Nintendo Direct: NEW ZELDA ALTTP 3DS SEQUEL!!!! 3DS Yoshi's Island!!!!

  • 200 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"]BTW pikmin 3 confirmed for August. Which is embarrassing, that's 9 months after the system hits. Nintendo's second big title for the console, 9 months later.Grammaton-Cleric

Nothing against Pikimin but the fact that Pikimin 3 is considered such an important title speaks volumes regarding the current and abysmal state of the Wii U's software lineup.

I agree. 

BTW it hits Aug. 4th.

#52 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"] It's all Nintendo has to offered in terms of core games for more than a decade. It's all their remaining developers can offer and all their fans want. Wanting originality is fine, but asking for originality in a Nintendo thread is damn near trolling.CarnageHeart

Nintendo's games while in the same franchises are more original and unqiue than most studios dare make. How many 2D top down Zelda like action adventure games have there been in the last 5 years... like 1, 3D Dot Game heros. How many FPS, TPS, cover shooters are out there every month, a million.

How many dozens of Metroid/Mario/Zelda rehashes will you excuse because two of the three aren't shooters? As for 2d Zelda games, I'm not as up on indies as I should be but the Binding of Isaac fits your parameters.

No. Its a top down game that uses a Zelda like hud but that is about it. Its just a dungeon crawler, Zelda is much more than that.

I got two Mario 3D platformers last gen, two in 6 years. How many 3D Zelda games came out last gen 2, 6 years apart. There were 6 AC games. 3 Uncharted games, 4 Gears, 6 CoD games, 3 resistances, 4 Halos all in the same time. Get out of here with this rehash garbage. Nintendo takes more time and effort to get their sequels to be brand new adventures in ways other companies dont even dare attempt.

#53 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"] It's all Nintendo has to offered in terms of core games for more than a decade. It's all their remaining developers can offer and all their fans want. Wanting originality is fine, but asking for originality in a Nintendo thread is damn near trolling.GodModeEnabled

Nintendo's games while in the same franchises are more original and unqiue than most studios dare make. How many 2D top down Zelda like action adventure games have there been in the last 5 years... like 1, 3D Dot Game heros. How many FPS, TPS, cover shooters are out there every month, a million.

C'mon you just know this isn't true.

What Zelda like games did I miss this past gen?

Sorry I am excited for the first 2D Zelda (that isnt weirdo PH or ST but traditional Zelda) since 2005. One game in 8 years is way too much.

#54 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -

[QUOTE="DJ-Lafleur"]

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"] How many dozens of Metroid/Mario/Zelda rehashes will you excuse because two of the three aren't shooters? As for 2d Zelda games, I'm not as up on indies as I should be but the Binding of Isaac fits your parameters.CarnageHeart

metroid is rehashed? I wish >_>.

As for your point, what about other big IPs like Pokemon and Smash Bros? Kirby gets a pretty nice amount of attention. Yoshi will be getting two new games (I do view him like DK and Wario in that he has become decently seperated from Mario and became his own IP)

or what about other IPS they use like Kid Icarus Uprising, Fire Emblem which pops up occasionaly(FE Awakening is bloody amazing BTW), Pikmin 3 which will come later, Sin and Punishement on the Wii, Wario Ware, which is also getting a Wii U, Donkey Kong Country Returns, Punch Out.

or the occasional new first party title from Nintendo such as Xenoblade, Pushmo/Crashmo, Dillon's Western, and probably other ones escaping my head.

Nintendo does like push out mario and Zelda for $$$, for sure, though to act like that's all Nintendo does I can't agree with.

Every core game you name is older than a decade (often much older). Early in the life of the GC (much more than a decade ago) Nintendo believed in original games, but that belief quickly fell aside (Pikmin wasn't the last original game they shipped but its the last they tried to sell). Nowadays Nintendo is pathological about hiding behind old IP even when there is little equity in the brand (nods towards Xenoblade).

Of course, this generation's exception to the rule might be the Wonderful 101, though it has plenty of time to becoming Mario themed before it hits.

 

I understand what Nintendo makes, they still make certain kinds of games no one else really attempts and almost always are the absolute best in every genre they excell at. It doesn't matter what name is slapped on the box as long as those games remain fresh and the top of their genres. Now when Nintendo desides to make 4 of the same 2D Mario games in just a few years I will call them out just like everyone else that starts making cash in sequels, but there is a big difference in making a sequel that is like an expansion and a sequel that has sweeping new ideas and mechanics.

That said yeah they haven't left their comfort zone in so long, it seems like they are afraid to even try. They are stuck in making what they are good at, which is fine but it doesn't help when trying to get new customers. They need to try out something new, probably something with online.

Wonderful 101 isnt a Nintendo game though, its Platinum. Which they should buy, that would fill a nice void for Nintendo. 

 

#55 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -
Sequel city, is this all the industry has to offer?GodModeEnabled
It's all Nintendo has to offered in terms of core games for more than a decade. It's all their remaining developers can offer and all their fans want. Wanting originality is fine, but asking for originality in a Nintendo thread is damn near trolling.
#56 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -

[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"]Sequel city, is this all the industry has to offer?CarnageHeart
It's all Nintendo has to offered in terms of core games for more than a decade. It's all their remaining developers can offer and all their fans want. Wanting originality is fine, but asking for originality in a Nintendo thread is damn near trolling.

Nintendo's games while in the same franchises are more original and unqiue than most studios dare make. How many 2D top down Zelda like action adventure games have there been in the last 5 years... like 1, 3D Dot Game heros. How many FPS, TPS, cover shooters are out there every month, a million.

#57 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"][QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"]Sequel city, is this all the industry has to offer?dvader654

It's all Nintendo has to offered in terms of core games for more than a decade. It's all their remaining developers can offer and all their fans want. Wanting originality is fine, but asking for originality in a Nintendo thread is damn near trolling.

Nintendo's games while in the same franchises are more original and unqiue than most studios dare make. How many 2D top down Zelda like action adventure games have there been in the last 5 years... like 1, 3D Dot Game heros. How many FPS, TPS, cover shooters are out there every month, a million.

How many dozens of Metroid/Mario/Zelda rehashes will you excuse because two of the three aren't shooters? As for 2d Zelda games, I'm not as up on indies as I should be but the Binding of Isaac fits your parameters.
#58 Posted by GodModeEnabled (15314 posts) -

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"][QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"]Sequel city, is this all the industry has to offer?dvader654

It's all Nintendo has to offered in terms of core games for more than a decade. It's all their remaining developers can offer and all their fans want. Wanting originality is fine, but asking for originality in a Nintendo thread is damn near trolling.

