Support NeoGAF

[wsippel]

I've played Reginleiv, and I can attest to it being a pile of shit. It's an absolute mess in terms of tech, and I don't mean in "GAF terms" if that's your concern. The game slows down to a crawl in pretty much any battle. Not just to ~20 fps, it really feels like playing a slideshow. The combat isn't that great either. The motion controls actually work quite well, but goddamn is everything else handled poorly. The "draw to slash" sword fighting is slow and awkward, and it makes aiming your slashes (which is core to the combat) difficult since all the action is chugging along as it happens. Ranged combat and magic are handled in weird ways too. That, plus the framerate, pretty much make any combat situation unplayable. The game has a few redeeming qualities and is occasionally even a bit fun, but the vast majority of the time it is boring, bland and extremely slow. I won't get into all the other technical problems (crashing, some stunningly awful animation, ugly generic visuals to name a few) because the game is that problem alone is so game breaking I'm surprised anyone, much less Nintendo, ended up publishing it in this state.

I'll admit that the game has a few interesting touches, but anyone who genuinely likes this game is able to wade through a lot to get to that occasional nugget of amusement. I'm a pretty forgiving guy when it comes to games and I've liked most of the Wii games that got on GAF's hate list, but this game is fundamentally broken. This isn't some anti-Nintendo scheme or some BS like that, this is a genuinely bad game. I don't like to bash it because I know the niche appeal is enough to give it a few fans, and I don't want to be the troll even when the game deserves it. I've been seeing a lot of paranoia about bias when it comes to these games, and it's completely fucking unwarranted. Disregarding my own opinion (which actually is not that bad, though I couldn't stand it longer than I felt was enough to judge the game), the game has way too many issues to be tolerable to anyone but a few batshit crazies and Australians who bothered importing it. It's kinda like didgeridoos. There's no credibility for the idea that this game was good or really worth releasing, and this idea of Nintendo haters conspiring to smear their names is fucking absurd.

I take it Reginleiv was the first Sandlot game you've played?

 

[Bear]

Isn't Xenoblade technically in-house more than first party?

I don't think so. It's definitely first party, but it's probably not in-house since Monolith Soft seems to be a fairly external subsidiary.

 

[PantherLotus]

Ok, I've been defeated.

 

[Big One]

I don't think so. It's definitely first party, but it's probably not in-house since Monolith Soft seems to be a fairly external subsidiary.

Ehhh...not really. Monolith Soft was actually bought by Nintendo. Then there's Gamefreak, on another hand, who simply make games for Nintendo systems (and their properties belong to Nintendo). So yeah they're definitely closer than them or most developers who develop for Nintendo.

 

[Dascu]

Ok, I've been defeated.

I imagine you're being sarcastic. I hope you do not consider me or some others here as blind Nintendo fanboys or whatnot, because that would be a wrong assumption. I see what your point is and I'm trying to say that the reality is more nuanced than "Nintendo has not created new original story/character-driven IPs like Zelda and Metroid". I suppose you can disagree with that, but try to be a bit more friendly in the future.

 

[VisanidethDM]

I didn't say successful games.

I said games as successful as Zelda.

This spans practically 25 years of critically acclaimed gaming.

Two games: Legend of Zelda and Ocarina of Time are two of the most influential and critically acclaimed games of all time that even great new gen IPs like Uncharted won't even be able to match no matter how many sequels it gets.

Same could be said about Mario, especially since Super Mario Bros. laid the groundwork for 2D gaming, and Super Mario 64 laid the groundwork for 3D gaming.

There simply isn't anything close to being that revolutionary, critically acclaimed, and still a worldwide success as those two series.

I'm struggling to focalize the point you're trying to make. Commercially successfull, critically acclaimed or both?

Besides, how does this remark have anything to do with the discussion at hand? We're talking about new franchises and you ask for another example of a 25 years old of successes pedigree?

Besides, we're talking about Nintendo franchises. Their "success" is heavily manipulated by their environment. They're put on obscenely popular consoles with very limited competition from third party coming out on them. Zelda was successfull for 25 years because Nintendo kept doing Zelda games for 25 years. If they put the same know how and resources in a new franchise, Zelda would have lasted 10 years instead of 25, and we would have had 15 years of criticall acclaim for The Adventures of Chibi McGuffin instead.

It's not like Zelda has a flawless track record of outstanding, original games. People also tend to make the assumption that Nintendo games would sell as well on non-Nintendo consoles. Nintendo makes some absurdely good games, but their sales are engineered. NSMB wouldn't have sold a fraction of that on a console that actually had some games coming out on it.

 

[Wazzim]

Man, why so harsh?

