Are Nintendo scared? (56k warning)

Before I get into what my main point is, I'd just like to say that I'm a huge Nintendo fan.

You may know me as a massive Sony fan (which I am) but I'm also a huge Nintendo fan. I still have my SNES, N64, GC and like them very much. I also own the GBC, GBA and DS which I love too. I am a longtime supporter of Nintendo's great series like Mario, Legend of Zelda, Pokemon, and more.

So, to my point: I think Nintendo are scared of reinventing their major series. I'll use some examples to explain why.

Link's latest adventure came in the form of The Legend Of Zelda: Twilight Princess. I played it on the GC and enjoyed it. However, I have enjoyed the past entries in the series more so than the latest entry. Why? I found that Nintendo made TP far too similar to the past entries in the series (namely OOT).

I know we all bashed the GS review when it first came out, but how many of you agree with it now? What was mentioned in the review (too Zelda-like), was imo, mirrored within the game itself. It's a great game, but I get the feeling Nintendo is scared too reinvent it. Why? Maybe they feel fans will dislike the change.

Another example of the lack of innovation in a major Nintendo series is Pokemon Diamond.

For those who haven't played this game, it's really fantastic, and extremely addictive. In fact, I'd go so far to say that this is the best handheld game of the generation.

However, once again, Nintendo appear worried about reinventing their major series. The gameplay in Pokemon Diamond feels extremely similar to the past entries in the franchise. Yes, the gameplay is still great, but we still need a change. If it keeps going like this, eventually it will become stale, and I don't want to see that happen.

Nintendo confuses me. They make the Wii - which was a massive risk - and yet they appear scared when developing new entries in their major franchises.

The Wii worked Nintendo, people love it. It's new and creative and we like that. But Nintendo needs to do this with their major franchises too, or else they will lose fans. There have been many recent games that have felt too similar to the past entries in Nintendo's major series and have suffered the penalties when being reviewed: Pokemon Diamond, The Legend Of Zelda: Twilight Princess, Super Paper Mario, Metroid Prime 3: Corruption, and Mario Party 8.

Nintendo: I love your series - and I don't want the gameplay to become stale. It really worries me because now I'm concerned about upcoming games like Super Mario Galaxy and Super Smash Bros. Brawl. I'm 100% sure they're going to be fun to play, but I would still like to see Nintendo innovate more to avoid staleness in their major series.

What do you guys think?

I see what you mean but all companies do this.

Halo? MGS? (not so much though), DMC? R&C? GT? GTA5? KH? Tekken? etc. Come on, if it works and is still fun why bother changing it?

I honestly don't think most people have the right to complain about Zelda TP being more of the same, Nintendo delivered what Zelda fanboys wanted: an OoT clone with GC graphics. Zelda WW was a step in a nice direction for the Zelda series after OoT, hell even MM was a new and interesting take on the formula. However, that's not what fanboys wanted...they wanted another OoT. The problem is they failed to realize that OoT was so great because it was the first 3-D Zelda, that's all (and I'm not knocking it). If TP would have came out first it would be hailed, same for WW.

Nintendo needs to find the right balance of familiar and innovation with their major series'. If they go too far people will want the same old thing, when you turn around and give them the same old thing they want something new.

You have a point but you can't blame them, MS has been soing the same thing with Halo, also Sony with GoW and rockstar with GTA, they aren't rehashes but they use several things from previous games to seem familiar.

Oh, and i still disagree woth Jeff's review, i think Twilight Princess is a perfect game in every way (IMO)

I agree... somewhat.

I think that Zelda has always had razor sharp gameplay, and I think that TP is the highest quality Zelda yet.

Having said that, I think there is most assuredly something to be said for innovation in a long running series; but there is also something to be said for taking something that works and honing it to the nth degree, as was done with TP.

I see what you mean but all companies do this.

Halo? MGS? (not so much though), DMC? R&C? GT? GTA5? KH? Tekken? etc. Come on, if it works and is still fun why bother changing it?

Kaze_no_Mirai

Tekken and Soul Calibur are victims of lack of innovation, but I disagree with the rest. I wouldn't buy Tekken 6 or Soul Calibur IV unless Namco really shake things up.