Nintendo's games while in the same franchises are more original and unqiue than most studios dare make. How many 2D top down Zelda like action adventure games have there been in the last 5 years... like 1, 3D Dot Game heros. How many FPS, TPS, cover shooters are out there every month, a million.

C'mon you just know this isn't true.
#59 Posted by iHarlequin (1789 posts) -

Ugh, gonna say it now: original A Link to the Past looks better and has a better artstyle than the new one. With that out of the way, I'm still excited from the video, gameplay bits I watched and the apparent premise of the game. I will, after all, need a 3DS :P.

#60 Posted by DJ-Lafleur (34139 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"] It's all Nintendo has to offered in terms of core games for more than a decade. It's all their remaining developers can offer and all their fans want. Wanting originality is fine, but asking for originality in a Nintendo thread is damn near trolling.CarnageHeart

Nintendo's games while in the same franchises are more original and unqiue than most studios dare make. How many 2D top down Zelda like action adventure games have there been in the last 5 years... like 1, 3D Dot Game heros. How many FPS, TPS, cover shooters are out there every month, a million.

How many dozens of Metroid/Mario/Zelda rehashes will you excuse because two of the three aren't shooters? As for 2d Zelda games, I'm not as up on indies as I should be but the Binding of Isaac fits your parameters.

metroid is rehashed? I wish >_>.

As for your point, what about other big IPs like Pokemon and Smash Bros? Kirby gets a pretty nice amount of attention. Yoshi will be getting two new games (I do view him like DK and Wario in that he has become decently seperated from Mario and became his own IP)

or what about other IPS they use like Kid Icarus Uprising, Fire Emblem which pops up occasionaly(FE Awakening is bloody amazing BTW), Pikmin 3 which will come later, Sin and Punishement on the Wii, Wario Ware, which is also getting a Wii U, Donkey Kong Country Returns, Punch Out. 

or the occasional new first party title from Nintendo such as Xenoblade, Pushmo/Crashmo, Dillon's Western, and probably other ones escaping my head.

Nintendo does like push out mario and Zelda for $$$, for sure, though to act like that's all Nintendo does I can't agree with.

#61 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"][QUOTE="dvader654"]

Nintendo's games while in the same franchises are more original and unqiue than most studios dare make. How many 2D top down Zelda like action adventure games have there been in the last 5 years... like 1, 3D Dot Game heros. How many FPS, TPS, cover shooters are out there every month, a million.

DJ-Lafleur

How many dozens of Metroid/Mario/Zelda rehashes will you excuse because two of the three aren't shooters? As for 2d Zelda games, I'm not as up on indies as I should be but the Binding of Isaac fits your parameters.

metroid is rehashed? I wish >_>.

As for your point, what about other big IPs like Pokemon and Smash Bros? Kirby gets a pretty nice amount of attention. Yoshi will be getting two new games (I do view him like DK and Wario in that he has become decently seperated from Mario and became his own IP)

or what about other IPS they use like Kid Icarus Uprising, Fire Emblem which pops up occasionaly(FE Awakening is bloody amazing BTW), Pikmin 3 which will come later, Sin and Punishement on the Wii, Wario Ware, which is also getting a Wii U, Donkey Kong Country Returns, Punch Out.

or the occasional new first party title from Nintendo such as Xenoblade, Pushmo/Crashmo, Dillon's Western, and probably other ones escaping my head.

Nintendo does like push out mario and Zelda for $$$, for sure, though to act like that's all Nintendo does I can't agree with.

Every core game you name is older than a decade (often much older). Early in the life of the GC (much more than a decade ago) Nintendo believed in original games, but that belief quickly fell aside (Pikmin wasn't the last original game they shipped but its the last they tried to sell). Nowadays Nintendo is pathological about hiding behind old IP even when there is little equity in the brand (nods towards Xenoblade).

Of course, this generation's exception to the rule might be the Wonderful 101, though it has plenty of time to becoming Mario themed before it hits.

#62 Posted by Shame-usBlackley (18266 posts) -

I started to get excited and the I saw it was on a handheld. 

Oh well. I'd sure be pissed if I was a Wii U owner, however. Man, that's like a slap in the face. 

#63 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"][QUOTE="dvader654"]

Nintendo's games while in the same franchises are more original and unqiue than most studios dare make. How many 2D top down Zelda like action adventure games have there been in the last 5 years... like 1, 3D Dot Game heros. How many FPS, TPS, cover shooters are out there every month, a million.

dvader654

How many dozens of Metroid/Mario/Zelda rehashes will you excuse because two of the three aren't shooters? As for 2d Zelda games, I'm not as up on indies as I should be but the Binding of Isaac fits your parameters.

No. Its a top down game that uses a Zelda like hud but that is about it. Its just a dungeon crawler, Zelda is much more than that.

I got two Mario 3D platformers last gen, two in 6 years. How many 3D Zelda games came out last gen 2, 6 years apart. There were 6 AC games. 3 Uncharted games, 4 Gears, 6 CoD games, 3 resistances, 4 Halos all in the same time. Get out of here with this rehash garbage. Nintendo takes more time and effort to get their sequels to be brand new adventures in ways other companies dont even dare attempt.

Oh, well then :P.

On a related note, if you want to pretend that games starring Mario aren't Mario games unless they are from a certain perspective you are entitled to make up whatever definition of Mario game makes you happy, but to keep things simple, I will rely on Nintendo's definition of what constitutes a Mario game. By that yardstick, there have been a lot of Mario games the past few years.

#64 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"] How many dozens of Metroid/Mario/Zelda rehashes will you excuse because two of the three aren't shooters? As for 2d Zelda games, I'm not as up on indies as I should be but the Binding of Isaac fits your parameters.CarnageHeart

No. Its a top down game that uses a Zelda like hud but that is about it. Its just a dungeon crawler, Zelda is much more than that.

I got two Mario 3D platformers last gen, two in 6 years. How many 3D Zelda games came out last gen 2, 6 years apart. There were 6 AC games. 3 Uncharted games, 4 Gears, 6 CoD games, 3 resistances, 4 Halos all in the same time. Get out of here with this rehash garbage. Nintendo takes more time and effort to get their sequels to be brand new adventures in ways other companies dont even dare attempt.

