Support NeoGAF

[snapty00]

http://cube.ign.com/articles/561/561400p1.html

Appears to be the same old armchair-chairman analysis that IGNcube has become known for, but maybe someone out there...somewhere...will find it interesting. I couldn't get by the second page before getting bored, to be honest.

 

[G4life98]

Damn igncube, we get it...you dont like the way nintendo does things.

 

[cvxfreak]

Oh please. =/

 

[Goreomedy]

A better article title, "How to state the obvious, piss off fanboys, and combat the swelling traffic on sister sites."

At least they farmed this one out to N-sider.

 

[Guileless]

Why not have some actual reporting in such a long piece? I can't imagine anyone reading through all of that.

 

[Duckhuntdog]

I read through it. Pretty damn good article. Pretty damn right.

 

[Speevy]

That means Nintendo wore out its 9.9-getting hype a long time ago.

 

[Kon Tiki]

http://cube.ign.com/articles/561/561400p1.html

Appears to be the same old armchair-chairman analysis that IGNcube has become known for...

It is not written by IGNCube.

 

[Baconäger]

Wow, I am totally excited to read this. I bet it is very interesting and brings many new things to the table.

 

[nfreakct]

Wow, I am totally excited to read this. I bet it is very interesting and brings many new things to the table.

I bow to your sarcasm.

Edit: SFA a solid game? What crazy parallel universe is this?

 

[Mrbob]

Well written perspective.

 

[lexi]

Not this shit again.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

MattIGN=

"WAH! The IGNXbox and IGNPS2 editors keep picking on me! Why won't Nintendo give me some ammunition to fight this fanboy war?!? I need a mature Zelda fighting game!"

 

[Kon Tiki]

With Killzone tragedy and well Gamecube as it is. I hope IGN amalgamates it's sites. We do not need professional fanboy sites.

 

[snapty00]

That "Zelda fighting game" suggestion was just bizarre. It wouldn't be anymore than any other fighting game already released, other than the fact that it would be in the Zelda universe. Woohoo.

 

[Ristamar]

Edit: SFA a solid game? What crazy parallel universe is this?

I don't know. Solid in technical terms, but talk about drab and soulless gameplay. I don't think removing the Star Fox license would have made a bit of difference in the end.

 

[aoi tsuki]

Great to see that since Matt's running out of crap to rant about, they have to go to N-Sider to get more. It must suck to have to pull that much crap outta your ass consistently to please your boss, as opposed to posting news and features when there's something that's worthy of posting.

 

[Deku Tree]

Super Mario Sunshine, Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, Metroid Prime, Mario Kart: Double Dash, and Super Smash Bros.: Melee represent the direct continuations of Nintendo's largest and most profitable franchises and are five of the best selling titles on the GameCube. One might even venture to say that they are the five best selling games for the Cube and, without hesitation, I would back that assumption.

Why are they writing assumptions? They are a news organiztion so why don't they get the facts and report them. Isn't Luigi's Mansion a bigger seller than Metroid Prime?

They are also likely to be the only games on the system (by any publisher) to sell over a million units in the United States.

Luigi's Mansion...

Yet, none of those games have come close to even matching the popularity and sales of their predecessors

Does anyone know how much Super Metroid sold in the US?

 

[DDayton]

Wait a second... what exactly is the nature of this IGN/"N-Sider" fellowship? Snowball/IGN/whatever dropped their sponsored site deal ages ago; why are they seemingly bringing it back now?

 

[nfreakct]

Alright, some serious criticisms of this.

First, the article bashes Nintendo for what really is an industry-wide trend of reusing popular intellectual properties as a means of strengthening sales of games. The writer tries to draw a connection between original intellectual properties being responsible for leading to new gameplay concepts, but none of his examples demonstrate this. Halo, the Sony platformers, Prince of Persia are not new gameplay concepts as much as polished games wrapped in shiny new wrapping paper. His line about Halo admits as much, "Because [Halo] features a polished gameplay and a completely original world and story." Note Halo's gameplay was polished and the originality was limited to asthetics. His criticism of Nintendo boils down to the fact they don't wrap their games in new shiny wrapping paper.

He makes conflicting statements regarding why Nintendo using their brand characters hurts gameplay. He criticizes Nintendo for first building games around certain intellectual properties, thus limiting the new gameplay ideas that can be used due to the need to adhere to the license. But he goes on to then criticize Nintendo for taking games and trying to apply licenses after the fact.