MGS has not stayed the same. There have been significant improvements in the gameplay. Same with GTA. Yes, the core gameplay was only tweaked slighty, but there are other major additions that have really pushed the series forward, and it's evident by it's continued recognition in the gaming world and in the market itself.

The first poster (Chutup) made a great point: Nintendo aren't afraid to make new, innovative series like Day Of Disaster, or Pikmin, Animal Crossing, or even Wiisports itself.

I just don't understand why they're concerned about innovating their major franchises. It worked for FF and RE. Nintendo can do it too.

Actually it was hardly risky for Nintendo to go with the wii, they couldn't compete hardware wise with Microsoft and Sony, so instead of going along with them into next gen, they side shifted and built the wii, a console which they could sell at a profit and a controller that made the media talk about them more. In Fact, out of all the different console makers, Nintendo is the most conservative and risk adverse of them all, this also shows in the games that they make as you have realized.mikemil828

Actually it was hardly risky for Nintendo to go with the wii, they couldn't compete hardware wise with Microsoft and Sony, so instead of going along with them into next gen, they side shifted and built the wii, a console which they could sell at a profit and a controller that made the media talk about them more. In Fact, out of all the different console makers, Nintendo is the most conservative and risk adverse of them all, this also shows in the games that they make as you have realized.mikemil828

So going with a completely new control scheme and not competing with graphics (the usual standard for upgrading to a new console) wasn't a risk? If thats not a risk I dont know what is...

Actually it was hardly risky for Nintendo to go with the wii, they couldn't compete hardware wise with Microsoft and Sony, so instead of going along with them into next gen, they side shifted and built the wii, a console which they could sell at a profit and a controller that made the media talk about them more. In Fact, out of all the different console makers, Nintendo is the most conservative and risk adverse of them all, this also shows in the games that they make as you have realized.mikemil828

No, it was extremely risky to go with the Wii.

People could have just thought it was a lame gimmick and ignored them. Same with the DS. Look at Wiisports graphics compared to something like Gears of War. Consumers have alwaysbeen attracted to great graphics, so Nintendo breaking free of that routine and focusing on innovative gameplay with the DS and Wii was a big risk.

It payed off. I'd like to see them shake up the gameplay in their major franchises too.

And did these games suffer because of their "lack of change" or was is it just gaming elitists complaining?

TP I really think damned if it did and damned if it didnt. Look at MM it is definitely one of the greatest games ever, my favorite Zelda, yet it got screwed because it was too different from OoT and the rest of the series. Wind Waker as well suffered a bit because it too changed things up too much.

As for Pokemon IIRC they purposefully did not want to change things up too much from the predecessors graphically, they were trying to make a point to say, 2D graphics are still just as good even if 3D is available.

Galaxy from its very core looks to shake up the whole Mario style. MP3 is just stupid to think they were going to rock the formula in the final installment of a trilogy. SPM changed things up drastically, so I dont get the problems there, it was more of the fact that the game quality and excitement weaned towards the end of the game. As for SSBB its also another one of those games where asking for drastic change is just stupid, its a fighter at its core, it needs more to be refined, added to and polished. And from the looks of it SSBB is doing all those things.

Nintendo has said a number of times that they understand the need to innovate and change their core franchises. Miyamoto and Aonuma both stated that the Zelda franchise needs to change, and from reviews and previews PHG does that. I really think this lack of change people are clamoring about so much is just one of the "it" things to gripe about right now in gaming.

I honestly don't think most people have the right to complain about Zelda TP being more of the same, Nintendo delivered what Zelda fanboys wanted: an OoT clone with GC graphics.

TreyoftheDead

All fans always want more of the same from big series but when they get it, they'll complain it's too similar and they wanted innovation.

Nintendo needs to ignore these people and do their own thing. I mean, when we first heard what Capcom was doing with RE4 and what SE was doing with FFXII, everyone was worried.

But it worked. Nintendo can do the same.

They need to take out grid movment from pokemon and make it more along the lines of open movment like earthbound and chronotrigger introduced back in snes.kittykatz5k

Yeah, thats true. At first I thought thats hwo D/P were going to be. It's not such a big deal but it does feel strange to have a grid.

