My problem with Nintendo and the 'If it ain't broke' theory.

[rob_simple]

I know there's a lot of Nintendo hating going on at the moment, but that's not what I'm here to do. I just want to say my piece and hear what people think. So, we've established that Nintendo did make good games, but now it could be argued they just seem to recycle them over and over and people constantly defend it with 'if it ain't broke...' and I'm not trying to say it is broke, if you enjoy it that's great.

Here's how I see it, though: I love the Ratchet & Clank series and I will admit it hasn't strayed from the formula since game one (right up until that unfortunate forced multiplayer disaster.) Sure, you go to different worlds and use different weapons to kill different monsters, but it's still fundamentally the same experience, except for one thing: it has a new story every time; in fact R&C's writing is one of my favourite things about the series.

It's the same way that James Bond films are pretty much the same thing over and over but the actors who play Bond change as do his enemies, his lovers and the stakes. Nintendo never does this.

When it's a Mario game, you are saving Princess Peach from Bowser; or you're Luigi (Mario in a different shirt) saving Daisy (Peach with a dye job) from Bowser Jr (Midget Bowser). In Zelda, you are Link saving Zelda from Ganon. Sure, sometimes you're a wolf and she's a pirate and he's a giant pig-monster but it's always. The. God. Damn. Same.

On the other hand...

God of War I? Mortal fights to unlock powers and murder the God of War. GoW II? One-time mortal is stripped of his powers by the king of the gods as punishment for his hubris; engages in a series of increasingly brutal and breathtaking fights to reclaim his powers and challenge said king. Gow III?

Spoiler

One-time mortal now full-time badass systematically wipes out every god on Olympus, destroying the world in the process, blinded by the desire for revenge against his father, motherfucking Zeus.

I could do this all night.

Metroid? Lose all your powers fight Ridley then a giant Metroid. Nintendo just hits reset on the universe after every game concludes, as if all their characters are stuck in some hellish limbo. Hell, Samus Aran would definitely at least have PTSD by now, otherwise.

So, agree? Disagree? Oh, and I won't be accepting the 'hurr durr Modern Warfare does the same thing y'all love it so much!' because the majority of people buy those games for the multiplayer, not the bonkers campaign.

Edit: A lot of people seem to be putting words in my mouth and perhaps that's because I didn't make my point clear enough. I'm not trying to say Nintendo are a bad company or that their games are bad. Hell I've enjoyed all the Zeldas I've played --and that's most of them-- but they don't surprise me anymore; I always know what is going to happen and after a certain amount of time I'm just going through the motions, the same with Mario and Pokemon and so on.

All I'm saying is that, in this day and age, they don't deserve to be held up on the pedestal that they often are when, in terms of creativity, they are at best a washed-up prizefighter trying to relive the glory days.

 

[Hazy992]

Zelda isn't always strictly Link vs. Ganon. It's one of Nintendo's more varied series.

If Zelda is one of Nintendo's more varied series then that isn't saying much about the rest of them.

 

[rob_simple]

I don't recall playing a Zelda game that didn't have some variation of Ganon or a similar evil wizard.

 

[Cheesepower5]

I don't think the solution is still "fixing it" anyway. To add some variety to your franchise just make a smaller budget pet project alongside the smaller risk, big budget title. It worked with Square when they made TWEWY, it was arguably better than any recent FF. And it's worked with the big N themselves on the Mario RPGs. The problem then becomes getting detractors to notice this.

Also, I fail to see how R&C and GoW have a different approach. Different set-up for the exact same pay off.

 

[wintercoat]

I don't recall playing a Zelda game that didn't have some variation of Ganon or a similar evil wizard.

Ganon was a wizard in only a couple games. In LTTP he was a thief. In WW, and TP, he's more fighter-y.

There are 14 first part Zelda games(the Oracle games were developed by Capcom). Of those 14, 5 have Ganon as a plot relevant character. Vaati is in only three.

 

[rob_simple]

Windwaker: Introduced cell-shading to the masses, years before Okami was released.