Moreso, the problem with pointing to Halo and his other examples is for the most part those companies created original IPs because they lacked the IPs of Nintendo. Microsoft didn't have any IPs before the Xbox, Sony had lost its PS IPs and need to created new ones for the PS2, etc. Neither company has shown the particular willingness to create new IPs if they didn't have the motivation of lacking many good original IPs to begin with. The Ubi Soft examples of Prince of Persia and Splinter Cell are both extensions of past IPs or brands (Tom Clancy for Splinter Cell). The only good example is Viewtiful Joe since Capcom has a bevy of valuable IPs and still created an original game.

 

[Vlad]

Alright, some serious criticisms of this.

First, the article bashes Nintendo for what really is an industry-wide trend of reusing popular intellectual properties as a means of strengthening sales of games. The writer tries to draw a connection between original intellectual properties being responsible for leading to new gameplay concepts, but none of his examples demonstrate this. Halo, the Sony platformers, Prince of Persia are not new gameplay concepts as much as polished games wrapped in shiny new wrapping paper. His line about Halo admits as much, "Because [Halo] features a polished gameplay and a completely original world and story." Note Halo's gameplay was polished and the originality was limited to asthetics. His criticism of Nintendo boils down to the fact they don't wrap their games in new shiny wrapping paper.

He makes conflicting statements regarding why Nintendo using their brand characters hurts gameplay. He criticizes Nintendo for first building games around certain intellectual properties, thus limiting the new gameplay ideas that can be used due to the need to adhere to the license. But he goes on to then criticize Nintendo for taking games and trying to apply licenses after the fact.

Moreso, the problem with pointing to Halo and his other examples is for the most part those companies created original IPs because they lacked the IPs of Nintendo. Microsoft didn't have any IPs before the Xbox, Sony had lost its PS IPs and need to created new ones for the PS2, etc. Neither company has shown the particular willingness to create new IPs if they didn't have the motivation of lacking many good original IPs to begin with. The Ubi Soft examples of Prince of Persia and Splinter Cell are both extensions of past IPs or brands (Tom Clancy for Splinter Cell). The only good example is Viewtiful Joe since Capcom has a bevy of valuable IPs and still created an original game.

The thing is, most of the Sony and MS IPs you mentioned are all relatively recent compared to Nintendo's stable. Mario, Zelda, Metroid, and Donkey Kong have all been around for quite a long time, and for the most part, have seen pretty constant exposure. The only franchise out of their big four that really had a break was Metroid's hiatus during the N64 days. The other three have seen repeated exposure through main games, side games, and cameos in other games pretty regularly ever since the NES days.

While it's true that there have been a lot of Tony Hawks, Jaks, Ratchet & Clanks, and others released in a pretty short time frame, they're all still young compared to Nintendo's stuff. In fact, the only IP you mentioned that is older than any of the Nintendo ones is Prince of Persia, and that had a huge break between the first two games and Sands of Time (yeah, there was Prince of Persia 3d, but that one pretty much fell off the radar right off the bat).

Yes, Sony and Microsoft have had the need to develop new IPs, but the point still stands that they've come up with more new ones recently than Nintendo has. Nintendo's IPs may have stood the test of time if Sony and MS weren't around, but I think the point is that while the other two console makers were giving birth to exciting new properties, Nintendo was content to (for the most part) keep rehashing their old stuff by putting it where it doesn't belong.

As far as the shoehorning of their characters into other games goes, I can sort of see it both ways. Part of the appeal of a game like Mario Kart or Super Smash Brothers is that it's familiar characters you're using onscreen. Yes, the gameplay's there, and it would have just been as fun if the characters were completely unknown, but there's definitely something to controlling characters you know, and seeing them out of their usual element. The problem is that Nintendo has gone a bit overboard with this.

 

[Father_Brain]

I agree with about 95% of this editorial.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Although it's pretty obvious stuff, I've been saying this shit for a long time. Nintendo needs to stop sucking its own dick and start sucking the consumers'.

 

[bitwise]

...

 

[Ceros]

Although it's pretty obvious stuff, I've been saying this shit for a long time. Nintendo needs to stop sucking its own dick and start sucking the consumers'.

I got dibs on Samus. ;-P

 

[Deg]

IGNCube are a joke.