Maybe they're trying to compensate for the strangeness of the Wii?

I would like to see more innovation in their series as well, but I can definitely see why they don't. For Zelda, look at MM and WW--IMO, the 2 most innovative Zelda games. The thing is, MM was in a tight spot because it wasn't just like OoT, and it was a little bizarre (GameSpot was not too impressed with it).It was a great game...I don't think it ever reallygot the respect itdeserved. And WW, my personal favorite Zelda game, got bashed by some Zelda fans because of its cel-shaded art style.

I know I read somewhere where Nintendo said they felt like they had to go back to a realistic style for TP in order to please American gamers... and that they couldn't afford to take a gamble on another WW-style game on a console. It sucks, but that's business for you.

So many wrong in the original OP.

#1 Nintendo stated NUMEROUS times that the next Zelda will be DIFFERENT from the others.

#2 Super Mario Galaxy is in no way shape or form like Sunshine.

#3 Yes I'll give Poke'mon to you.

Just curious but what makes you think that?
taker42

It doesn't fit Nintendo's way of doing things What they like to do is 1. Build Consoles that are priced cheaper than their competition and 2. Build Consoles that they can immediately make a profit on.

For them to build a console nearly on equal to the x360 and the ps3, in order to be the cheapest they would have to sell their console at a considerable loss per unit, if Microsoft and Sony with their massive hardware company connections couldn't realistically sell their console at profit I don't see Nintendo doing it either.

Also their major primary developer (themselves) didn't seem to need all that much power in their systems.

Seeing this, Nintendo decided to simply repackage an overclocked gamecube as the wii, it fullfilled develop demands and fit with Nintendo's way of doing things

I do have to say that Nintendo did some great innovations in transitioning their series to 3D (SM64, OoT, MP). But afterward, they seem to have tried to stick to the formula.

However, SMG looks pretty far-out to me... I will give them kudos for trying something kinda new with the series (or maybe it's going back to the roots?)

So many wrong in the original OP.

#1 Nintendo stated NUMEROUS times that the next Zelda will be DIFFERENT from the others.

#2 Super Mario Galaxy is in no way shape or form like Sunshine.

#3 Yes I'll give Poke'mon to you.

Dencore

Maybe they're trying to compensate for the strangeness of the Wii?

I would like to see more innovation in their series as well, but I can definitely see why they don't. For Zelda, look at MM and WW--IMO, the 2 most innovative Zelda games. The thing is, MM was in a tight spot because it wasn't just like OoT, and it was a little bizarre (GameSpot was not too impressed with it).It was a great game...I don't think it ever reallygot the respect itdeserved. And WW, my personal favorite Zelda game, got bashed by some Zelda fans because of its cel-shaded art style.

I know I read somewhere where Nintendo said they felt like they had to go back to a realistic style for TP in order to please American gamers... and that they couldn't afford to take a gamble on another WW-style game on a console. It sucks, but that's business for you.

--ProtoMan--

Yeah, that is true. MM and WW were amazing but the latter did get the respect it deserved. I believe it even got GOTY here.

As for Nintendo trying to compensate for the strangeness of the Wii, that's a good point. Perhaps they don't want to alienate their traditional fans. But still, we need some innovation in these major series. They've still got awesome gameplay, but we don't want to see them become stale.

I agree about pokemon games. I was very disappointed in how they didnt really evolve that game. But thats the only real game that we should complain about since the ds came out in 2004 and this game came 3 years after that so they had tons of time to create a highly evolved game. But for the wii, these are all first year wii titles. Give nintendo some time, they even said that they aren't making another wii sports because they would rather work on new ips. Very rarely do you see company's give up their multi million selling games to focus on creating more creative titles.

Yeah they made zelda:tp very similar to OoT. But seriously, when was the last time we had a huge 8 temple OOT like zelda game? The last one was... oot. MM and WW are vastly diffrent from oot so Tp is really Oot's first successor. Nintendo also said that it will be the "last zelda of its kind"

its just me or is pokemon battle system the most stupid thing ever?

like, atack, oh wait this is plant, fire atack;and thats all about it? lol

at least zelda and mario are fun to play.