Stopped reading right there. Everyone knew about cel-shading long before Wind Waker came out.

As to your point before that, I've not played Skyward Sword because from all the reviews I read it wasn't going to be anything I hadn't seen before: dungeon crawler to gather the same basic items with one new gimmick (sail a boat; turn into a wolf; play obscure instrument of the week.)

You can dress it up with all the bells and whistles you want but at the end of the day you're playing the same elf gathering the boomarang and the hookshot fighting practically the same enemies that were in the first game about thirty years ago.

Also, I fail to see how R&C and GoW have a different approach. Different set-up for the exact same pay off.

The point I was making was that these games have an engaging and/or escalating story which excuses the same basic gameplay elements. With the exception of the Mario RPG's, maybe, Nintendo SUCK at telling stories; so it's a lot more noticeable when they release another collection of Mario levels or another slew of Zelda dungeons.

It's just pointless repetition because it's a safe way to guarantee a profit instead of coming up with some new IP. Nintendo still think the height of gaming innovation is the Dark World.

 

[Vault101]

what is this nintendo you speak of? I vaugley remember playing with a charcol colured box that had N64 on it..back in '99.....but nothing else

 

[Cheesepower5]

Windwaker: Introduced cell-shading to the masses, years before Okami was released.

Stopped reading right there. Everyone knew about cel-shading long before Wind Waker came out.

As to your point before that, I've not played Skyward Sword because from all the reviews I read it wasn't going to be anything I hadn't seen before: dungeon crawler to gather the same basic items with one new gimmick (sail a boat; turn into a wolf; play obscure instrument of the week.)

You can dress it up with all the bells and whistles you want but at the end of the day you're playing the same elf gathering the boomarang and the hookshot fighting practically the same enemies that were in the first game about thirty years ago.

Also, I fail to see how R&C and GoW have a different approach. Different set-up for the exact same pay off.

The point I was making was that these games have an engaging and/or escalating story which excuses the same basic gameplay elements. With the exception of the Mario RPG's, maybe, Nintendo SUCK at telling stories; so it's a lot more noticeable when they release another collection of Mario levels or another slew of Zelda dungeons.

It's just pointless repetition because it's a safe way to guarantee a profit instead of coming up with some new IP. Nintendo still think the height of gaming innovation is the Dark World.

Yeah, but it's not always the same game with minor tweaks. Not more so than every other popular game, anyway. This has been demonstrated.

The only exceptions I'll grant you are that Mario 2 (AKA Lost Levels) is basically a mod for Mario 1 and Super Metroid, which is still at least a generational leap in the graphics.

 

[rob_simple]

Windwaker: Introduced cell-shading to the masses, years before Okami was released.

Stopped reading right there. Everyone knew about cel-shading long before Wind Waker came out.

As to your point before that, I've not played Skyward Sword because from all the reviews I read it wasn't going to be anything I hadn't seen before: dungeon crawler to gather the same basic items with one new gimmick (sail a boat; turn into a wolf; play obscure instrument of the week.)

You can dress it up with all the bells and whistles you want but at the end of the day you're playing the same elf gathering the boomarang and the hookshot fighting practically the same enemies that were in the first game about thirty years ago.

Also, I fail to see how R&C and GoW have a different approach. Different set-up for the exact same pay off.

The point I was making was that these games have an engaging and/or escalating story which excuses the same basic gameplay elements. With the exception of the Mario RPG's, maybe, Nintendo SUCK at telling stories; so it's a lot more noticeable when they release another collection of Mario levels or another slew of Zelda dungeons.

It's just pointless repetition because it's a safe way to guarantee a profit instead of coming up with some new IP. Nintendo still think the height of gaming innovation is the Dark World.

Yeah, but it's not always the same game with minor tweaks. Not more so than every other popular game, anyway. This has been demonstrated.

The only exceptions I'll grant you are that Mario 2 (AKA Lost Levels) is basically a mod for Mario 1 and Super Metroid, which is still at least a generational leap in the graphics.