Oh, well then :P.

On a related note, if you want to pretend that games starring Mario aren't Mario games unless they are from a certain perspective you are entitled to make up whatever definition of Mario game makes you happy, but to keep things simple, I will rely on Nintendo's definition of what constitutes a Mario game. By that yardstick, there have been a lot of Mario games the past few years.

Holy crap. Really? Are you seriously going to try to argue that every game that stars Mario is the same kind of game cause that is just stupid. Mario games, the ones that everyone considers Mario games is Super Mario, the platformer. Now there are two kinds of Mario platformers 3D ones and 2D ones, they are pretty damn different. There have been a ton of 2D Mario games cause Nintendo made a bunch of money and got lazy. Its easily the worst thing they have ever done with mario, NSMB is bad by Mario standards and needs to be stopped. 

Galaxy on the other hand is majestic and you know its considered as two of the greatest games this gen. Only two of them all gen. This gen the Mario platformers have been on overdrive. We got two mario platformers 2D and 3D from 96 - 06, now its like 7 of them in the last 6 years.  So yeah its gotten pretty crazy but that has been almost all 2D Mario. 

#65 Posted by Phantom_Leo (7050 posts) -

hotshotsgolfworldinvitational_0.jpg

At least we're getting a new Mario Golf game this summer to balance out all the tired platformers!

Invizimals2.jpg

...and a new Pokemon in October!

______________

#66 Posted by homegirl2180 (7161 posts) -

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

No. Its a top down game that uses a Zelda like hud but that is about it. Its just a dungeon crawler, Zelda is much more than that.

I got two Mario 3D platformers last gen, two in 6 years. How many 3D Zelda games came out last gen 2, 6 years apart. There were 6 AC games. 3 Uncharted games, 4 Gears, 6 CoD games, 3 resistances, 4 Halos all in the same time. Get out of here with this rehash garbage. Nintendo takes more time and effort to get their sequels to be brand new adventures in ways other companies dont even dare attempt.

dvader654

Oh, well then :P.

On a related note, if you want to pretend that games starring Mario aren't Mario games unless they are from a certain perspective you are entitled to make up whatever definition of Mario game makes you happy, but to keep things simple, I will rely on Nintendo's definition of what constitutes a Mario game. By that yardstick, there have been a lot of Mario games the past few years.

Holy crap. Really? Are you seriously going to try to argue that every game that stars Mario is the same kind of game cause that is just stupid. Mario games, the ones that everyone considers Mario games is Super Mario, the platformer. Now there are two kinds of Mario platformers 3D ones and 2D ones, they are pretty damn different. There have been a ton of 2D Mario games cause Nintendo made a bunch of money and got lazy. Its easily the worst thing they have ever done with mario, NSMB is bad by Mario standards and needs to be stopped. 

Galaxy on the other hand is majestic and you know its considered as two of the greatest games this gen. Only two of them all gen. This gen the Mario platformers have been on overdrive. We got two mario platformers 2D and 3D from 96 - 06, now its like 7 of them in the last 6 years.  So yeah its gotten pretty crazy but that has been almost all 2D Mario. 

Well they did release a lot of Mario ports in that 96-06 time-frame. I do agree with your opinion though. I'm fine with NSMB games if that puts a lot of money in their bank to make their generally amazing 3D Mario games, where their new and innovative ideas generally do shine. That said, I think not enough credit is being given to Xenoblade, even if it is somewhat releated to the Xenogears games. New IPs are not needed as much as new ideas. As long as something does present new ideas, the name becomes much less relevant (look at most of the Final Fantasies). I still would like a big, new, successful IP from Nintendo, like they did with Pikmin, which is really one of my favourite franchises.
#67 Posted by Phantom_Leo (7050 posts) -

DAMN REHASHES!

DZdn1NB7wZ3FauR10GNVMJDDbnfgukFq.jpg

littlebigplanet-karting.jpg

our-first-look-at-mario-kart-3ds-from-e3

There were too many MARIO KARTS, and...

super-smash-bros-brawl-20080306010240333

playstation-all-stars-battle-royale.jpg

...way too many Smash Bros. games!

#68 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

Yoshi looks great.

ALTTP2 looks cool too.

Nintendo could live from handhelds alone.

#69 Posted by Haziqonfire (36344 posts) -

What's with the obsession of companies having to make new IPs to stay relevant?

Nintendo has created hundreds of games with existing IPs for many years and they're still successful. Nintendo is successful because of their IPs, because they do so well what others can't always do. They reuse old IPs to keep franchises fresh by adding new gameplay mechanics and innovative design elements within each title, while retaining the core of what those franchises are.

It's really only within the past generation in which they've started to play the nostalgia card, but I can only count two big instances. One being New Super Mario Bros, a 2D Mario platformer which people wanted for quite some time and now Zelda LTTP2, which is also what a lot of the core audience wanted.

My main this is I can't understand the gripe against not using new IPs when (generally speaking) Nintendo is almost always able to deliver a high quality and fresh experience with their existing IPs. Why does it matter if it's another Mario game, if it's still of high quality?

#70 Posted by Phantom_Leo (7050 posts) -

By the way, since we're in the middle of a Nintendo topic, have they stated yet if the next Pikmin...

army-corps-of-hell-20120213114700935-360

...is going to be Wii Mote compatible?

playstation-move-motion-controller-1v92-

#71 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="DJ-Lafleur"]

metroid is rehashed? I wish >_>.

As for your point, what about other big IPs like Pokemon and Smash Bros? Kirby gets a pretty nice amount of attention. Yoshi will be getting two new games (I do view him like DK and Wario in that he has become decently seperated from Mario and became his own IP)

or what about other IPS they use like Kid Icarus Uprising, Fire Emblem which pops up occasionaly(FE Awakening is bloody amazing BTW), Pikmin 3 which will come later, Sin and Punishement on the Wii, Wario Ware, which is also getting a Wii U, Donkey Kong Country Returns, Punch Out.

or the occasional new first party title from Nintendo such as Xenoblade, Pushmo/Crashmo, Dillon's Western, and probably other ones escaping my head.