If I remember correctly, Wind Waker was the whipping post for everyone to rail against Nintendo. To say that Nintendo is afraid of reinventing their IP's is to say that Microsoft is afraid of releasing Halo 3.nytrospawn

Well when the next zelda comes out we will see. Right now the TC is right. TP was in the same vein as OoT, but failed miserably. I hated that game and hope the next zelda is truly different.too_much_eslim

Nintendo has stated MULTIPLE times that the next Zelda will not be like the previous ones and that TP was the last Zelda as we know it. Or did people forget?

[QUOTE="taker42"]Just curious but what makes you think that?
mikemil828

It doesn't fit Nintendo's way of doing things What they like to do is 1. Build Consoles that are priced cheaper than their competition and 2. Build Consoles that they can immediately make a profit on.

For them to build a console nearly on equal to the x360 and the ps3, in order to be the cheapest they would have to sell their console at a considerable loss per unit, if Microsoft and Sony with their massive hardware company connections couldn't realistically sell their console at profit I don't see Nintendo doing it either.

Also their major primary developer (themselves) didn't seem to need all that much power in their systems.

Seeing this, Nintendo decided to simply repackage an overclocked gamecube as the wii, it fullfilled develop demands and fit with Nintendo's way of doing things

I agree somewhat. I especially agree about the zelda part. But zelda is really the fans' fault. The poor response to WW was just the fans saying "we want an OOT clone." Problem is, we already played OOT.

Mario galaxy though, at least to me, is a pretty big change. It's such a massive change in level design that it's like a zlda coming out with no dungeons.

its just me or is pokemon battle system the most stupid thing ever?

like, atack, oh wait this is plant, fire atack;and thats all about it? lol

at least zelda and mario are fun to play.

xBALOx

its just me or is pokemon battle system the most stupid thing ever?

like, atack, oh wait this is plant, fire atack;and thats all about it? lol

at least zelda and mario are fun to play.

xBALOx

[QUOTE="too_much_eslim"]Well when the next zelda comes out we will see. Right now the TC is right. TP was in the same vein as OoT, but failed miserably. I hated that game and hope the next zelda is truly different.Dencore

Nintendo has stated MULTIPLE times that the next Zelda will not be like the previous ones and that TP was the last Zelda as we know it. Or did people forget?

[QUOTE="xBALOx"]

its just me or is pokemon battle system the most stupid thing ever?

like, atack, oh wait this is plant, fire atack;and thats all about it? lol

at least zelda and mario are fun to play.

too_much_eslim

I agree somewhat. I especially agree about the zelda part. But zelda is really the fans' fault. The poor response to WW was just the fans saying "we want an OOT clone." Problem is, we already played OOT.

Mario galaxy though, at least to me, is a pretty big change. It's such a massive change in level design that it's like a zlda coming out with no dungeons.

goblaa

I agree that it is the fans' fault that we got TP, but look what's happened now. Fans are complaining even more that TP was way too similar to OOT.

Nintendo just has to ignore what fans say and try and find a balance between Link's awesome adventures, and giving us fresh gameplay. Kind of like what SE has done with FF. Still a great story, but new, exciting gameplay. Nintendo can do it too.

I hope SMG turns out to be really innovative. It's the first game I want when I get my Wii eventually. Looks fantastic to me.

Name me a game series that was reinvented and actually worked and sold as well as its predecessors.

What we see in Nintendo is not the lack of change, its more the fact that Mario, Zelda, etc are the longest running series out there. Reinvention is a tough thing and most companies dont do much beyond taking a series from 2d to 3d. Nintendo was VERY succesful with that.

Name me a game series that was reinvented and actually worked and sold as well as its predecessors.

gromit007

Resident Evil 4. Final Fantasy XII.

Those are two recent ones.

[QUOTE="mikemil828"]Actually it was hardly risky for Nintendo to go with the wii, they couldn't compete hardware wise with Microsoft and Sony, so instead of going along with them into next gen, they side shifted and built the wii, a console which they could sell at a profit and a controller that made the media talk about them more. In Fact, out of all the different console makers, Nintendo is the most conservative and risk adverse of them all, this also shows in the games that they make as you have realized.the-very-best

No, it was extremely risky to go with the Wii.