 

[Insertia]

That editorial sums up everything I've been saying regarding Nintendo and Gamecube. They're going down in a ball of flames because they aren't branching out nearly as much as they should and the vast majority of their games have no appeal to anyone that isn't a Nintendo fan.

It's all downhill for Nintendo unless they change this.

The Nintendo DS is a great looking system, but I have played all of those games before and there's no way I'm paying $149.95 for a handheld unless it features something truly unique by every definition of the word. Aside from Sega's Feel the Magic XY/XX, I have yet to see that on the Nintendo DS.

get out of my mind.

I completely agree with this. Besides Feel the Magic, there isn't a single shred of originality on DS. For a system that was built up on being 'innovative' this is incredibly disappointing.

 

[Lionheart]

I agree with about 95% of this editorial.

Me too. Especially stuff like this:

Just look at how much it is milking the Donkey Kong name as I speak. Donkey Konga, Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat, and DK: King of Swing could all be considered new and inventive games. Jungle Beat alone is one of the most innovative and addictive games I've seen in years. Yet none of these are derivatives of either the classic Donkey Kong series (see Mario & Donkey Kong for that) or Rare's Donkey Kong Country trilogy. Each of those three titles could have been designed as a standalone game filled with new and original ideas, characters, and worlds.

In an odd way the Nintendo DS (Dual Screen) is another prime example of Nintendo's reluctance to let go and really put it all on the line. The entire concept of the new handheld system is that it offers an entirely new and completely novel way to play games. The DS hardware is very innovative and Nintendo is attempting to push the envelope with something new, yet it refuses to do so without the aid of the old and predictable. Nearly every single DS game I have seen from Nintendo is based on an already existing franchise.

I mean, I don't want to play with the same characters over and over. If you're thinking of new, innovative gameplay, don't immediately think "hmmm, what franchise could we use for this?" after that.

Also to all the people saying IGN keeps saying the same all over: read the article before you reply! It's an N-Sider article, not by IGN...

 

[pilonv1]

It's the last week of October and xbox.ign and ps2.ign are reviewing big games, while cube.ign writes an editorial about playing it safe. It's almost a "professional" (in the loosest sense of the word) version of GA, where Xbox and PS2 owners are playing said games, while Cube owners are posting about what went wrong with Pikmin 2 and how much Paper Mario will sell. At least this article didn't talk about Nintendo's profit levels.

 

[human5892]

They are also likely to be the only games on the system (by any publisher) to sell over a million units in the United States.

Luigi's Mansion (an original franchise that the author fails to mention) has broken a million, and there are a few other games that will eventually pass that mark, including Mario Party 4 and Sonic Adventure 2.

It irritates me when articles dedicated to videogames can't even be bothered to research and get their facts straight, especially in an article where so few facts are used in the first place.

And the article itself: sure, it raises a few decent (if not oversimplified and obvious) points, but as someone else mentioned, this is not just a Nintendo-centric problem. The author makes it sound as if the rest of the industry is making an innovative game every week while Nintendo releases nothing but stale rehashes, while the actual truth lies more in between.

The bit about the DS was very well-taken, though.

 

[TheGreenGiant]

filler. couldn't get past the first 2 paragraphs. Agree with general consensus on IGNcube and Cassamina. Booo-urrrnnh

 

[Teddman]

filler. couldn't get past the first 2 paragraphs. Agree with general consensus on IGNcube and Cassamina. Booo-urrrnnh

Or the first post in this thread, apparently.

 

[TheGreenGiant]

Or the first post in this thread, apparently.

what - that they're not happy with Nintendo; the DS and cube titles/franchises. cry cry. its not so bad if you're multi console - fuck, the gc is cheap enough to own at least 2 different machines.

 

[Teddman]

You mention Matt Casamassina and IGNCube, who had nothing to do with this article's content.

 

[JasoNsider]

First of all, this was not written by IGN Cube. It was written by one editor at N-Sider. I suggest you guys actually read the beginning of the article to see that it was not written by Matt and co. next time. If people can't read the first sentence of a piece or see the big N-Sider logo on the side, then we have a serious problem and will talk to the other staffers about it.

Next, this is one man's opinion and doesn't necessarily reflect the rest of the staffer's position. For instance, I personally don't agree with the article's argument at all. I told Jeff this before it went live along with a bunch of other editors. However, Jeff still has the right to call it as he sees it, even if I disagree with every single point in his argument. So while I cringe when I read it, the fact remains that this is just one person's take on the current situation. No more, no less.

 

[TheGreenGiant]

Teddman; I said "I agree with general consensus on Cassamina and IGNcube" - I don't have to read an article and think that

a) IGNcube is shit
b) Cassamina is a fat shit

cheerio.

 

[ge-man]

Here we go again. Whether it's Matt or someone else, the tune is practically the same. Nintendo marches to the beat of their own drum, except it or move on.

 

[sprsk]

Just look at how much it is milking the Donkey Kong name as I speak. Donkey Konga, Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat, and DK: King of Swing could all be considered new and inventive games. Jungle Beat alone is one of the most innovative and addictive games I've seen in years. Yet none of these are derivatives of either the classic Donkey Kong series (see Mario & Donkey Kong for that) or Rare's Donkey Kong Country trilogy. Each of those three titles could have been designed as a standalone game filled with new and original ideas, characters, and worlds.

no ones gonna give a shit if these games dont have donkey kong. this is how the video game business works. why do you think jak 3 is coming out instead of some new exciting platformer?

 

[ge-man]

no ones gonna give a shit if these games dont have donkey kong. this is how the video game business works. why do you think jak 3 is coming out instead of some new exciting platformer?

Thank you. This is the flip side to all of this. When someone does something that is new or fresh, the welcome is underwhelming in general. What about Vietiful Joe or Metal Arms? Shit, how about Nintendo's own Pikmin? Frankly, I don't think it's the "new" that people really want, but that's the answer they give anyway.

 

[TheGreenGiant]

Just look at how much it is milking the Donkey Kong name as I speak. Donkey Konga, Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat, and DK: King of Swing could all be considered new and inventive games. Jungle Beat alone is one of the most innovative and addictive games I've seen in years. Yet none of these are derivatives of either the classic Donkey Kong series (see Mario & Donkey Kong for that) or Rare's Donkey Kong Country trilogy. Each of those three titles could have been designed as a standalone game filled with new and original ideas, characters, and worlds.

a) can someone fill me in on DK King of Swing?

b) if you've played the game (DKonga) - you'd see how the game makes more sense than not having DK - the drums + bongos go very well with the design. The bongos go VERY well with the jungle theme. What's wrong with innovating using existing franchises anyhow... the true-stay of the DK franchise is platforming anyhow.

 

[radioheadrule83]

I do agree with whoever contrasted IGN-PS2 and IGN-Xbox with IGN-cube. While I'm sure a few people out there, killed some time with this and agreed with it, it does seem like filler material - and IGNcube does seem more prone to posting this kind of thing. Oh and I know that an Nsider member is responsible. I personally don't agree with the article but I don't have a problem with it being there. What I think is disappointing is that things like this appear on IGN cube more and more, when IGN cube used to be just as good as it's sister sites for generating hype and getting people excited about the console they own. Now it's becoming more adept at turning ignorant IGN boarders into arm chair analysts. I loved the Gamecube Masta, and buy Eternal Darkness campaigns. The Zelda mock up ads idea is one of the first interesting things I've seen for Gamecube fans in a while. But other than that - the only things I read on IGN cube are the N-query, and video game reviews/impressions/interviews.

 

[ge-man]

I do agree with whoever contrasted IGN-PS2 and IGN-Xbox with IGN-cube. While I'm sure a few people out there, killed some time with this and agreed with it, it does seem like filler material - and IGNcube does seem more prone to posting this kind of thing. Oh and I know that an Nsider member is responsible. I personally don't agree with the article but I don't have a problem with it being there. What I think is disappointing is that things like this appear on IGN cube more and more, when IGN cube used to be just as good as it's sister sites for generating hype and getting people excited about the console they own. Now it's becoming more adept at turning ignorant IGN boarders into arm chair analysts. I loved the Gamecube Masta, and buy Eternal Darkness campaigns. The Zelda mock up ads idea is one of the first interesting things I've seen for Gamecube fans in a while. But other than that - the only things I read on IGN cube are the N-query, and video game reviews/impressions/interviews.

You know, I can sympathize with the problem of coming up with material for the site. But you bring a up a good point--there's more that can be done than these editorials that keep saying the same thing. Enough already--we know that Nintendo has and is fucking up.