That aside, you must've misunderstood. My claim is that success and popularity is why the new Nintendo IPs aren't considered on the same level as Zelda. I've listed some reasons in my previous post. Lack of quality is not the reason, and I dare say lack of budget isn't either.

And those new IPs: Xenoblade, The Last Story, Another Code franchise and Rhythm Tengoku.

I would add Disaster: Day of Crisis, Soma Bringer, Zangeki no Reginleiv, Takt of Magic franchise, Captain Rainbow and the yet-to-be-released Pandora's Tower. However, I'd say these games are perhaps a notch lower on the quality-scale (though this obviously varies from person to person).

Is the Last Story IP really Nintendo property?

 

[wsippel]

Is the Last Story IP really Nintendo property?

Yes.

 

[VisanidethDM]

Ehhh...not really. Monolith Soft was actually bought by Nintendo. Then there's Gamefreak, on another hand, who simply make games for Nintendo systems (and their properties belong to Nintendo). So yeah they're definitely closer than them or most developers who develop for Nintendo.

Can we stop looking at the contracts and mind the matter of the point?

Claiming that Xenoblade is a "Nintendo first party franchise" is preposterous. It's like saying that if tomorrow they buy Rockstar and Rockstar makes Red Dead Redemption 2, RDR2 is as much of a Nintendo franchise as Mario.

Xenoblade is 100% Monolith, and while Nintendo certainly influenced it in some ways, it would have happened under Sony or MS or anyone else. If tomorrow Monolith comes out with an original IP (something I'd argue XENOsa-Blade, sorry, technically isn't), then I'd be more than willing to consider it a Nintendo first party title.

 

[Bear]

Ehhh...not really. Monolith Soft was actually bought by Nintendo. Then there's Gamefreak, on another hand, who simply make games for Nintendo systems (and their properties belong to Nintendo). So yeah they're definitely closer than them or most developers who develop for Nintendo.

Eh, Gamefreak is also debatable but it's not first party in legal terms only. It was very quickly incorporated into Nintendo at a time when it still hadn't acquired many other studios. The amount of ownership that Nintendo has on them in practice (as well as in Pokemon in general) seems to have much broader implications then, say, Retro or Monolith.

 

[Zeliard]

EAD is a subsidiary, Monolith is a subsidiary.

Though there is a distinction to be made between wanting something out of EAD and out of Nintendo as a whole and as publisher. EAD w/ Miyamoto at the helm creates the Zelda and Mario titles, so when people say they want a new hardcore IP from Nintendo that isn't Zelda or Mario and tries to do some different things, I assume they want it from EAD.

 

[Big One]

I'm struggling to focalize the point you're trying to make. Commercially successfull, critically acclaimed or both?

Besides, how does this remark have anything to do with the discussion at hand? We're talking about new franchises and you ask for another example of a 25 years old of successes pedigree?

My point is that PantherLotus' argument was asking for another franchise like Mario and Zelda, when there is simply no way for there to be another franchise like those two. There isn't on other consoles, and there won't be on Nintendo consoles. There's always big franchises of course, but what he's asking for is pretty inane and out of touch with reality as a whole. You can't just spring up a new IP and have it be a worldwide success. Nintendo's success was primarily about timing in the NES era.

Besides, we're talking about Nintendo franchises. Their "success" is heavily manipulated by their environment. They're put on obscenely popular consoles with very limited competition from third party coming out on them. Zelda was successfull for 25 years because Nintendo kept doing Zelda games for 25 years. If they put the same know how and resources in a new franchise, Zelda would have lasted 10 years instead of 25, and we would have had 15 years of criticall acclaim for The Adventures of Chibi McGuffin instead.

It's not like Zelda has a flawless track record of outstanding, original games. People also tend to make the assumption that Nintendo games would sell as well on non-Nintendo consoles. Nintendo makes some absurdely good games, but their sales are engineered. NSMB wouldn't have sold a fraction of that on a console that actually had some games coming out on it.

Yeah no, those franchises are successful because of brand recognition and quality, not because they're the only things to buy on a Nintendo system

Claiming that Xenoblade is a "Nintendo first party franchise" is preposterous. It's like saying that if tomorrow they buy Rockstar and Rockstar makes Red Dead Redemption 2, RDR2 is as much of a Nintendo franchise as Mario.

I'm sorry but it pretty much would be if they actually bought Rockstar. When they buy a company, it belongs to them; simply as that.

Xenoblade is 100% Monolith, and while Nintendo certainly influenced it in some ways, it would have happened under Sony or MS or anyone else. If tomorrow Monolith comes out with an original IP (something I'd argue XENOsa-Blade, sorry, technically isn't), then I'd be more than willing to consider it a Nintendo first party title.