Nintendo does like push out mario and Zelda for $$$, for sure, though to act like that's all Nintendo does I can't agree with.

dvader654

Every core game you name is older than a decade (often much older). Early in the life of the GC (much more than a decade ago) Nintendo believed in original games, but that belief quickly fell aside (Pikmin wasn't the last original game they shipped but its the last they tried to sell). Nowadays Nintendo is pathological about hiding behind old IP even when there is little equity in the brand (nods towards Xenoblade).

Of course, this generation's exception to the rule might be the Wonderful 101, though it has plenty of time to becoming Mario themed before it hits.

I understand what Nintendo makes, they still make certain kinds of games no one else really attempts and almost always are the absolute best in every genre they excell at. It doesn't matter what name is slapped on the box as long as those games remain fresh and the top of their genres. Now when Nintendo desides to make 4 of the same 2D Mario games in just a few years I will call them out just like everyone else that starts making cash in sequels, but there is a big difference in making a sequel that is like an expansion and a sequel that has sweeping new ideas and mechanics.

That said yeah they haven't left their comfort zone in so long, it seems like they are afraid to even try. They are stuck in making what they are good at, which is fine but it doesn't help when trying to get new customers. They need to try out something new, probably something with online.

Wonderful 101 isnt a Nintendo game though, its Platinum. Which they should buy, that would fill a nice void for Nintendo.

So you subdivide what most people consider Mario games into different categories? Well, you are entitled to do that, but to keep things simple, I just take Nintendo (and the overwhelming majority of their fanbase) at their word when they call something a Mario game.

As for Wonderful 101, I know its not a game made by one of Nintendo internal teams but it is being made on Nintendo's dime and as Rare can attest, Nintendo is happy to slap a familiar label on a game if they think that will cause it to sell a few more copies (Dinosaur Planet, we hardly knew you!).

#72 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

Oh, well then :P.

On a related note, if you want to pretend that games starring Mario aren't Mario games unless they are from a certain perspective you are entitled to make up whatever definition of Mario game makes you happy, but to keep things simple, I will rely on Nintendo's definition of what constitutes a Mario game. By that yardstick, there have been a lot of Mario games the past few years.

homegirl2180

Holy crap. Really? Are you seriously going to try to argue that every game that stars Mario is the same kind of game cause that is just stupid. Mario games, the ones that everyone considers Mario games is Super Mario, the platformer. Now there are two kinds of Mario platformers 3D ones and 2D ones, they are pretty damn different. There have been a ton of 2D Mario games cause Nintendo made a bunch of money and got lazy. Its easily the worst thing they have ever done with mario, NSMB is bad by Mario standards and needs to be stopped.

Galaxy on the other hand is majestic and you know its considered as two of the greatest games this gen. Only two of them all gen. This gen the Mario platformers have been on overdrive. We got two mario platformers 2D and 3D from 96 - 06, now its like 7 of them in the last 6 years. So yeah its gotten pretty crazy but that has been almost all 2D Mario.

Well they did release a lot of Mario ports in that 96-06 time-frame. I do agree with your opinion though. I'm fine with NSMB games if that puts a lot of money in their bank to make their generally amazing 3D Mario games, where their new and innovative ideas generally do shine. That said, I think not enough credit is being given to Xenoblade, even if it is somewhat releated to the Xenogears games. New IPs are not needed as much as new ideas. As long as something does present new ideas, the name becomes much less relevant (look at most of the Final Fantasies). I still would like a big, new, successful IP from Nintendo, like they did with Pikmin, which is really one of my favourite franchises.

If a company wants a game to be regarded as its own creature, hiding it behind an old franchise is exactly the wrong thing to do. The Xeno thing was especially bizarre because that franchise had been run into the ground (the original Xenogears was the only game to break a million, the much more expensive Xenosaga games all fell well short of that mark).

#73 Posted by MirkoS77 (7131 posts) -
Good Nintendo, very, very good. Excellent. AWESOME.

....YES!!!! It's about damn time. This is what I'm talking about. This feels like true effort. It's obvious from all this that they have a serious fire under their ass, and rightly so considering their problems. Now I'm heavily tempted to buy a 3DS, the only thing still holding me back is I know there's going to be two to three revisions to come so I really would rather wait, even with all these games.

Even though there was a bit too much Mario in this announcement, it still gives me tremendous hope for E3. PLEASE Nintendo, a new Fzero and Waverace would be great. But I mean a new Yoshi's Island? Holy cow, I never thought I'd see the day. Now if they did another 2D Metroid I could die happy.

E3, get here already!
#74 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

I started to get excited and the I saw it was on a handheld. 

Oh well. I'd sure be pissed if I was a Wii U owner, however. Man, that's like a slap in the face. 

Shame-usBlackley

 

WiiU is getting Wind Waker HD remake and Yoshi Yarn.

#75 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

PLEASE Nintendo, a new Fzero and Waverace would be great.

MirkoS77

 

Won't happen because the previous ones flopped in sales.

We could see a new Star Fox tho.

#76 Posted by JustPlainLucas (73571 posts) -

original.png

Wowzers!

Phantom_Leo

Worrisome.  How much of the game is going to be a reused Hyrule?  That just may prevent me from buying it at full price.

#77 Posted by JustPlainLucas (73571 posts) -

What's with the obsession of companies having to make new IPs to stay relevant?

Nintendo has created hundreds of games with existing IPs for many years and they're still successful. Nintendo is successful because of their IPs, because they do so well what others can't always do. They reuse old IPs to keep franchises fresh by adding new gameplay mechanics and innovative design elements within each title, while retaining the core of what those franchises are.

It's really only within the past generation in which they've started to play the nostalgia card, but I can only count two big instances. One being New Super Mario Bros, a 2D Mario platformer which people wanted for quite some time and now Zelda LTTP2, which is also what a lot of the core audience wanted.

My main this is I can't understand the gripe against not using new IPs when (generally speaking) Nintendo is almost always able to deliver a high quality and fresh experience with their existing IPs. Why does it matter if it's another Mario game, if it's still of high quality?

Haziqonfire

*pssst* Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc., all started out as new IPs!  :o  Yeah, I know, it's hard to believe.  So..... maybe .... we want new IPs to start new franchises to give us more variety?  Really not that hard of a concept to understand. 

#78 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

What's with the obsession of companies having to make new IPs to stay relevant?

Nintendo has created hundreds of games with existing IPs for many years and they're still successful. Nintendo is successful because of their IPs, because they do so well what others can't always do. They reuse old IPs to keep franchises fresh by adding new gameplay mechanics and innovative design elements within each title, while retaining the core of what those franchises are.