 

[JasoNsider]

You know, I can sympathize with the problem of coming up with material for the site. But you bring a up a good point--there's more that can be done than these editorials that keep saying the same thing. Enough already--we know that Nintendo has and is fucking up.

Agreed.

 

[Teddman]

Enough already--we know that Nintendo has and is fucking up.

I think one of the points of the article is to ask, "But do they know it?" Because lately they do seem stubbornly reluctant to stray much from their established franchises.

It's a good analysis of why Nintendo's appeal has continued to narrow this generation, and a pretty comprehensive examination of how they are publishing less original IP titles than they did in previous generations.

 

[ge-man]

I think one of the points of the article is to ask, "But do they know it?" Because lately they do seem stubbornly reluctant to stray much from their established franchises.

It's a good analysis of why Nintendo's appeal has continued to narrow this generation, and a pretty comprehensive examination of how they are publishing less original IP titles than they did in previous generations.

I don't think IP is their problem. The don't have any problems with selling 20 year old games on the GBA for full retail price. I think their problem is that they are being pushed out out of the console sector by industry and consumers alike. They refuse to give up their philosophy of strong 1st party business combined with competent hardware in favor of Sony's system of strong 3rd party/multiplatform development and convergence hardware. They are perceived as being a relic and thus they are much better off going down the same path as Sega. As a matter of fact, I think Nintendo has suffered a bit from people truly believing that would be gone by now and not limping along with the GC and looking forward to doing that again with another console.

I think the bottom line is like sporsks put it earlier. People wouldn't care about those DK games if DK wasn't on the package. Having established IP is far more important these days than creating new ones. EA is a shinning example of that.

 

[Memles]

The entire franchise argument, to me, is kind of off...no, completely off.

I mean...that's what created Mario Kart, the idea of using franchises in other games. That's what created a job for Camelot with Nintendo. And they sell really well, just look at the first day sales of Mario Tennis GC.

Branding is part of Nintendo's history, and has done nothing NEGATIVE for them. It sells games. People see Mario, people see Donkey Kong, people see Kirby...and people buy games because of it.

He seems to ignore the positive aspects of...well, every single decision Nintendo makes. He mentions a lack of original games...but when he finally brings up Pikmin and AC(With an asterisk, which is just) he brings them up in the most negative of consequences. Every sentence where he starts to say something positive, he HAS to end it with a negative statement.

Pikmin and Animal Crossing aside (AC being a port of a N64 game), I can't recall one 1st party title by Nintendo that isn't a sequel or tied directly into an existing series.

I mean, you're allowed to say something positive on its own! Say "Pikmin and Animal Crossing were two examples of Nintendo doing original material, and I realize this. However..." At least let a single positive sentence slip out.

Super Mario Sunshine was definitely a better game then Super Mario 64 in many respects, but its childish theme and overall difficulty attracted few newcomers to the series.

Though it ranks as my favorite Legend of Zelda title, The Wind Waker did little to reach out to new fans.

He has this annoying tendency to start out a sentennce with something positive, but then go to the exact opposite end of the spectrum for shock value. His writing style is bothersome...he seems to not let those positive aspects be known, as if he's bent on creating a completely negative editorial.

At the end, though, you notice how much credit he gives Pikmin...when before he pretty well disregarded it when it fit with his negative argument. He talks about how franchises would have ruined games...I honestly don't think Nintendo has ever done ANY game with a franchise character that didn't FIT in that universe that would have been exponentially better with a different branding. Nintendo is about new game ideas, not exactly new game franchises...you know, the new Legend of Zelda looks to be an old franchise...and it could technically be made to be a different franchise...but he doesn't argue against that.

I think it's a poorly written, overly negative editorial. I mean, he's right. Nintendo has issues...but not branding titles would have killed half of them right out of the gates.

 

[Teddman]

EA is a shinning example of that.

Yeah, but even they have published more new IP's than Nintendo this generation. SSX, the Street series of games, the whole Sports BIG! label, NFS Underground (a different and very successful approach to an established franchise), Def Jam fighting games, Ty the Tiger, Freedom Fighters, etc. They both milk old franchises and come up with successful original games.

I mean, you're allowed to say something positive on its own! Say "Pikmin and Animal Crossing were two examples of Nintendo doing original material, and I realize this. However..." At least let a single positive sentence slip out.