Xenoblade is a new IP. dude. As is Disaster, and Monolithsoft is just as much of a Nintendo company as Intelligent Systems or Ape Inc. is

 

[miksar]

The thing about new IPs is that it is not enough to get a re-skinned Zelda, and that's what people who want a mature realistic game from Nintendo are basically asking for. A new IP should offer new gameplay mechanics, it should reinvent or invent a genre, only then there's a point in doing something completely new. The last time Nintendo did it was Pikmin: they showed how to make a real-time strategy game in console environment. And now for almost a decade they concentrated on new ways to play that appeal mostly to casual crowd. Last two years showed that they're probably out of ideas for new "Wii"-type titles so it'll be interesting to see where they go next.

 

[boyshine]

I realized I forgot to put the word mature in quotes, so I stealth-edited my post. I meant games that the dudebros consider mature...I was using the term tongue in cheek.

I want a big-budget (Zelda level) new Nintendo IP with a realistic looking human lead character.

But why the hell would you want that from Nintendo? It's not what they're good at. Human characters are boring, they have to move and animate a certain way, and that is a 1000x more limiting than any kind of Mario-branding. And you will never see a AAA title from Nintendo with M/18+ on the cover, it's just not what they do. Yes they can make the hardware, and get those games from third parties, but 1st party Nintendo games are family friendly games. And since they're practically the only developer/publisher focusing on great quality games for kids, I hope that's where they continue, because this industry is dead if we lose those AAA kids games. They are the gateway drug of the gaming industry, and without them there's no reason for kids to start playing games.

 

[wsippel]

Though there is a distinction to be made between wanting something out of EAD and out of Nintendo as a whole and as publisher. EAD w/ Miyamoto at the helm creates the Zelda and Mario titles, so when people say they want a new hardcore IP from Nintendo that isn't Zelda or Mario and tries to do some different things, I assume they want it from EAD.

The latest new IP by Miyamoto and EAD debuted just a few weeks ago: Steel Diver.

 

[qq more]

I'd never understand why people want Nintendo to make AAA big budget realistic mature games so badly. Isn't the market somewhat saturated with those?

 

[VisanidethDM]

Yeah no, those franchises are successful because of brand recognition and quality, not because they're the only things to buy on a Nintendo system

Not what I said. Nintendo dishes out amazing games. These amazing games would sell millions on any system.

Clear. Quality. Brand recognition. All fine.

NOW, what I said is that those franchises sell 8 digit numbers that often don't start with 1 because of software stagnation and market engineering.

You think NSMB would sell 25 million units on the X360?

My point is that PantherLotus' argument was asking for another franchise like Mario and Zelda, when there is simply no way for there to be another franchise like those two. There isn't on other consoles, and there won't be on Nintendo consoles. There's always big franchises of course, but what he's asking for is pretty inane and out of touch with reality as a whole. You can't just spring up a new IP and have it be a worldwide success. Nintendo's success was primarily about timing in the NES era.

My point is that there could have been if Nintendo wanted so. Exactly because Nintendo has the quality, and not just the name, they could have dropped Zelda, brand a new adventure game, and slowly built it into a legend if they were willing to lose some initial sales.

They've more or less painted themselves in a corner. Thank god for them it works, but if they open the doors to third party games, they won't be able to go on like this. If people can play Twilight Princess AND Darksiders on the same system, they'll draw a comparison, and some Zelda sales may switch. Nintendo franchises work so well because they're on systems that are finely engineered to make them work, you can't ignore that.

 

[TekkenMaster]

But why the hell would you want that from Nintendo? It's not what they're good at. Human characters are boring, they have to move and animate a certain way, and that is a 1000x more limiting than any kind of Mario-branding. And you will never see a AAA title from Nintendo with M/18+ on the cover, it's just not what they do. Yes they can make the hardware, and get those games from third parties, but 1st party Nintendo games are family friendly games. And since they're practically the only developer/publisher focusing on great quality games for kids, I hope that's where they continue, because this industry is dead if we lose those AAA kids games. They are the gateway drug of the gaming industry, and without them there's no reason for kids to start playing games.

Nintendo has never given that type of game a shot with EAD/Miyamoto at the helm, so I'm really curious to see what they could do. And it doesn't need to be M-rated.

And human characters don't have to be boring. People love Nathan Drake because he's a well written, funny character.

 

[VisanidethDM]

I'm sorry but it pretty much would be if they actually bought Rockstar. When they buy a company, it belongs to them; simply as that.

Xenoblade is a new IP. dude. As is Disaster, and Monolithsoft is just as much of a Nintendo company as Intelligent Systems or Ape Inc. is

Point A: it belongs to them, but it's not a "Nintendo game". it's a Rockstar game, made by Rockstar dudes, that has nothing of the philosophy behind Mario and Zelda and Pikmin and all that jazz. Sure we'll call it a Nintendo game, but it's not as Nintendo as Zelda is. You're confusing Nintendo the publisher with Nintendo the developer.

Point B: Xenoblade, the game coming from the dudes who did Xenogears and Xenosaga, is a Monolith franchise. Published by Nintendo, but it's not as much of a Nintendo product as Zelda is, simple as.

Once again, publisher vs developer.

Making an example: Dead Space is a Visceral game, published by EA. Dragon Age 2 is a Bioware game, published by EA. Xenoblade is a Monolith game, published by Nintendo. Zelda is a Nintendo franchise, period.
I think that kind of "first party-ness" is what people is discussing about. The same people doing Zelda, doing something else, not Nintendo hiring someone to do something else while they still do Zelda.

 

[Big One]

Not what I said. Nintendo dishes out amazing games. These amazing games would sell millions on any system.

Clear. Quality. Brand recognition. All fine.

NOW, what I said is that those franchises sell 8 digit numbers that often don't start with 1 because of software stagnation and market engineering.

You think NSMB would sell 25 million units on the X360?

Kind of a bad example cause the 360 goes through some major software stagnations too.

But yes I think it would've. Matter of fact it probably would've made more money cause if it was on the 360, I'm sure Nintendo would be smart enough to port it everywhere else.

My point is that there could have been if Nintendo wanted so. Exactly because Nintendo has the quality, and not just the name, they could have dropped Zelda, brand a new adventure game, and slowly built it into a legend if they were willing to lose some initial sales.

They've more or less painted themselves in a corner. Thank god for them it works, but if they open the doors to third party games, they won't be able to go on like this. If people can play Twilight Princess AND Darksiders on the same system, they'll draw a comparison, and some Zelda sales may switch. Nintendo franchises work so well because they're on systems that are finely engineered to make them work, you can't ignore that.

Yeah I doubt that. Darksiders wasn't as critically acclaimed as Twilight Princess was...nor was it even remotely as good and feature much more less content than Twilight Princess did. Most people who've played Darksiders have also probably played Zelda too considering Zelda sells in the millions at average so pretty much most gamers have played it, so your argument is kind of moot there.

Point A: it belongs to them, but it's not a "Nintendo game". it's a Rockstar game, made by Rockstar dudes, that has nothing of the philosophy behind Mario and Zelda and Pikmin and all that jazz. Sure we'll call it a Nintendo game, but it's not as Nintendo as Zelda is. You're confusing Nintendo the publisher with Nintendo the developer.

Point B: Xenoblade, the game coming from the dudes who did Xenogears and Xenosaga, is a Monolith franchise. Published by Nintendo, but it's not as much of a Nintendo product as Zelda is, simple as.

Once again, publisher vs developer.

Making an example: Dead Space is a Visceral game, published by EA. Dragon Age 2 is a Bioware game, published by EA. Xenoblade is a Monolith game, published by Nintendo. Zelda is a Nintendo franchise, period.
I think that kind of "first party-ness" is what people is discussing about. The same people doing Zelda, doing something else, not Nintendo hiring someone to do something else while they still do Zelda.

You are really having some bad examples here. For one, Monolith Soft IS a first party studio for Nintendo now. Gamefreak isn't. Xenoblade isn't based off Xenosaga despite the name, which you seem to think it is (it literally has no relation, not even to the Xenogears/Xenosaga timeline shit), and is a completely new IP made by a Nintendo inhouse developer that was once a third-party developer.

All of those other examples are just examples of third parties making games for big companies. None of those companies actually own those developers...this is the case with Nintendo and Monolith Soft's relationship, however. Monolith Soft is literally a part of Nintendo now.

 

[VisanidethDM]

Nintendo has never given that type of game a shot with EAD/Miyamoto at the helm, so I'm really curious to see what they could do. And it doesn't need to be M-rated.

And human characters don't have to be boring. People love Nathan Drake because he's a well written, funny character.

But what if human characters isn't what Miyamoto does well?

It's like clamoring for good stories in Zelda games. I can picture the devs saying "Guys, can't we just stick with what we're good at?".

 

[wsippel]

Point A: it belongs to them, but it's not a "Nintendo game". it's a Rockstar game, made by Rockstar dudes, that has nothing of the philosophy behind Mario and Zelda and Pikmin and all that jazz. Sure we'll call it a Nintendo game, but it's not as Nintendo as Zelda is. You're confusing Nintendo the publisher with Nintendo the developer.

Point B: Xenoblade, the game coming from the dudes who did Xenogears and Xenosaga, is a Monolith franchise. Published by Nintendo, but it's not as much of a Nintendo product as Zelda is, simple as.

Once again, publisher vs developer.

Making an example: Dead Space is a Visceral game, published by EA. Dragon Age 2 is a Bioware game, published by EA. Xenoblade is a Monolith game, published by Nintendo. Zelda is a Nintendo franchise, period.
I think that kind of "first party-ness" is what people is discussing about. The same people doing Zelda, doing something else, not Nintendo hiring someone to do something else while they still do Zelda.

By that logic, Mario and Zelda are EAD games published by Nintendo, Metroid are either Retro or a SPD games published by Nintendo, Fire Emblem are Intelligent System games published by Nintendo, and God of War are SCE Santa Monica games published by Sony.

 

[boyshine]

Nintendo has never given that type of game a shot with EAD/Miyamoto at the helm, so I'm really curious to see what they could do. And it doesn't need to be M-rated.

And human characters don't have to be boring. People love Nathan Drake because he's a well written, funny character.

I'm not going to go into a detailed Uncharted discussion, but if Nathan Drake is you template character of choice then I hope you get your game from someone, but I pray it's not from Nintendo.

 

[Diffense]

It strikes me as very silly (bordering on trolling) to complain about Nintendo making Mario games.
He's the company's goddamned MASCOT for crying out loud!

Every developer provides sequels to and spinoffs of its popular franchises.
Some, such as Square Enix, have almost given up on branding any game as anything other than their most marketable franchises,

It is the market (us) that drives this state of affairs.
When a game is going to cost millions to make you might as well give it every chance to succeed even if that means setting an original gameplay concept within a popular franchise's universe.

It would be interesting to catalogue the new franchises introduced my the top five Japanese publishers this generation.
I doubt Nintendo would fall significantly behind the average.
The entire Wii Fit and Wii Sports lines were new as well as Nintendogs for the handheld.
And of course, there have been games that saw less commercial success such as Xenoblade, Reginleiv, The Last Story and Wii Music while Pandora's Tower is on the way.

 

[Wazzim]

Yes.

So another lost Mistwalker IP

 

[Instro]

I wouldn't be surprised if Xenoblade had a bigger budget than Pikmin. I'm actually quite sure that was the case, even.

Id have to take your word for it, but somehow I doubt a game with little marketing and only released in one territory would have a larger overall budget than a game that was developed internally, heavily marketed and released WW.

Its hard to consider a game a major new IP(on the scale of say Pikmin for example) when its not being released outside of Japan. I think thats what a lot of people are looking for, Nintendo to put out some new titles that they actually care enough about to localize.

At least they appear to be starting off well with the 3DS though.

 

[VisanidethDM]

Kind of a bad example cause the 360 goes through some major software stagnations too.

But yes I think it would've. Matter of fact it probably would've made more money cause if it was on the 360, I'm sure Nintendo would be smart enough to port it everywhere else.

I can only respectfully disagree here. Keep in mind you're fundamentally suggesting that a couple dozen millions of gamers would either start spending twice as much on videogames, or stop buying Call of Duty etc to buy Nintendo games.

I'll ask again for clarity: you think the fact that Nintendo games are great and almost everything else on the Wii is shovelware has NOTHING to do with the incredible sales of Nintendo titles?
Second question, just checking here: you really think the fact that the Wii was so port-unfriendly was simply a major fluke from Nintendo, or part of a bigger software strategy (Iwata's recent interviews could help here)?

Yeah I doubt that. Darksiders wasn't as critically acclaimed as Twilight Princess was...nor was it even remotely as good and feature much more less content than Twilight Princess did. Most people who've played Darksiders have also probably played Zelda too considering Zelda sells in the millions at average so pretty much most gamers have played it, so your argument is kind of moot there.

If we're looking at reviews, then NSMB is the achievement of a generation and not a solid remake. If we look at the public... a lot of people foundt Darksiders very good and TP very... tired.

It would be an interesting bet. Let's see how much Zelda sells if you go third party. Worked wonders for SEGA, didn't it?

 

[wsippel]

Id have to take your word for it, but somehow I doubt a game with little marketing and only released in one territory would have a larger overall budget than a game that was developed internally, heavily marketed and released WW.

Its hard to consider a game a major new IP(on the scale of say Pikmin for example) when its not being released outside of Japan. I think thats what a lot of people are looking for, Nintendo to put out some new titles that they actually care enough about to localize.

At least they appear to be starting off well with the 3DS though.

Xenoblade is scheduled for release in Europe later this year. Translated in five languages and with dual audio.

 

[Black-Wind]

I kinda get what some are saying here and I have to say, I would love for Nintendo to make some more Characters and Series that can stand shoulder to shoulder with Mario/ Pokemon/ Zelda that are focused on the Core Demo.

I mean, they CAN be successful enough to sell mills. Thats been the story behind other new characters series that arnt from Nintendo for years now.

I think it has something to do with the fact that they don't want comp for their reg star series/ characters combined with the fact that they don't think they can "do" certain genres. I mean, they wont give the same amount of money and development to a NEW platforming character/ series with a unique idea when that idea could be used to make a fresh, fun Mario. Same with an Adventure/ Puzzle title. And they seem to feel that they can't "make certain genres" because of their image.

But maybe thats gonna change. As it was sated earlier in this thread, the reason so many IPs on the DS/Wii are "everyone games" is because those consoles where made to BRING IN new gamers as their targets. If Wii2 is geared towards taking in the core then I could see some great things coming for the core. Even Miyamoto has expressed that he would like to make a new Character IP and I would love for Nintendo to go out and do some great and unique takes on other core genres.

I would love a Nintendo Styled high action game with unique innovations. Could be like the inverse of Bayonetta, have a cute lil girl who does all that over the top stuff but in a Nintendo-non-gory way and has a really unique gameplay mechanic.

 

[VisanidethDM]

By that logic, Mario and Zelda are EAD games published by Nintendo, Metroid are either Retro or a SPD games published by Nintendo, Fire Emblem are Intelligent System games published by Nintendo, and God of War are SCE Santa Monica games published by Sony.

Yes, and that's the only worthy logic, in my opinion.

I expect the next EAD game or the next Sony Santa Monica game, and I expect the Sony Santa Monica game to be in their style, and the next Jaffe game to be a Jaffe game, and not simply "Sony stuff".

I'm reasoning like a gamer here, not an investor.

Retro isn't the same as EAD. They don't make Zelda (yet).

 

[Bear]

I take it Reginleiv was the first Sandlot game you've played?

No, it isn't. I only bought the game because of EDF 2017, but Reginleiv was pretty unbearable even considering that and it wasn't even as fun. I also got reasonably far in this game. At least with EDF the gameplay was fun and simple enough to be less affected by the technical problems. I'm not interested in bashing the game. Despite the few jabs I couldn't help taking, I actually didn't mind the game too much because it did remind me somewhat of EDF, but this game had too many issues to make up for its redeeming qualities this time around.

 

[Jocchan]

If we're looking at reviews, then NSMB is the achievement of a generation and not a solid remake.

I'm not sure I'd call NSMB a remake.

 

[TekkenMaster]

But what if human characters isn't what Miyamoto does well?

How would we know EAD and/or Miyamoto can't do human characters if they haven't at least given it a shot? Unless he has in fact tried to make a game that we never heard of...

 

[VisanidethDM]

You are really having some bad examples here. For one, Monolith Soft IS a first party studio for Nintendo now. Gamefreak isn't. Xenoblade isn't based off Xenosaga despite the name, which you seem to think it is (it literally has no relation, not even to the Xenogears/Xenosaga timeline shit), and is a completely new IP made by a Nintendo inhouse developer that was once a third-party developer.

I know there's no relationship, EXCEPT it's called XENOblade. That's brand recognition. They're screaming "PEOPLE THIS IS A MONOLITH GAME, FOR REAL!".

Jeez.

 

[Peru]

I'm not sure I'd call NSMB a remake.

Who would? All new levels usually don't get called a remake.

 

[Fess]

They probably wont be trying on the Cafe either. I hope people are prepared for that or will they just suck it up and buy the next mario game just because it's in HD!.

No, not because it's HD, because it has awesome gameplay. It may be old news when it comes to the characters but I still get a much more special feeling everytime a new Mario, Zelda, Metroid game gets released compared to a new Halo, Killzone, etc. The characters are old but they always add some new twist to the gameplay, something that makes the games shine above everything else gameplay-wise even though it's "just another Mario/Zelda/Metroid game".

The only ones that want new characters are those who don't like the original characters. Personally I don't see in any way how and why Super Mario Galaxy, Zelda, Metroid, etc would be better games if there was another character running around. I think they would be worse. The same thing if they suddenly changed the character in Uncharted so that you ran around with some other dude. I like Mario, Link, Samus, Nathan, Solid Snake, etc. I want MORE games with those characters, not less. And I hated that they took away Frank West from Dead Rising 2, it was a very bad choice in my opinion, I have zero problem with playing with the same character again, especially if they keep adding stuff that makes the gameplay fresh.

 

[wsippel]

Yes, and that's the only worthy logic, in my opinion.

Then how is Mario a Nintendo IP but Xenoblade a Monolith IP? Or more precisely: According to your worthy logic, there simply are no Nintendo games. And there are no Sony or Microsoft games, either. Then what the fuck are we talking about?

 

[Zeliard]

Nintendo has never given that type of game a shot with EAD/Miyamoto at the helm, so I'm really curious to see what they could do. And it doesn't need to be M-rated.

And human characters don't have to be boring. People love Nathan Drake because he's a well written, funny character.

Doesn't have to be a more realistic art style and I doubt Nintendo would go in that direction. Too many others already doing that and doing what they do keeps them unique.

Simply getting Shiggy & EAD to create and release a big new IP on their next console that isn't Zelda or Mario would be enough. And no, I'm afraid Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Nintendogs, etc aren't really what people are talking about here.

They're releasing a new console next year more powerful than 360/PS3, when Sony and MS are nowhere near ready to, and Nintendo isn't doing that so they can sell more balance boards to soccer moms. They're going to ratchet up that third-party support again, bust out the perennial Mario/Zelda/Metroid trifecta everyone already knows is coming, and it would be absolutely fantastic to see EAD proper eventually deliver some new and unexpected gem.

 

[neoanarch]

Some people have to mentally separate "characters" and "games". First off Nintendo doesn't have to create new mascots, they have a plethora of characters that fit almost any genre. Any new characters they do create will be spawned from its respective universe. Second the myth that they don't create new games is bunk, there are plenty of examples in the Wii/DS generation. Of course the "Wii "line won't be given credit just like any Nintendo funded project not strictly developed by and EAD group won't be considered. Its a moving goal post argument.

 

[VisanidethDM]

Then how is Mario a Nintendo IP but Xenoblade a Monolith IP? Or more precisely: According to your worthy logic, there simply are no Nintendo games. And there are no Sony or Microsoft games, either. Then what the fuck are we talking about?

Sony and MS aren't, in fact, developers, while Nintendo was since the beginning. EAD is more "Nintendo" than Santa Monica is Sony for sure.

But if such distinction is bothersome, then I'll be gladly willing to consider Nintendo, Sony and MS as publishers and discuss EAD or Retro games. It's more precise, and appropriate, expecially when publishers these days have such different teams working among their ranks.

I really don't see how clumping EAD, Monolith and Retro into a big blob helps having an accurate discussion in any way.

To further clarify: we don't discuss Visceral and Bioware as if they were just "EA games", and we know Activision games and Blizzard games are completely different beasts. Why shouldn't we do the same with EAD and Retro?

 

[Big One]

I can only respectfully disagree here. Keep in mind you're fundamentally suggesting that a couple dozen millions of gamers would either start spending twice as much on videogames, or stop buying Call of Duty etc to buy Nintendo games.

If Nintendo games were on other consoles, Nintendo fans will just buy other consoles and buy Nintendo games. If a new buyer had a choice in between his very first Call of Duty game with the latest title in the Legend of Zelda series that he dearly loves on the same system, he'd probably choose the later. Sales of software has absolutely nothing to do with the hardware it's released on. With Nintendo it's how well it's marketed and how much quality the game is. People already spend twice as much on videogames on the 360 and PS3; if Nintendo games were on them, people would still buy them just as much.

I'll ask again for clarity: you think the fact that Nintendo games are great and almost everything else on the Wii is shovelware has NOTHING to do with the incredible sales of Nintendo titles?
Second question, just checking here: you really think the fact that the Wii was so port-unfriendly was simply a major fluke from Nintendo, or part of a bigger software strategy (Iwata's recent interviews could help here)?

1. No, because most Nintendo games on the Wii sell like shit.

2. It's part of a software strategy but in no way what you're thinking. The software strategy is to simply appeal to non-gamers, and that's it.

If we're looking at reviews, then NSMB is the achievement of a generation and not a solid remake. If we look at the public... a lot of people foundt Darksiders very good and TP very... tired.

Lol you have to be kidding me. The internet is the general public now?

It would be an interesting bet. Let's see how much Zelda sells if you go third party. Worked wonders for SEGA, didn't it?

Sega's only million dollar franchise Sonic still does extremely well in sales, actually. None of their other franchises really took off and most of them are pretty obscure, actually.

 

[wsippel]

Sony and MS aren't, in fact, developers, while Nintendo was since the beginning. EAD is more "Nintendo" than Santa Monica is Sony for sure.

But if such distinction is bothersome, then I'll be gladly willing to consider Nintendo, Sony and MS as publishers and discuss EAD or Retro games. It's more precise, and appropriate, expecially when publishers these days have such different teams working among their ranks.

I really don't see how clumping EAD, Monolith and Retro into a big blob helps having an accurate discussion in any way.

It doesn't. That was my point the whole time. That's why it doesn't matter which team comes up with new IPs. Mario, Xenoblade, Eternal Darkness and even Fatal Frame are all Nintendo IPs.

 

[VisanidethDM]

It doesn't. That was my point the whole time. That's why it doesn't matter which team comes up with new IPs. Mario, Xenoblade, Eternal Darkness and even Fatal Frame are all Nintendo IPs.

In the same way God of War, Twisted Metal and Uncharted are all Sony IPs.

Mario, on the other hand, is a Nintendo IP in a way no Sony franchise is Sony.
I tend to look at developers. To me, Nintendo is EAD. That's Nintendo the developer. And then there's Nintendo the publisher, and Retro is to them what Naughty Dog is to Sony.

 

[sfried]

It doesn't. That was my point the whole time. That's why it doesn't matter which team comes up with new IPs. Mario, Xenoblade, Eternal Darkness and even Fatal Frame are all Nintendo IPs.

Correction. Fatal Frame is actually Koei Temco's IP. Same way Layton is Level 5's IP. Nintendo can also publish 3rd party games at the orginal publisher's behest (for example, overseas distribution), so sometimes you will see Square-Enix, Namco, and even Konami games (such as Twin Snakes) being published by Nintendo. What this means is that only THIS particular installment is exclusive to Nintendo's consoles, being them the publisher.

 

[VisanidethDM]

If Nintendo games were on other consoles, Nintendo fans will just buy other consoles and buy Nintendo games. If a new buyer had a choice in between his very first Call of Duty game with the latest title in the Legend of Zelda series that he dearly loves on the same system, he'd probably choose the later. Sales of software has absolutely nothing to do with the hardware it's released on. With Nintendo it's how well it's marketed and how much quality the game is. People already spend twice as much on videogames on the 360 and PS3; if Nintendo games were on them, people would still buy them just as much.

You seem to assume ALL Nintendo fans are multi-console owners. And you're assuming NO Nintendo fan would buy an HD version of CoD over NSMB if he had the chance. I don't share the same assumptions. I think Nintendo engineered their system to push their own software, and if you read what Iwata has been saying about third party games and the Cafè, he's not far from admitting it.

If I was a Wii only owner, I'd buy EVERYTHING Nintendo makes (well, I sort of do), because everything else on the system is dire and the Nintendo games are quite far-between. I'm an hardcore gamer. Just move to the core or semicore ones. Anyone who would have possibly skipped that last Nintendo thing, because he'd rather buy Mortal Kombat... won't, cause there's no MK on the Wii.

You can't rationally dismiss software stagnation when explaining Nintendo sales.

 

[wsippel]

Correction. Fatal Frame is actually Koei Temco's IP. Same way Layton is Level 5's IP. Nintendo can also publish 3rd party games at the orginal publisher's behest (for example, overseas distribution), so sometimes you will see Square-Enix, Namco, and even Konami games (such as Twin Snakes) being published by Nintendo. What this means is that only THIS particular installment is exclusive.

It seems Nintendo bought the complete Fatal Frame IP wholesale. Tecmo recently even closed their Fatal Frame portal, and neither Mask of the Lunar Eclipse nor the new title are anywhere on their website.

 

[Diffense]

Seriously, people should give up on wanting Nintendo's internal development (EAD) to be something other than it is.
Nintendo has acquired/collaborated with other developers to fill out certain asepcts of their games portfolio.

What really is the point of demanding that EAD makes games that are outside its expertise when other developers can make them for Nintendo to publish on its platform?
Should Team Kojima make the next Pro Evolution Soccer or Dance Dance Revolution for Konami?
Does anyone outside of GAF care that Xenoblade was not Miyamoto's brainchild?

I'm generally fine with EAD's output.
As long as the RPGs show up for my console, I don't care that Monolith (also internal) and not EAD made them.
I don't need EAD to make FPS when there's Retro and I don't need them to make a Zelda clone when they have Zelda.

 

[BudokaiMR2]

I hope it somehow slides in and out with a cool "zhoom" sound to cover up the touch screen to become a normal non monstrosity controller.

 

[VisanidethDM]

I'm generally fine with EAD's output.
As long as the RPGs show up for my console, I don't care that Monolith (also internal) and not EAD made them.

I don't think anyone "wants" EAD to make all games. I'm simply advocating looking at Retro games as Retro games and EAD games as EAD games. A new IP from EAD won't have the same characteristics as a new IP from Retro.

 

[Diffense]

I don't think anyone "wants" EAD to make all games. I'm simply advocating looking at Retro games as Retro games and EAD games as EAD games. A new IP from EAD won't have the same characteristics as a new IP from Retro.

Yes, it will look like Pikmin, Wii Sports, Nintendogs, or Animal Crossing!