Super Mario Sunshine is just Super Mario 64 with a water pistol. Super Mario Galaxy is just Super Mario 64 with a more annoying camera.

Mario Kart has been rehashing the same tracks for more than a decade. Oh, sorry, they call them 'tributes' now.

Super Smash Bros. literally copy-pasted the moveset of their original roster and re-skinned them then released it as a new game. Twice.

And as for Zelda: it doesn't matter if you're sailing, flying or running around as a wolf, you will always be dungeon-crawling for the same map and compass to find the same items to save the same princess.

The only new IP I can think of that Nintendo have made in the last twenty years is Pikmin, which I'm sure is a great game but that's one original idea in twenty years.

Like I say though I'm not hating on Nintendo themselves because almost every other big gaming company is guilty of the same things, but Nintendo seem to be the only one people actually try to defend as being a company that still release original, top-quality games when in actual fact they are, for the most part, average at best.

 

[crazyarms33]

I'm taking bets on how long it takes for this thread to devolve into fan boys yelling at each other.

OT: Never been a big Nintendo fan. Largely because after the nintendo 64, they stopped making games that interested me. I bought my Play Station and eventually my X-Box and never looked back. I find the Wii an amusing way to pass the time with friends at a party, but if I want to seriously game with some friends, I prefer a heavier system. (Note: I don't own a Wii. I strongly dislike it, separate issue.)

However, while Nintendo is (correctly IMO) vilified for releasing the same game over and over, they are not the only culprit. Just the biggest and therefore the easiest target. I cannot play Mario games or Zelda games anymore just because I ultimately know how its going to end, just like the previous titles.

TLDR: Nintendo continually releases the same titles, that I can't get into because I know how they will end but they are certainly not the only ones who do so.

 

[Vivi22]

Windwaker: Introduced cell-shading to the masses, years before Okami was released.

Twilight Princess: Darker-and-edgier throwback to OoT-era after Windwaker's cartoonier visuals. Wonky motion controls, but large, expansive world to explore.

Skyward Sword: A moving watercolour picture with completely new world design, and a revamped combat system that actually makes use of 1:1 motion control, as well as having a giant flying bird-steed and no Ganon.

I haven't played Skyward Sword yet so it wouldn't be fair of me to speak of it, but your entire argument seems to hinge largely on graphical style and avoiding comparing Twilight Princess to anything pre-WW, which is utter bullshit.

Mechanically, Twilight Princess and WW are nearly identical to OoT, the only substantive differences being sailing in WW and Wolf form in TP, both of which were god awful and best left to die forgotten and alone on an ice flow. Other than that combat is identical, dungeon exploration is identical, puzzles are often lifted whole hog, or with very minor tweaks from earlier games, and items have changed little, if any, since the 2D days.

You're confused how someone could argue Zelda games consistently rehash everything they did before. I fail to understand how anyone could argue otherwise. And saying they have different graphical styles is a worthless argument not even worth discussion. If you can't look past the visuals and see that the games changed very little over the years then you're either naive, or you're just not looking hard enough.

This is the same Nintendo that decided to introduce motion controls while everyone else was still focused on regular controllers, and they managed to make a boat-load of cash doing so. Does that not at least speak of a little creativity on their part?

Considering their best Wii games use the motion controls as little as possible it shows that they know how to jump on a gimmick but never gave a single thought as to why they should bother other than bringing in casuals and their money. Hell, games like Mario Galaxy and Twilight Princess would actually improve if motion controls were removed altogether.

Or the fact that the two Metroid games designed for the Wii, Corruption and Other M, are on absolutely opposite ends of the game design spectrum, one being an FPS and the other being a throw-back to the style of the SNES games?

And Nintendo had to look outside their Japanese development teams to make them. Plus Other M was a pretty terrible mishmash of side scrolling and first person gameplay so it's a pretty bad example of creativity.

Can anyone point out the massive changes in gameplay that Sony has made between Uncharted instalments? Because I figure that if Nintendo gets labelled as releasing the same thing over and over again despite releasing Windwaker and Skyward Sword, then companies like Sony must be making some pretty major changes between Uncharted 1&3 to avoid getting painted with the same brush, right? I mean, it's not like the Uncharted games are all fundamentally identical and people refuse to call out Sony for the same alleged crimes as Nintendo, right?

Uncharted 2 had massive improvements in pacing, smoother controls, and tightened up the gunplay on top of adding a pretty enjoyable multiplayer. U3 certainly made fewer advances from there, but it's easier to forgive that for the time being for two reasons:
1. Naughty Dog are already moving on to a new series, and;
2. They weren't making Uncharted games for 16 years.

 

[F4LL3N]

I consider myself a Nintendo fanboy not because I like their games (I think most of their games are boring) but because I think they have the potential to do better.

I agree. Recycling the same/similar story is a no-no.

 

[Dys]

I don't recall playing a Zelda game that didn't have some variation of Ganon or a similar evil wizard.

Majoras mask had no mention of Ganon, nor did phantom hourglass. Also ganon isn't an evil wizard, the only evil wizard I ever remember from a zelda game was aghnim (who summoned gannon in a link to the past). Zelda games are reasonably varied, though usually the first game on each system is to do with ganon.

 

[Nazulu]

Definitely agree. Find it really pathetic that they try not to get away from the saving princess crap over and over, I would feel fucking ashamed! In almost every Zelda game there has to be a fire, water, forest, etc. temple and a stupid boomerang. It's so weird for them to recycle it so much when there is many different directions they can go, just like Majora's Mask.

I'm not that hard to please though, I wouldn't mind if they just keep doing a good job with all the games with not many changes, but they can't even do that.

However, Nintendo are definitely not the worst, I think we should focus on the blandest of the bland before jumping on Nintendo's back.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

I understand OP frustration... but Nintendo does change it up a bit. But they never do it enough, and they don't advertise it enough. They don't like taking risks.

Like.... what if they made a realistic mario game, with like Grand Theft Auto style graphics and cutscenes, removed all the cutesyness (not saying making it M, but just real), really play up the drama and advertise it as the final battle. This is it, the last time Princess Peach is kidnapped and Mario and Bowser face each other down in epic battle.

Artistically they don't do enough... I think the biggest change of pace was what they did in Wind Wakker, with the stealth elements, being able to use enemies swords, actual sword fighting combating (seriously, sword fighting Gannon was way cooler then the OOT battle of knocking a ball back and forth)

 

[blizzaradragon]

Some are similar, while others are different. It is impossible to paint the broad stroke of "all Nintendo's games are rehashed/recycled" over each of their franchises. Especially younger IPs such as Pikmin, which currently only has 2 games with a third on the way.

Things like Zelda have a fairly similar story, but differ in things like mechanics, items, support character, the list goes on. You do still get some games that throw out the traditional story though, like Link's Awakening where your goal is to escape an island or Majora's Mask where you have to stop the moon from falling by replaying the same 3 days over and over, but most have some form of saving the princess from an evil force.

Then you get things like Mario, where he will sometimes be in a 2D platformer or a 3D platformer and other times he'll be out on a turn-based RPG and then other times he'll be driving go-karts or playing tennis on the weekends. You honestly can't look at the Mario and Luigi games or the Paper Mario games and say they're rehashes of games like Super Mario World or Super Mario Galaxy except they happen to star some of the same characters.

However at the end of the day none of this matters, at least to me. What matters is if Nintendo's games are still fun, which to me they are more than any other company right now. I've played a grand total of 3 Nintendo games I didn't enjoy(Zelda: Phantom Hourglass, Mario Strikers Charged, and Metroid: Other M for those who care), while the rest have been well worth the money, be they samey or not.

 

[Rednog]

what is this nintendo you speak of? I vaugley remember playing with a charcol colured box that had N64 on it..back in '99.....but nothing else

Odd, I don't seem to recall anything past that time either....how very strange.