There's more than a few positive sentences in this section:

Pikmin represents one of Nintendo's sole forays into original game development in recent years. It is both a fun and charming game. Imagine if you will, what Pikmin would have been like had Nintendo instead decided to create the game based on the 128 Marios demo that it showed at Spaceworld 2001. Theoretically the two concepts are very similar, on a basic level. Sales would have been solid, being a title gracing the Mario name, but at what cost? The theme, characters, and world of Pikmin are what make the game so special. The quirky attitude and fun nature of it would have been lost had it not slipped through the cracks of Nintendo's rigorous brand association procedures. However, it was given the green light to exist and the creative imaginations of the brilliant minds at Nintendo were allowed to reign free. Because of this Pikmin is perhaps one of the most fun and exciting games to hit shelves this generation. Its sequel, Pikmin 2, only further develops and nurtures the originality and is one of the best games of the year.

Pikmin is but one of many examples I could use to illustrate this point. Viewtiful Joe is another. For all who have played it, VJ oozes character and imagination from every pore. Without a doubt, it is one of the most inventive and refreshingly entertaining titles to hit shelves in years. Nonetheless, I'm sure that at one point or another Capcom pondered the possibility of making the game yet another offshoot of its Mega Man franchise. What if it had decided to go ahead and turn the game into a new Mega Man title? I'm sure the resulting game would have probably been the best and most original Mega Man title in years. It probably would have outsold VJ as well, but at what cost? The magic that makes Viewtiful Joe so refreshing and fun would have been lost.

Pokémon is a prime example as well. Where would the Game Boy and Nintendo be today if it weren't for the phenomenal success of Pokémon Red & Blue in 1997? Pokémon almost single-handedly revived and rebuilt the Game Boy brand from the depths of stagnation. Nintendo's biggest money making franchise today is a direct result of the company being open to a totally new game idea in 1996. The power of completely new game ideas cannot be underestimated. Historically, Nintendo's biggest success stories have consistently coincided with the creation of completely new games.

 

[ge-man]

Would it matter if Nintendo published more newgamestypes of games? Maybe the fact that pretty much every attempt they have made at something new this gen (ED, AC, Pikmin) has been welcomed with underwhelming responses has encouraged stick close to their old characters? Look at the recent Japan first sales list thread--Mario Tennis blew away the competition, and I doubt that it's soley because of it being a great tennis game.

Let's be real here, nothing that Nintendo could come up with now would ever approach Mario or Zelda. The current environment makes it impossible for them to ever duplicate what they did in the mid 80s.

Again, I think Nintendo's real problems lie in people even caring about them as console developers anymore. They continue to do amazingly well with the GBA, and there's has been far more "milking" going on with that than the GC.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Historically, Nintendo's biggest success stories have consistently coincided with the creation of completely new games.

Mario 3, Zelda:OOT, Mario64 ...

It's not so much the franchise you use, but what you do with it. A shitload of new franchises didn't save Sega.

 

[Teddman]

Mario 3, Zelda:OOT, Mario64 ...

It's not so much the franchise you use, but what you do with it. A shitload of new franchises didn't save Sega.

He addresses that subject, and two of those games specifically:

At this point, I do not believe it is possible for Nintendo's core franchises to attract a myriad of new gamers. Their purpose will remain what they should have been for some time: support. Franchises like Mario and Zelda regained a lot of lost momentum when Nintendo successfully reinvented them in the three dimensional realm, but not even the colossal success of games like Ocarina of Time and Super Mario 64 were enough to keep the Nintendo 64 on equal footing with the PlayStation. Even if the next Legend of Zelda for GCN matches the critical acclaim and popularity of Ocarina of Time what help will that be in the long run? The GameCube will have a hit game, great. A few big hits didn't save the Nintendo 64. The most that games like Mario and Zelda can do is try to match their past successes. An awesome new Mario game will attract back fans of Super Mario 64 and an awesome new Zelda will bring back fans of Ocarina of Time. It is obvious that Nintendo needs to knock on a few new doors. Its core franchises will always be important, but cannot be solely relied upon to reach out to new audiences. Nintendo needs to start developing new franchises for a new generation.

I think he makes a persuasive case that even great installments of core franchises won't do much to help Nintendo gain marketshare. New IP's have a better chance.