saying we should see loads of new Nintendo franchises, but maybe a new one for the DS... a new one since Pikmin would have been nice!!!!
Wario Ware, Animal Crossing and Pikmin are the only notable new franchises since the year 2000.
Look at Pacman, Sonic, Bomberman etc... although the DS may save some of these franchises a lot of them are growing stale and losing appeal. Pacman still sells as does Bomberman but only just and are terrible games.
Mario, Zelda, Metroid... ancient franchises now still sell and are still superb.
But they won't coax new gamers like a new franchise. I'm not saying we should see loads of new Nintendo franchises, but maybe a new one for the DS... a new one since Pikmin would have been nice!!!!
Wario Ware, Animal Crossing and Pikmin are the only notable new franchises since the year 2000.
Of course it didn't fell like OoT, is what you're meaning.
I don't want to play a game exactly like OoT, that would be stupid.
I don't want to play a game exactly like OoT, that would be stupid.
i'munn wrote:
> Yes, because the current selection of franchises they have make them
> next to no money.
So when they drive the world sick of Mario and co, what will they have left?
> Mario may not appeal to 50 million people or whatever, but why spend
> more time and money developing a series that would say, make 10
> million more, if it costs an extra 12 months to make, and 5 million
> in development funds (these are just examples).
How much time and money would it be? Really?
You're being silly. It doesn't take that to design a character.
It would perhaps take that to design a "Mario replacement" but we're not asking for that. It's just something fresh to devellop upon and build into characters.
Starfox didn't appear until late Snes, and now it seems like he's been with Nintendo forever.
> Why did Metroid have to be 2D?
No one said that. :-)
If you'd read it properly you'd've heard me say that Prime with a third person camera would've had it all.
> Everyone knows that 3D appeals to more people, and, if you can use a
> base storyline, and add to a current franchise, why make it a new
> franchise?
> When Mario became Mario 64, whyy didn't it stay 2D? When they made it
> 3D, why didn't they make it a new franchise? Because they didn't need
> to?
>
> You people are all too stupid.
Read my reply and re-think that.
Metroid's weakness was that when you weren't discovering somewhere new, it started to bore you. A third person mode would've given some platforming to play with alongside that exploration and the like.
If that didn't convince you then go back and read what I said properly.
Anysway, take Metroid out of the equation, because although you COULD relate it to the topic, Metroid isn't the issue here.
The fact it, Nintendo are starting stretch their franchises here.
Like Gerrid said, Nintendo built Mario alongside a reputation for class games, but it seems like that lately they've been doing everything in their power to destroy all that.
And Zelda?
All the relations to OOT sort of felt wrong.
Kakariko music in a villiage that wasn't Kakariko?
A sailing based game?
It really didn't feel like Zelda.
And I'm not saying that it just didn't feel like OOT.
It really didn't feel like Zelda.
> Yes, because the current selection of franchises they have make them
> next to no money.
So when they drive the world sick of Mario and co, what will they have left?
> Mario may not appeal to 50 million people or whatever, but why spend
> more time and money developing a series that would say, make 10
> million more, if it costs an extra 12 months to make, and 5 million
> in development funds (these are just examples).
How much time and money would it be? Really?
You're being silly. It doesn't take that to design a character.
It would perhaps take that to design a "Mario replacement" but we're not asking for that. It's just something fresh to devellop upon and build into characters.
Starfox didn't appear until late Snes, and now it seems like he's been with Nintendo forever.
> Why did Metroid have to be 2D?
No one said that. :-)
If you'd read it properly you'd've heard me say that Prime with a third person camera would've had it all.
> Everyone knows that 3D appeals to more people, and, if you can use a
> base storyline, and add to a current franchise, why make it a new
> franchise?
> When Mario became Mario 64, whyy didn't it stay 2D? When they made it
> 3D, why didn't they make it a new franchise? Because they didn't need
> to?
>
> You people are all too stupid.
Read my reply and re-think that.
Metroid's weakness was that when you weren't discovering somewhere new, it started to bore you. A third person mode would've given some platforming to play with alongside that exploration and the like.
If that didn't convince you then go back and read what I said properly.
Anysway, take Metroid out of the equation, because although you COULD relate it to the topic, Metroid isn't the issue here.
The fact it, Nintendo are starting stretch their franchises here.
Like Gerrid said, Nintendo built Mario alongside a reputation for class games, but it seems like that lately they've been doing everything in their power to destroy all that.
And Zelda?
All the relations to OOT sort of felt wrong.
Kakariko music in a villiage that wasn't Kakariko?
A sailing based game?
It really didn't feel like Zelda.
And I'm not saying that it just didn't feel like OOT.
It really didn't feel like Zelda.
Heh.
I might take a visit. It may turn me into a 'all-knowing' Nintendo Mastermind.
And that would be fun :D
I might take a visit. It may turn me into a 'all-knowing' Nintendo Mastermind.
And that would be fun :D
Apple Crumble wrote:
> I might start visiting IGN.
>
> Is it a brilliant site, Dringo?
They get their news from proper sources, unlike CE that get their sources from other sites (like IGN).
> I might start visiting IGN.
>
> Is it a brilliant site, Dringo?
They get their news from proper sources, unlike CE that get their sources from other sites (like IGN).
I might start visiting IGN.
Is it a brilliant site, Dringo?
Is it a brilliant site, Dringo?
Page: