Can we accept a world without Nintendo IPs?
- Thread starter Ace Morologist
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If Metroid went away, I don't know what I would do.
Even if they made the exact same game and didn't have the Metroid title in there, it would feel, I don't know, incomplete to me. If everything else went away, I'd be more-or-less fine but if Metroid went away... I don't know. I don't think I'll live to see it, but they day they stop making Metroid, that will be a serious chapter of my life coming to a close.
I know some people are a little iffy when it comes to that series but I would love to see another Prime.
Even if they made the exact same game and didn't have the Metroid title in there, it would feel, I don't know, incomplete to me. If everything else went away, I'd be more-or-less fine but if Metroid went away... I don't know. I don't think I'll live to see it, but they day they stop making Metroid, that will be a serious chapter of my life coming to a close.
In my opinion, we need another Prime.Lunar Templar said:
I know some people are a little iffy when it comes to that series but I would love to see another Prime.
Considering the only Nintendo games I've ever owned are Pokemon Yellow and Gold. Yes, yes, most definitely yes. I for one would not even notice if they were to disappear tomorrow.
I guess we'd lose most of our gaming hipster cred. Contra's not the same.
I guess we'd lose most of our gaming hipster cred. Contra's not the same.
Well from what I've heard, Metroid isn't nearly as popular in Japan because of how much more "Western" it appears (second hand information) and right now, the Japanese game publishers are in a tizzy over East vs West design.Lunar Templar said:
So after Other M, I can't imagine Nintendo wanting to do anything with the Metroid franchise.
(I have ideas of how to proceed with it, but I don't work for Nintendo)
Is it sad that I know exactly what they were trying to go for with that story, and why it degenerated into the idiocy it did? What blows my mind is how they tried to make Samus vulnerable, only to push way past into completely stupid.martyrdrebel27 said:
It doesn't take much effort to fill in the details in Metroid Fusion's story; and even there Samus's portrayal was Shakespearean compared to Other M. She was angry at the Galactic Federation for basically going behind her back, and afraid of what could happen to the galaxy if she didn't get control of the situation.
Her one moment of weakness was foreshadowed.
...Samus would have broke down blubbering the instant she learned Adam was the computer. And she probably would have whined, waiting for the computer to hack a doorway closed or something to save her from SA-X
On one hand, I like franchises like I like my manga; to go on forever with the same characters.
On the other hand, I will play any RPG you throw at my face without prejudice.
On the other hand, I will play any RPG you throw at my face without prejudice.
No, it has to be Link and Zelda or otherwise people get confused why their favorite hero isn't in every title like that.
I've asked the question before and the fans are very insistent on having Link and such, "because that's just what Zelda is" with a nostalgia fueled smile they say.
I've gotten hate for saying they're all far too same-y with what they do and despite hearing reasons to the contrary, I'm not exactly wrong. The gear is always very similar with tweaks or whatever which you know is fine except the series has been going for over 25 year or something? And people give CoD hate for repetition and same-y-ness and that series has been around for only 10 or so?
I had a neat idea which is too bloated to go into depth but each game going off a new hero in a new generation would be awesome, a legend of a 'master sword' but when the 'hero' gets there it's never the same weapon, maybe it's a 1 handed sword, or a great sword, a pair of knives, a weapon that is always referred to as "the master sword" in legend but it's different to fit the hero who again is different. Ranging from a athletic guy to a nimble thief girl etc.
There's a lot of potential for expanding such a thing but the fans who just like Nintendo as a label vs liking the games for their own merits want Link, Zelda, the same chiptunes and if it's different you get hate. Look at Wind Waker, it was so cartoony and Link looked different how crap is that right? It's just awful they'd change something about the series, and it got a LOT of hate for it. Cut to years later and now everyone accepts it and is excited for a slight touch up on a game that didn't need touching up because it's bloody cell shaded and looks great.
I know I rant about Zelda a lot, mainly because I thought OoT even when it came out was an overrated game that had no attention to plot, characters, or reasons to want to save the world vs Twilight Princess a game that has a LOT more character depth plot and you find people you care about and the 'navigator character' actually evolves as a chracter and you like her more as you go.
But I still hear OoT is better and I bang my head against my desk confused, I grew up with the game it's not like I'm looking back at old tech going 'ung dem polygons!', the villagers were unlikable boring flat NPCs that made you just not care for their existence, then when Hyrule fell you kinda felt something ......but every town outside was mostly fine with the same idiots doing the same things.
Buuuut whatever I really don't feel like being quoted and told I'm an idiot because OoT is a timeless classic vs an overrated game with tight gameplay and a bland and worse story/characters/ideas than even the 2D SNES title.
Edit: Yes I like Nintendo games, the Metroid series is a series I love the hell out of minus that pile of shit Other M, Super Mario World, Yoshis Island, Twilight Princess, a bunch of the Kirby games. You know the titles that actually tried to look different or tried something new.
I've asked the question before and the fans are very insistent on having Link and such, "because that's just what Zelda is" with a nostalgia fueled smile they say.
I've gotten hate for saying they're all far too same-y with what they do and despite hearing reasons to the contrary, I'm not exactly wrong. The gear is always very similar with tweaks or whatever which you know is fine except the series has been going for over 25 year or something? And people give CoD hate for repetition and same-y-ness and that series has been around for only 10 or so?
I had a neat idea which is too bloated to go into depth but each game going off a new hero in a new generation would be awesome, a legend of a 'master sword' but when the 'hero' gets there it's never the same weapon, maybe it's a 1 handed sword, or a great sword, a pair of knives, a weapon that is always referred to as "the master sword" in legend but it's different to fit the hero who again is different. Ranging from a athletic guy to a nimble thief girl etc.
There's a lot of potential for expanding such a thing but the fans who just like Nintendo as a label vs liking the games for their own merits want Link, Zelda, the same chiptunes and if it's different you get hate. Look at Wind Waker, it was so cartoony and Link looked different how crap is that right? It's just awful they'd change something about the series, and it got a LOT of hate for it. Cut to years later and now everyone accepts it and is excited for a slight touch up on a game that didn't need touching up because it's bloody cell shaded and looks great.
I know I rant about Zelda a lot, mainly because I thought OoT even when it came out was an overrated game that had no attention to plot, characters, or reasons to want to save the world vs Twilight Princess a game that has a LOT more character depth plot and you find people you care about and the 'navigator character' actually evolves as a chracter and you like her more as you go.
But I still hear OoT is better and I bang my head against my desk confused, I grew up with the game it's not like I'm looking back at old tech going 'ung dem polygons!', the villagers were unlikable boring flat NPCs that made you just not care for their existence, then when Hyrule fell you kinda felt something ......but every town outside was mostly fine with the same idiots doing the same things.
Buuuut whatever I really don't feel like being quoted and told I'm an idiot because OoT is a timeless classic vs an overrated game with tight gameplay and a bland and worse story/characters/ideas than even the 2D SNES title.
Edit: Yes I like Nintendo games, the Metroid series is a series I love the hell out of minus that pile of shit Other M, Super Mario World, Yoshis Island, Twilight Princess, a bunch of the Kirby games. You know the titles that actually tried to look different or tried something new.
I've already accepted such a world by not playing any Nintendo games after Wind Waker and Mario Sunshine. And when I did play them, they were the first Mario and Zelda games I had played since A Link to the Past and some Super Mario Bros 3. And even those two were when I was extremely young, so for all intents and purposes I was playing Mario and Zelda for the first time, and therefore felt no nostalgia or familiarity with the characters or worlds. And they were good games, but that's about it. There are plenty of good games out there, and for me those were just two more in the pack.
So yes, I could live without Nintendo IPs easily, and if Nintendo ever transitions to making new IPs, I could live with those as well.
So yes, I could live without Nintendo IPs easily, and if Nintendo ever transitions to making new IPs, I could live with those as well.
To be fair this is already largely true of the Zelda series. Were it not for Link's outfit you wouldn't even be able to guess that Windwaker or Skyward Sword are Zelda games until about halfway through. One is a cartoon that takes place in an ocean with pirates and bird people, the other starts in a city in the sky where you fly around on birds, then has you move to the ground where there are robots and mole creatures.
Link and Zelda are different people in most Zelda games, and Ganon/Ganondorf often looks different if he even shows up at all. Heck, in Majora's Mask Zelda doesn't even make an appearance, nor is it set in Hyrule.
In fact I'd argue Link's outfit is the only thing the Zelda games are consistent about.
Fun fact: Never once does Link ever get referred to as "Link" in any of the Zelda games, since the very beginning you've always chosen his name and the characters just refer to you as that.
Link and Zelda are different people in most Zelda games, and Ganon/Ganondorf often looks different if he even shows up at all. Heck, in Majora's Mask Zelda doesn't even make an appearance, nor is it set in Hyrule.
In fact I'd argue Link's outfit is the only thing the Zelda games are consistent about.
Fun fact: Never once does Link ever get referred to as "Link" in any of the Zelda games, since the very beginning you've always chosen his name and the characters just refer to you as that.
Then why is Majora's Mask one of the most popular Zelda games? It has no Zelda, no Ganondorf, no Hyrule, no Triforce, no Mastersword, even link spends a large portion of the game transformed into completely different characters. It pushes the boundaries on what you can even call a Zelda game, yet it's widely regarded as one of the best ones?Snotnarok said:
Being that the only Nintendo IP I've ever played is Pokemon, I probably could. I've never gotten attracted to any Sonic, Mario, Zelda games. They never caught my interest when trying to play them.
The way I see it, Nintendo does nothing but play it safe with its major IPs. They're stagnant, and have been for years. And the IPs that aren't as popular? They just let them rot in the idea vault.
So if they just stopped? I'd be fine with that. I would not mourn the death of Mario.
So if they just stopped? I'd be fine with that. I would not mourn the death of Mario.
I feel like this is a complaint that only gets leveled at Nintendo franchises because they've been around the longest: "Oh, they've been around for 25+ years, and they haven't changed a bit." While yes, they haven't been masters of innovation within their own franchises, the fact that Nintendo has within its stable a platformer that has spun off into dozens of sub-genres, an action/RPG, a shooter (side scrolling and first-person), an RTS/management sim, and monster-collecting/JRPG is more diversity than most devs have today.
But this isn't the point. And, to use common words to effect a transition, what is the point? What would re-skinning the next Zelda game into something not-Zelda accomplish? At this point, it would be clearly recognizable as adhering to the Zelda formula and story, so there would be no "Wow! This is unique!" moment that you seem to expect. There would instead be a moment more like "Wow...this is...Zelda? Why did they change the names?"
But maybe you're into time travel. Maybe you are curious about that alternate dimension wherein Nintendo decided that Zelda II (Imma stick with addressing Zelda cuz it's what everyone seems to care about in this thread) would instead be called The Adventure of Ezekiel, and every subsequent game that is "Zelda" in our universe became its own standalone adventure in this theoretical alternate instance.
Again, what would the point be? Instead of having an established franchise with its own mythos and immense network of elements to draw from, it would become the Final Fantasy of Nintendo--and if Escapist forums have taught me anything, it's that Final Fantasy and Nintendo combined would coat the world in a thick layer of shit.
In all seriousness, though, it would be like Final Fantasy, but without the benefit of giving each game the same name. Honestly, I see no way this scenario ends in any way other than it has already: the games, despite their ostensible "separate-ness" become treated as a franchise because of their obvious similarities, until eventually Nintendo releases a timeline that establishes that every game shared the same universe, etc. It just makes more sense that way.
But let me tell you about the benefits that come with a franchise with as much history as Zelda: an established universe, with its own mythos (this lends narrative significance to just about every major plot point and recurring character a Zelda game throws at you); a multitude of classic, instantly recognizable musical themes (the recurring musical cues in every new Zelda game get me excited, but I like video game music, so this point might only be a benefit for me); and of course, cachet.
Could I accept a new Zelda game without the aesthetic trappings of the previous Zelda games? Maybe. If Nintendo told us, "Our upcoming game, The Ballad of Wally: Flute Continuum (or whatever) is meant to carry on the torch from our Zelda franchise", I'd probably give it a chance. But again, I'd question why it was necessary.
Wait, are you complaining about the repetition of story elements in Zelda? Most people complain about the gameplay, dude. And considering that Iwata or whoever said they focus on gameplay ahead of story when developing Zelda, I don't know what you were expecting.
But this isn't the point. And, to use common words to effect a transition, what is the point? What would re-skinning the next Zelda game into something not-Zelda accomplish? At this point, it would be clearly recognizable as adhering to the Zelda formula and story, so there would be no "Wow! This is unique!" moment that you seem to expect. There would instead be a moment more like "Wow...this is...Zelda? Why did they change the names?"
But maybe you're into time travel. Maybe you are curious about that alternate dimension wherein Nintendo decided that Zelda II (Imma stick with addressing Zelda cuz it's what everyone seems to care about in this thread) would instead be called The Adventure of Ezekiel, and every subsequent game that is "Zelda" in our universe became its own standalone adventure in this theoretical alternate instance.
Again, what would the point be? Instead of having an established franchise with its own mythos and immense network of elements to draw from, it would become the Final Fantasy of Nintendo--and if Escapist forums have taught me anything, it's that Final Fantasy and Nintendo combined would coat the world in a thick layer of shit.
In all seriousness, though, it would be like Final Fantasy, but without the benefit of giving each game the same name. Honestly, I see no way this scenario ends in any way other than it has already: the games, despite their ostensible "separate-ness" become treated as a franchise because of their obvious similarities, until eventually Nintendo releases a timeline that establishes that every game shared the same universe, etc. It just makes more sense that way.
But let me tell you about the benefits that come with a franchise with as much history as Zelda: an established universe, with its own mythos (this lends narrative significance to just about every major plot point and recurring character a Zelda game throws at you); a multitude of classic, instantly recognizable musical themes (the recurring musical cues in every new Zelda game get me excited, but I like video game music, so this point might only be a benefit for me); and of course, cachet.
Could I accept a new Zelda game without the aesthetic trappings of the previous Zelda games? Maybe. If Nintendo told us, "Our upcoming game, The Ballad of Wally: Flute Continuum (or whatever) is meant to carry on the torch from our Zelda franchise", I'd probably give it a chance. But again, I'd question why it was necessary.
Wait, are you complaining about the repetition of story elements in Zelda? Most people complain about the gameplay, dude. And considering that Iwata or whoever said they focus on gameplay ahead of story when developing Zelda, I don't know what you were expecting.
Honestly, as someone who had no real connection to Nintendo IPs other than Pokemon growing up...
Yes, entirely. I have no interest in another 2d Mario game banking on nostalgia to sell copies. Yes, Ocarina of Time and Windwaker were pretty good, but Zelda has gotten stale. As much as I played them growing up (and still like them to this day)Pallet Swaps New Pokemon games hold no sway over me.
I dont care about another gimmicky console that, once agian, isn't very powerful and has shit for killer apps.
Honestly, all it would take for them to gain some relevance (at least from me, as if that matters at all) is for them to develop some new IP and make it competent. But, unfortunately, they re-make the same games OVER AND OVER and are still rolling in money.
Yes, entirely. I have no interest in another 2d Mario game banking on nostalgia to sell copies. Yes, Ocarina of Time and Windwaker were pretty good, but Zelda has gotten stale. As much as I played them growing up (and still like them to this day)
I dont care about another gimmicky console that, once agian, isn't very powerful and has shit for killer apps.
Honestly, all it would take for them to gain some relevance (at least from me, as if that matters at all) is for them to develop some new IP and make it competent. But, unfortunately, they re-make the same games OVER AND OVER and are still rolling in money.
The thing is, people are already attached to these characters. We've been playing Mario since the NES days and recognize him as one of gaming's first real, recognizable mascots. The same goes with Link and Zelda, Samus and Metroid, Donkey Kong and...yeah. There's just simply no reason at this point for Nintendo to try to get us attached to a new set of characters when they have many IPs that are already capable of taking the various roles thrown at them. This allows them to bypass the time of getting us attached to these protagonists and well-established characters and more time focusing on what really matters to their games: the enjoyable gameplay. Sure, Zelda is a little more story-driven than most of their games, but that also makes us all the more attached to Link, Zelda, and Ganon, making a break from those characters and that world even more painful to many gamers than a break from from the Metroid universe.
It might be hard to see the established connections a lot of people have to these characters if you're not a rabid Nintendo fan, but there are plenty of us who still look forward to all the new games in their IPs, even if we've been playing those IPs for decades. Figuring out that they're no longer going to continue with Mario, Zelda, etc. would seriously damage my gamer zeal, and kill other people's zeal.
Also, remember that Nintendo is based on appeal to both their fans and to newcomers, many of whom are children that haven't had any experience with these characters. To much of their target audience, these characters are new. So even if they don't have the connection we long-time fans do, it is still the new, fresh experience for them that everyone seems to think Nintendo is no longer providing. In other words, it might be best to look at Nintendo's audience, as "fresh" and "exciting" are subjective to the audience, and there is hardly some law set in stone for this. For the audiences Nintendo targets, sticking with established IPs is, to me, the best way to go for the time being. Will there come a time when they need to change? Probably, but given that most of their problems right now center around too little support of their established IPs seems to indicate that time has not yet come.
It might be hard to see the established connections a lot of people have to these characters if you're not a rabid Nintendo fan, but there are plenty of us who still look forward to all the new games in their IPs, even if we've been playing those IPs for decades. Figuring out that they're no longer going to continue with Mario, Zelda, etc. would seriously damage my gamer zeal, and kill other people's zeal.
Also, remember that Nintendo is based on appeal to both their fans and to newcomers, many of whom are children that haven't had any experience with these characters. To much of their target audience, these characters are new. So even if they don't have the connection we long-time fans do, it is still the new, fresh experience for them that everyone seems to think Nintendo is no longer providing. In other words, it might be best to look at Nintendo's audience, as "fresh" and "exciting" are subjective to the audience, and there is hardly some law set in stone for this. For the audiences Nintendo targets, sticking with established IPs is, to me, the best way to go for the time being. Will there come a time when they need to change? Probably, but given that most of their problems right now center around too little support of their established IPs seems to indicate that time has not yet come.
Yeah, for the most part. I don't play a ton of 1st party stuff. Mostly just Pokemon and Fire Emblem, and I about the actual mechanics the most.
My last Mario title was probably Super Mario World for SNES. My last Zelda would be the one on SNES...was it a Link to The Past? It was a solid game. I got into Ocinara, but I couldn't stay with it.
I have the utmost respect for Nintendo, but I don't need those games right now. Maybe when my kid grows older I'll check them out.
I have the utmost respect for Nintendo, but I don't need those games right now. Maybe when my kid grows older I'll check them out.
In the situation described in the OP, where the games are still coming but are "new IPs" then I think I'd be fine, although for some it'd be beyond weird. Using the Wind Waker example, it'd still be an engaging game but I feel it just wouldn't have the same "magic" if it weren't a Zelda game. You wouldn't think this is a new game, you'd wonder why they made this game like Zelda but not be a Zelda game. Games that are outliers for their series, such as Super Mario Sunshine for example, would work better but ones that stick close to the formula would just be awkward. As another example, could you imagine a Pokemon game made by Game Freak that wasn't Pokemon?
In the examples others are making where Nintendo goes out of business, I think that'd be enough to push me out of being a gamer. Nintendo is one of the few companies that is consistently quality and that I enjoy, with the other being Blizzard(say what you want about D3, I still enjoyed it a good amount, and WoW and SC2 are still as fun as ever), so them being gone cuts out at least 70-80% of the games I enjoy. They're also one of the last bastions of family gaming, so I'd not only weep for what would happen to the industry without a family company but also for what would happen to our children.
In short, the gaming world without Nintendo IPs would not be one I'd want to be in regardless of which scenario it is.
In the examples others are making where Nintendo goes out of business, I think that'd be enough to push me out of being a gamer. Nintendo is one of the few companies that is consistently quality and that I enjoy, with the other being Blizzard(say what you want about D3, I still enjoyed it a good amount, and WoW and SC2 are still as fun as ever), so them being gone cuts out at least 70-80% of the games I enjoy. They're also one of the last bastions of family gaming, so I'd not only weep for what would happen to the industry without a family company but also for what would happen to our children.
In short, the gaming world without Nintendo IPs would not be one I'd want to be in regardless of which scenario it is.