It's really only within the past generation in which they've started to play the nostalgia card, but I can only count two big instances. One being New Super Mario Bros, a 2D Mario platformer which people wanted for quite some time and now Zelda LTTP2, which is also what a lot of the core audience wanted.

My main this is I can't understand the gripe against not using new IPs when (generally speaking) Nintendo is almost always able to deliver a high quality and fresh experience with their existing IPs. Why does it matter if it's another Mario game, if it's still of high quality?

Haziqonfire

 

I agree.

They don't need a complete change of IPs or even dropping their beloved ones like some suggest.

People want to see new IPs yet don't buy them and usually spend their money just on the established ones.

I don't really take these people seriously.

#79 Posted by Haziqonfire (36344 posts) -

*pssst* Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc., all started out as new IPs!  :o  Yeah, I know, it's hard to believe.  So..... maybe .... we want new IPs to start new franchises to give us more variety?  Really not that hard of a concept to understand. 

JustPlainLucas

I understand that. However, the complaints about these new entries in existing franchises make it seem like they're of poor quality when they're generally not. Nintendo has made efforts to create new IPs, they're just not on a big budget scale. Pushmo and Crashmo are arguably two of the best 3DS titles period and it's they're new IPs and have more content than the average retail 3DS title does. 

In any case we know that Miyamoto is interested in making a new character. The last time he did this was with Pikmin, over 10 years ago. That article is from 2010 so it's been over 3 years now, but maybe we'll see this new character on the Wii U now that Pikmin 3 development is coming to an end.

#80 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

Every core game you name is older than a decade (often much older). Early in the life of the GC (much more than a decade ago) Nintendo believed in original games, but that belief quickly fell aside (Pikmin wasn't the last original game they shipped but its the last they tried to sell). Nowadays Nintendo is pathological about hiding behind old IP even when there is little equity in the brand (nods towards Xenoblade).

Of course, this generation's exception to the rule might be the Wonderful 101, though it has plenty of time to becoming Mario themed before it hits.

 

CarnageHeart

I understand what Nintendo makes, they still make certain kinds of games no one else really attempts and almost always are the absolute best in every genre they excell at. It doesn't matter what name is slapped on the box as long as those games remain fresh and the top of their genres. Now when Nintendo desides to make 4 of the same 2D Mario games in just a few years I will call them out just like everyone else that starts making cash in sequels, but there is a big difference in making a sequel that is like an expansion and a sequel that has sweeping new ideas and mechanics.

That said yeah they haven't left their comfort zone in so long, it seems like they are afraid to even try. They are stuck in making what they are good at, which is fine but it doesn't help when trying to get new customers. They need to try out something new, probably something with online.

Wonderful 101 isnt a Nintendo game though, its Platinum. Which they should buy, that would fill a nice void for Nintendo.

 

So you subdivide what most people consider Mario games into different categories? Well, you are entitled to do that, but to keep things simple, I just take Nintendo (and the overwhelming majority of their fanbase) at their word when they call something a Mario game.

As for Wonderful 101, I know its not a game made by one of Nintendo internal teams but it is being made on Nintendo's dime and as Rare can attest, Nintendo is happy to slap a familiar label on a game if they think that will cause it to sell a few more copies (Dinosaur Planet, we hardly knew you!).

You are totally incorrect. What MOST people consider a Mario game is just Super Mario. Everyone understands this. When Nintendo puts sales of all its franchises Super Mario is #1. THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE ALL GAMES STARRING MARIO. You are incorrect.

#81 Posted by Zen_Light (1231 posts) -

Nintendo needs to open up a bank and let us have our paychecks direct deposited right to it.

#82 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

What's with the obsession of companies having to make new IPs to stay relevant?

Nintendo has created hundreds of games with existing IPs for many years and they're still successful. Nintendo is successful because of their IPs, because they do so well what others can't always do. They reuse old IPs to keep franchises fresh by adding new gameplay mechanics and innovative design elements within each title, while retaining the core of what those franchises are.

It's really only within the past generation in which they've started to play the nostalgia card, but I can only count two big instances. One being New Super Mario Bros, a 2D Mario platformer which people wanted for quite some time and now Zelda LTTP2, which is also what a lot of the core audience wanted.

My main this is I can't understand the gripe against not using new IPs when (generally speaking) Nintendo is almost always able to deliver a high quality and fresh experience with their existing IPs. Why does it matter if it's another Mario game, if it's still of high quality?

Haziqonfire

Companies getting in the habit of hiding behind old IPs limits consumer interest (preaching to the coverted) and cripples developer creativity/game design (it turns developers into cogs in a machine). *Shrugs* But squeezing every drop of milk from the dessicated corpse of an old IP while not devoid of risk, is about as low risk as strategies get, so there's that...

wii-money.gif

#83 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="Haziqonfire"]

What's with the obsession of companies having to make new IPs to stay relevant?

Nintendo has created hundreds of games with existing IPs for many years and they're still successful. Nintendo is successful because of their IPs, because they do so well what others can't always do. They reuse old IPs to keep franchises fresh by adding new gameplay mechanics and innovative design elements within each title, while retaining the core of what those franchises are.

It's really only within the past generation in which they've started to play the nostalgia card, but I can only count two big instances. One being New Super Mario Bros, a 2D Mario platformer which people wanted for quite some time and now Zelda LTTP2, which is also what a lot of the core audience wanted.

My main this is I can't understand the gripe against not using new IPs when (generally speaking) Nintendo is almost always able to deliver a high quality and fresh experience with their existing IPs. Why does it matter if it's another Mario game, if it's still of high quality?

nameless12345

I agree.

They don't need a complete change of IPs or even dropping their beloved ones like some suggest.

People want to see new IPs yet don't buy them and usually spend their money just on the established ones.

I don't really take these people seriously.

Its true Nintendo fans haven't embraced a new IP this generation but other gamers are more open minded (nods towards the success of Assassin's Creed, Littlebigplanet, Borderlands, Demon's Souls, Dead Space, Portal and Mass Effect).

#84 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Haziqonfire"]

What's with the obsession of companies having to make new IPs to stay relevant?

Nintendo has created hundreds of games with existing IPs for many years and they're still successful. Nintendo is successful because of their IPs, because they do so well what others can't always do. They reuse old IPs to keep franchises fresh by adding new gameplay mechanics and innovative design elements within each title, while retaining the core of what those franchises are.

It's really only within the past generation in which they've started to play the nostalgia card, but I can only count two big instances. One being New Super Mario Bros, a 2D Mario platformer which people wanted for quite some time and now Zelda LTTP2, which is also what a lot of the core audience wanted.

My main this is I can't understand the gripe against not using new IPs when (generally speaking) Nintendo is almost always able to deliver a high quality and fresh experience with their existing IPs. Why does it matter if it's another Mario game, if it's still of high quality?

CarnageHeart

I agree.

They don't need a complete change of IPs or even dropping their beloved ones like some suggest.

People want to see new IPs yet don't buy them and usually spend their money just on the established ones.

I don't really take these people seriously.

Its true Nintendo fans haven't embraced a new IP this generation but other gamers are more open minded (nods towards the success of Assassin's Creed, Littlebigplanet, Borderlands, Demon's Souls, Dead Space, Portal and Mass Effect).

They are all the same gamers. The people who play those play Nintendo games too. Where are all these magical people that only play Nintendo games as you keep assuming there are?
#85 Posted by lozengez (509 posts) -

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

 

I agree.

They don't need a complete change of IPs or even dropping their beloved ones like some suggest.

People want to see new IPs yet don't buy them and usually spend their money just on the established ones.

I don't really take these people seriously.

dvader654

Its true Nintendo fans haven't embraced a new IP this generation but other gamers are more open minded (nods towards the success of Assassin's Creed, Littlebigplanet, Borderlands, Demon's Souls, Dead Space, Portal and Mass Effect).

They are all the same gamers. The people who play those play Nintendo games too. Where are all these magical people that only play Nintendo games as you keep assuming there are?

I disagree with this Carnage dude on everything but, on this one point, I think there are plenty of Nintendo-only console players. 

#86 Posted by Haziqonfire (36344 posts) -

Companies getting in the habit of hiding behind old IPs limits consumer interest (preaching to the coverted) and cripples developer creativity/game design (it turns developers into cogs in a machine). *Shrugs* But squeezing every drop of milk from the dessicated corpse of an old IP while not devoid of risk, is about as low risk as strategies get, so there's that...

CarnageHeart

I'd argue that Nintendo is one of the more creative studios out of the big developers in the industry right now. Whether or not you like their implementation, they do creative things with their IPs. Kid Icarus Uprising was a fantastic little title that was pretty creative in it's structure, but used an old IP. New Super Mario Bros U despite being another entry into that series, is without a doubt the best of the series and if you're an old school Mario fan, it fits perfectly, especially with the challenges. Creating another Luigi's Mansion title was pretty out of the ordinary, but they did that too.

Nintendo plays it safe by using existing IPs, but within those new titles they often try to create new gameplay mechanics and design choices that are unique, which enhance the experience.

Nintendo developers have other avenues to turn to as well. Intelligent Systems made Fire Emblem: Awakening, but were also given the opportunity to make Pushmo and a sequel. I only mention Pushmo because I honestly think those titles are up there with most retail offerings on the 3DS right now, despite being a downloadable title.

#87 Posted by DJ-Lafleur (34139 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"][QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

Its true Nintendo fans haven't embraced a new IP this generation but other gamers are more open minded (nods towards the success of Assassin's Creed, Littlebigplanet, Borderlands, Demon's Souls, Dead Space, Portal and Mass Effect).

lozengez

They are all the same gamers. The people who play those play Nintendo games too. Where are all these magical people that only play Nintendo games as you keep assuming there are?

I disagree with this Carnage dude on everything but, on this one point, I think there are plenty of Nintendo-only console players. 

there probably are, that being said his whole point on Nintendo fans seems kind of unnecessaru seeing as how  Not all NIntendo fans act that way.

I'm a fan of Nintendo yet have enjoyed offerings from Sony and Microsoft, and have tried new IPs.

#88 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"][QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

Its true Nintendo fans haven't embraced a new IP this generation but other gamers are more open minded (nods towards the success of Assassin's Creed, Littlebigplanet, Borderlands, Demon's Souls, Dead Space, Portal and Mass Effect).

lozengez

They are all the same gamers. The people who play those play Nintendo games too. Where are all these magical people that only play Nintendo games as you keep assuming there are?

I disagree with this Carnage dude on everything but, on this one point, I think there are plenty of Nintendo-only console players. 

I would argue the small amount that do are simply kids who's parents only bought them a Nintendo console. I am pretty sure the grand grand majority of gamers that come to sites like this play much more than just Nintendo games.
#89 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

What's with the obsession of companies having to make new IPs to stay relevant?

Nintendo has created hundreds of games with existing IPs for many years and they're still successful. Nintendo is successful because of their IPs, because they do so well what others can't always do. They reuse old IPs to keep franchises fresh by adding new gameplay mechanics and innovative design elements within each title, while retaining the core of what those franchises are.

It's really only within the past generation in which they've started to play the nostalgia card, but I can only count two big instances. One being New Super Mario Bros, a 2D Mario platformer which people wanted for quite some time and now Zelda LTTP2, which is also what a lot of the core audience wanted.

My main this is I can't understand the gripe against not using new IPs when (generally speaking) Nintendo is almost always able to deliver a high quality and fresh experience with their existing IPs. Why does it matter if it's another Mario game, if it's still of high quality?

Haziqonfire

I'd argue at this juncture that the only genre Nintendo truly owns is platformers as they tend to release one or two brilliant Mario games each generation. Even then, I'd assert what Media Molecule achieved with Little Big Planet was far more innovative and certainly far more expansive.

Everything else Nintendo does is hardly genre-defining and regardless, much of their best software is outsourced to second party developers.

Truly, I still think Nintendo makes quality games but their output seems increasingly familiar if not outright perfunctory and they most certainly use their IP's to evoke as much nostalgia as possible when in reality plenty of the software they release is as redundant as those franchises so often derided as being too frequent and similar to previous installments, such as COD and Assassin's Creed.

If we are to be honest we must first admit that Nintendo often gets a free pass for doing many of the same things other developers get slammed for on a regular basis. They traffic in redundancy (the Wii U's biggest holiday title is looking to be an HD re-release) and they rely on a certain level of familiarity and nostalgia to lasso in a key demographic.

 

#90 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

 

there probably are, that being said his whole point on Nintendo fans seems kind of unnecessaru seeing as how  Not all NIntendo fans act that way.

I'm a fan of Nintendo yet have enjoyed offerings from Sony and Microsoft, and have tried new IPs.

DJ-Lafleur

The issue isn't that some people only play Nintendo games but rather that there exists a small but vocal segment that venerates Nintendo and perpetuates a ludicrous myth of their perfection and infallibility while placing everything they do on a pedestal. There are a collection of tired maxims and clichés regarding the alleged and intractable brilliance of Nintendo and this flagrant and illogical worship is further buoyed by the incessant babble of those who would erroneously place any and all innovations within this medium at their doorstep.

Nintendo is still a very good company and they make phenomenal handhelds but some people simply cannot objectively discuss them without getting weepy, nostalgic or flat-out illogical.

I think those are specifically the people Carnage is alluding to.

#91 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -

[QUOTE="Haziqonfire"]

What's with the obsession of companies having to make new IPs to stay relevant?

Nintendo has created hundreds of games with existing IPs for many years and they're still successful. Nintendo is successful because of their IPs, because they do so well what others can't always do. They reuse old IPs to keep franchises fresh by adding new gameplay mechanics and innovative design elements within each title, while retaining the core of what those franchises are.

It's really only within the past generation in which they've started to play the nostalgia card, but I can only count two big instances. One being New Super Mario Bros, a 2D Mario platformer which people wanted for quite some time and now Zelda LTTP2, which is also what a lot of the core audience wanted.

My main this is I can't understand the gripe against not using new IPs when (generally speaking) Nintendo is almost always able to deliver a high quality and fresh experience with their existing IPs. Why does it matter if it's another Mario game, if it's still of high quality?

Grammaton-Cleric

I'd argue at this juncture that the only genre Nintendo truly owns is platformers as they tend to release one or two brilliant Mario games each generation. Even then, I'd assert what Media Molecule achieved with Little Big Planet was far more innovative and certainly far more expansive.

Everything else Nintendo does is hardly genre-defining and regardless, much of their best software is outsourced to second party developers.

Truly, I still think Nintendo makes quality games but their output seems increasingly familiar if not outright perfunctory and they most certainly use their IP's to evoke as much nostalgia as possible when in reality plenty of the software they release is as redundant as those franchises so often derided as being too frequent and similar to previous installments, such as COD and Assassin's Creed.

If we are to be honest we must first admit that Nintendo often gets a free pass for doing many of the same things other developers get slammed for on a regular basis. They traffic in redundancy (the Wii U's biggest holiday title is looking to be an HD re-release) and they rely on a certain level of familiarity and nostalgia to lasso in a key demographic.

 

I can't agree with their sequels being like a yearly installment. You can't call a game with a jump from sunshine to galaxy, a complete overall in the level structure of a game a redundant like sequel. Yes they made a quick direct sequel to it which is actually rare for Nintendo to do. Can't co pare a Zelda game that uses a completely new control scheme, totally changed the way the overworld is structured as just a redundant sequel. You can't call a Metroid game that went from a FPS to a 2D sides rolling action hybrid a redundant sequel. Their games change far more dramatically than practically any major franchises out there. Now these franchises have been around forever so yeah I get the whole feeling that Nintendo doesn't try new stuff. They absolutely hide behind their franchises but for the most part they do not treat their franchises like activision or ubisoft. Say what you will about how good you think those games are but I don't think it is fair at all to call them redundant sequels nor compare them to what other companies do. Nintendo puts tons o time and effort to make each game feel different.
#92 Posted by Shinobishyguy (22416 posts) -

 

The problem with your examples is that Sunshine was a mediocre game (at least as Mario games go) so the leap to Galaxy was an easy one in terms of quality. Also note that I specifically cite their platformers as the most innovative genre they dabble in.

As for Zelda, Skyward Sword was the first game since OOT to radically alter the formula and game mechanics. Up until that point the Zelda games post-OOT were incredibly formulaic even if said formula was executed well.

 

Grammaton-Cleric

I call shenanigans on this, each 3d zelda has it's own unique feel (except TP which kinda felt like OOT on a larger scale)

OOT brought it to 3d, Majora's mask had a time cycle which made every NPC have their own little schedule that helped flesh them out as characters, and ofcourse there's Wind Waker with it's unique artstyle and big ass sea to explore

#93 Posted by homegirl2180 (7161 posts) -
[QUOTE="dvader654"] I can't agree with their sequels being like a yearly installment. You can't call a game with a jump from sunshine to galaxy, a complete overall in the level structure of a game a redundant like sequel. Yes they made a quick direct sequel to it which is actually rare for Nintendo to do. Can't co pare a Zelda game that uses a completely new control scheme, totally changed the way the overworld is structured as just a redundant sequel. You can't call a Metroid game that went from a FPS to a 2D sides rolling action hybrid a redundant sequel. Their games change far more dramatically than practically any major franchises out there. Now these franchises have been around forever so yeah I get the whole feeling that Nintendo doesn't try new stuff. They absolutely hide behind their franchises but for the most part they do not treat their franchises like activision or ubisoft. Say what you will about how good you think those games are but I don't think it is fair at all to call them redundant sequels nor compare them to what other companies do. Nintendo puts tons o time and effort to make each game feel different.

Completely unrelated, but why does your keyboard keep dropping letters?
#94 Posted by Suiikun (49 posts) -

Yay can't wait!

#95 Posted by Ballroompirate (22554 posts) -

Don't care about Yoshi or Luigi games, but I did nerdgasm at the sight of ALTTP 2.

#96 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

I can't agree with their sequels being like a yearly installment. You can't call a game with a jump from sunshine to galaxy, a complete overall in the level structure of a game a redundant like sequel. Yes they made a quick direct sequel to it which is actually rare for Nintendo to do. Can't co pare a Zelda game that uses a completely new control scheme, totally changed the way the overworld is structured as just a redundant sequel. You can't call a Metroid game that went from a FPS to a 2D sides rolling action hybrid a redundant sequel. Their games change far more dramatically than practically any major franchises out there. Now these franchises have been around forever so yeah I get the whole feeling that Nintendo doesn't try new stuff. They absolutely hide behind their franchises but for the most part they do not treat their franchises like activision or ubisoft. Say what you will about how good you think those games are but I don't think it is fair at all to call them redundant sequels nor compare them to what other companies do. Nintendo puts tons o time and effort to make each game feel different.

dvader654

The problem with your examples is that Sunshine was a mediocre game (at least as Mario games go) so the leap to Galaxy was an easy one in terms of quality. Also note that I specifically cite their platformers as the most innovative genre they dabble in.

As for Zelda, Skyward Sword was the first game since OOT to radically alter the formula and game mechanics. Up until that point the Zelda games post-OOT were incredibly formulaic even if said formula was executed well.

And Metroid Prime was Retro, not Nintendo. As a point of fact, Nintendo required a Western developer to reboot the franchise while implementing FPS components into the gameplay.

And again, I think Nintendo delivers quality software but I really don't see what they do as being dissimilar from Activision or UbiSoft, even if they stagger their releases a bit more.

#97 Posted by DJ-Lafleur (34139 posts) -

[QUOTE="DJ-Lafleur"]

 

there probably are, that being said his whole point on Nintendo fans seems kind of unnecessaru seeing as how  Not all NIntendo fans act that way.

I'm a fan of Nintendo yet have enjoyed offerings from Sony and Microsoft, and have tried new IPs.

Grammaton-Cleric

The issue isn't that some people only play Nintendo games but rather that there exists a small but vocal segment that venerates Nintendo and perpetuates a ludicrous myth of their perfection and infallibility while placing everything they do on a pedestal. There are a collection of tired maxims and clichés regarding the alleged and intractable brilliance of Nintendo and this flagrant and illogical worship is further buoyed by the incessant babble of those who would erroneously place any and all innovations within this medium at their doorstep.

Nintendo is still a very good company and they make phenomenal handhelds but some people simply cannot objectively discuss them without getting weepy, nostalgic or flat-out illogical.

I think those are specifically the people Carnage is alluding to.

yeah, such people are annoying, those who can't see the flaws of Nintendo or any developer/company for that matter. It would be stupid to deny their issues, mainly their third party issues and their comparitively lacking and weaker consoles, amongst other things.

 

#98 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

I can't agree with their sequels being like a yearly installment. You can't call a game with a jump from sunshine to galaxy, a complete overall in the level structure of a game a redundant like sequel. Yes they made a quick direct sequel to it which is actually rare for Nintendo to do. Can't co pare a Zelda game that uses a completely new control scheme, totally changed the way the overworld is structured as just a redundant sequel. You can't call a Metroid game that went from a FPS to a 2D sides rolling action hybrid a redundant sequel. Their games change far more dramatically than practically any major franchises out there. Now these franchises have been around forever so yeah I get the whole feeling that Nintendo doesn't try new stuff. They absolutely hide behind their franchises but for the most part they do not treat their franchises like activision or ubisoft. Say what you will about how good you think those games are but I don't think it is fair at all to call them redundant sequels nor compare them to what other companies do. Nintendo puts tons o time and effort to make each game feel different.

Grammaton-Cleric

The problem with your examples is that Sunshine was a mediocre game (at least as Mario games go) so the leap to Galaxy was an easy one in terms of quality. Also note that I specifically cite their platformers as the most innovative genre they dabble in.

As for Zelda, Skyward Sword was the first game since OOT to radically alter the formula and game mechanics. Up until that point the Zelda games post-OOT were incredibly formulaic even if said formula was executed well.

And Metroid Prime was Retro, not Nintendo. As a point of fact, Nintendo required a Western developer to reboot the franchise while implementing FPS components into the gameplay.

And again, I think Nintendo delivers quality software but I really don't see what they do as being dissimilar from Activision or UbiSoft, even if they stagger their releases a bit more.

Zelda formulaic? MM is unlike any Zelda game ever. Crazy time based mechnics never done in any game. Multiple transformations, the best use of NPCs I have ever seen.  Then comes WW a game with a completely untraditional overworld, exploring in that game is vastly different than any other Zelda. There is only one 3D Zelda game that is similar to others and that is TP to OoT. Thats it. 

Retro is part of Nintendo now, and without Nintendo of japans help the game would never have been a FPS in the first place nor probably has been as good.

I have no clue how you can compare what Nintendo does to Activision and Ubisoft. Their games change dramatically from entry to entry, far more than almost any other game series. Just look at major franchises this gen, look at all three Uncharted games, all three Gears, the GoW games, all the ACs. All of them play the same way with some gameplay enhancements but nothing that drastically alters what you do from game to game. Also the game world structure is always the same as is the flow of the games. They all follow a very specific set pattern.

That is nothing like a series where one game might be a FPS, the next a side scroller. One game has you manipulating time, another exploring a giant ocean, another chnaging how the structure of the overworld works and your basic controls. There are clear cut differences in the Nintendo games, changes that actually change the fundamental formula or game world. I understand the core pillars of each franchise remains the same but the changes Nintendo applies from game to game is far more dramatic than all those franchises I mentioned earlier. I am not saying you have to like the games nor do the changes make them better than other games, simply that it is to me extremely clear the differences between a Nintendo sequel and what other companies call sequels.

(Not saying Nintendo doesn't make the more traditional sequels. Galaxy 1 and 2 are like the Uncharted/GoW like sequels, a simple enhancement of what came before. MP1, 2 and 3 are pretty similar. NSMB has super cash in sequels. But cant you easily tell the difference between those kinds of sequels and the ones that Zelda usually has?)

#99 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -

Looks so good. But please dont be easy, PLEASE NOT EASY. Its going to be easy... :(

Fantastic impressions by Sessler on Zelda and Mario and Luigi

#100 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"] I can't agree with their sequels being like a yearly installment. You can't call a game with a jump from sunshine to galaxy, a complete overall in the level structure of a game a redundant like sequel. Yes they made a quick direct sequel to it which is actually rare for Nintendo to do. Can't co pare a Zelda game that uses a completely new control scheme, totally changed the way the overworld is structured as just a redundant sequel. You can't call a Metroid game that went from a FPS to a 2D sides rolling action hybrid a redundant sequel. Their games change far more dramatically than practically any major franchises out there. Now these franchises have been around forever so yeah I get the whole feeling that Nintendo doesn't try new stuff. They absolutely hide behind their franchises but for the most part they do not treat their franchises like activision or ubisoft. Say what you will about how good you think those games are but I don't think it is fair at all to call them redundant sequels nor compare them to what other companies do. Nintendo puts tons o time and effort to make each game feel different.homegirl2180
Completely unrelated, but why does your keyboard keep dropping letters?

Cell phone post.