People could have just thought it was a lame gimmick and ignored them. Same with the DS. Look at Wiisports graphics compared to something like Gears of War. Consumers have alwaysbeen attracted to great graphics, so Nintendo breaking free of that routine and focusing on innovative gameplay with the DS and Wii was a big risk.

It payed off. I'd like to see them shake up the gameplay in their major franchises too.

Use that thinkbox for a moment please.

The sales of the gamecube were nearly flat the year before the wii come out even when is cost only 99 bucks, Nintendo was essentially subsisting wholly on portable gaming sales, subsisting quite well mind you as they were still making loads of profits. Building the DS wasn't really all that risky either financially, they still had their quite profitable Game Boy Advanced, and they presented the DS as 'a side project' to go along with the advanced, a short run device before they brought out 'the next gameboy' (If you want some confirmation of this, notice that even to today they have never called the ds a gameboy), When the DS turned into a money printer, they changed tack and quietly made the DS the successor of the gameboys.

Now rolling in cash from portable sales they didn't really need a main console, but they figured what what the heck, repackaged overclocked gamecubes in a white case, added a neat controller, and presented it at a price quite a bit more than what it takes to make them in the first place.

Now is the time to use that thinkbox

Which is riskier financially?

1. Building a system on which you will make money on whether it sells or not, and which you do not really need in order to stay a float

or

2. Building a system on which you will lose money on, and which you will need to make up with using game sales, and your whole entire division depends on its success

[QUOTE="too_much_eslim"][QUOTE="xBALOx"]

its just me or is pokemon battle system the most stupid thing ever?

like, atack, oh wait this is plant, fire atack;and thats all about it? lol

at least zelda and mario are fun to play.

Silenthps

Name me a game series that was reinvented and actually worked and sold as well as its predecessors.

What we see in Nintendo is not the lack of change, its more the fact that Mario, Zelda, etc are the longest running series out there. Reinvention is a tough thing and most companies dont do much beyond taking a series from 2d to 3d. Nintendo was VERY succesful with that.

gromit007

One question. How can a game be 100% fun, and stale at the same time ?

[QUOTE="--ProtoMan--"]

Maybe they're trying to compensate for the strangeness of the Wii?

I would like to see more innovation in their series as well, but I can definitely see why they don't. For Zelda, look at MM and WW--IMO, the 2 most innovative Zelda games. The thing is, MM was in a tight spot because it wasn't just like OoT, and it was a little bizarre (GameSpot was not too impressed with it).It was a great game...I don't think it ever reallygot the respect itdeserved. And WW, my personal favorite Zelda game, got bashed by some Zelda fans because of its cel-shaded art style.

I know I read somewhere where Nintendo said they felt like they had to go back to a realistic style for TP in order to please American gamers... and that they couldn't afford to take a gamble on another WW-style game on a console. It sucks, but that's business for you.

the-very-best

Yeah, that is true. MM and WW were amazing but the latter did get the respect it deserved. I believe it even got GOTY here.

As for Nintendo trying to compensate for the strangeness of the Wii, that's a good point. Perhaps they don't want to alienate their traditional fans. But still, we need some innovation in these major series. They've still got awesome gameplay, but we don't want to see them become stale.

I totally agree. I thinkg Miyamoto has a philosophy similar to what you stated: he said he wants to introduce new gaming experiences to the player,but use familiar characters (so more people will play them). It's a great idea in theory, but as we well know, it often doesn't happen.

WW did get a lot of critical praise; my point is that a lot of Zelda followers rejected it, and sales are always important. I remember seeing a letter to Nintendo Power back then, where a reader said that he and his friends would refuse to buy the game because of the graphics. I know that's an extreme example, but some people do feel that way.

One good thing about this gen is that Nintendo is updatingmost oftheir franchises early on. I believe this will force them to either put out some new IP's or really innovate in their classic series.

One question. How can a game be 100% fun, and stale at the same time ?

Virus214