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

[OldNewNewOld]

Because this:

Spoiler

Are all the same games?

Lets ignore completely the fact that some are 2D, other are 3D. That some have normal controls, other have motion controls and some have touch screen controls.
Lets ignore completely that the story happens in a new world where everything is completely different except the names.
We will also ignore completely that every dungeon is unique and mostly challenging.
The difference in art style should also be ignored, same goes for the music.
Well, we could also ignore the enemies, especially the bosses.
While we are at it, we should ignore the different items and their uses.
The different NPC's and the stories should also be ignored.

If we ignore all that, yes, every Zelda is a rehash. But than again, if we ignore all those things, every game is a rehash of Pong.

The only thing all Zelda games have in commune is Link, some items and the fact that he saves the world. No, not the princess, the world. The princess is safe most of the times and if someone says you save the princess over and over again, he hasn't played the games.

Majora's Mask doesn't even have Zelda. Ocarina of time, Zelda is safe until the very end. Same goes for Skyward Sword. In Spirit Tracker she's even dead.

And whoever played Skyward Sword knows why it's a legend about Link and Zelda.

Almost all Nintendo games have enough similarities to be considered parts of the same franchises, but they are completely different for the most part. You can't take out the dungeons of Zelda and still have a Zelda game.

 

[WanderingFool]

-snip

Oh... there is no way anyone is coming out of this one looking good.

Anyways, I do partially agree with you.

Primarily with Zelda, as it was once one of my favorite series. Sure, each game has different story elements and such. But save for a few, like Majora's Mask and Links Awakening, they all have almost the same basic premise (Link is a nobody that suddenly gets promoted to hero of "X", Zelda gets kidnapped and big bad takes over, Link must gather the "X" McMuffins... yadda, yadda, yadda)

For games like Mario... oh hell, of all the mario games released since Mario's first trip into 3D, I only liked New Super Mario Brothers for the Wii. I thin Mario is less about the game, and more about the brand. I am a firm believer that if Nintendo was to ever release a Mario FPS that was basically a re-skin of COD (I do know of a mod like that...) it would sell like fucking hotcakes.

No comment on Metriod, as I havent play a Metriod game since Super Metriod on the SNES. Though I did approve of what they tried to do with Other M, but feel that they really dropped the ball there as well.

As for the other IPs, I dont know. When was the last console Star Fox game?

*Edit*

I should also add, what I would really like to see from Nintendo is more of their properties getting the Other M treatment. And by that, I mean more experimenting and "outside the box" ideas.

 

[geK0]

If you think they're the same game just because they have the same general goal (ie. saving peach or Zelda)then you are mistaken. There is A LOT more to a game than what the main character's ultimate goal is. It's not about saving the princess, it's about all the shit you do between starting the game and saving the princess.

Princess saving is just an easy way to get out of writing a proper story; and honestly, I'd rather play a game that makes story telling take the back seat and letting gameplay take the wheel.

Play mario bros, mario bros 2, mario bros 3, mario 64, mario sunshine and mario galaxy and tell me they're the ssame game. Sure you're saving a princess in all of them, sure you're jumping across platforms in all of them, but the experiences are all MUCH different. You might as well say that crash bandicoot is the same game as mario 64, or that Modern Warfare is the same game as Halo, maybe that Warcraft 3 is the same as Warcraft2!

Also try Zelda, Zelda II, Ocarina of time, Twilight Princess and Skyward sword and tell me they're the same game. They're all very different.

Reusing intellectual property =/= rehashing

 

[Lilani]

Sorry, but people keep perpetuating this myth that Nintendo keeps releasing the same game over and over again, and I can't for the life of me understand why.

I think it's less about the gameplay of the individual games, and more about using the same characters again and again. It's a pretty clever business model really, but not very pretty when looked at up close. Yes, most of the Zelda games are different, and could probably be considered separate games of their own right if only they had the characters swapped out with new ones every time. However, Nintendo makes sure these virtually "new" games get plenty of sales and lots of recognition with every release by having the characters and world stay the same. So, they manage to sell a "new" game with very little risk on their part.

Of course, the problem with this is how petty and cowardly it appears to be when looked at for what it is. It's much easier to sell a new installment to the saga of characters people already know and love, than it is to sell not only a new game but also a new cast of characters and a brand new world.

 

[Terminate421]

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.

Metroid is relatively diverse in bad guys. Ridley comes around but he's like Meta Knight or one of the Pokemon Rivals, he shows up and makes the game awesome, dies, then comes back another time.

 

[FoolKiller]

Sure, [in Ratchet & Clank] 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.

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.

So, in your opinion, the most important part is a new story. I disagree with your view because its just a matter of opinion. Some would rather a new story with familiar mechanics, while others don't mind a familiar story (which is what Mario and Zelda series are) with new game mechanics each time out. Also, Nintendo for years has said that the Link/Zelda/Gannon names were just archetypes and not the same characters (Nintendo now changes their point of view on this but I think its just to cash in on the money they get from selling a book explaining the continuity that others have come up with).

I would rather play Mario than Ratchet any day. The weird weapons idea lasted all of a game before I got bored of it (Not hating on it, I just didn't enjoy it). I do love slicing and dicing with Kratos though. I don't even really care about the story as long as I have some fun killing to do. He's basically wiped out all of Greek mythology anyways.

You see, Mario may usually be saving Peach but it was:
Mario climbing a ladder and jumping barrels.
Mario using fireballs and growth.
Mario flying
Mario riding Yoshi
Mario in 3D
Mario washing the world
Mario on different spherical levels

So the gameplay in each has changed considerably over time. The appeal of this type of game is the gameplay not the story.

All in all, I find there is appeal in both types of games. But I don't think that Nintendo are sitting around recycling their games. I'm pretty sure that there is more code that is reused for the Ratchet series than the Mario series.

Hmm... this is basically a Portal 1 vs Portal 2 response. Interesting....

 

[SilverBullets000]

Banjo Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts is a game that tried to change their formula and gameplay in the same game. Was it a good game? Technically. Did the fans appreciate waiting around ten years for a less violent Mario Kart/GTA clone with legos? Fuck no.

You can only change the core concept of a franchise so much before it stops being the same game people actually want to play. If you take out all the car jacking in GTA and turn the whole thing into a car-wash minigame, people are gonna flip out and avoid that game.

Now, what you're suggesting is that they mix up the stories a bit, which is something I agree with you on to a certain extent...it's just that they do that for the most part. Yes, in Mario games, Peach always gets kidnapped, but just look at Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door and Super Mario RPG. They both have another enemy other than Bowser doing the kidnapping, and one of them has Peach become the bad guy...through possession, but it's still different than "Oh noes, Bowser is evil and we must defeat him!"

I'm going to be honest and say that I'd wish it would happen more often, though. Or at least have a big underlined difference between the games to make it feel more unique. Zelda is actually pretty good at that, changing art styles and mechanics, tweaking the story a little each time. Wish Mario changed aesthetics like that, I would love to take on an eldrich horror Bowser. It's more or less the gameplay that keep them coming back, even if it feels a little samey each time.

...also like the fact that you owned up to liking a game that basically has the same mechanics in every game. At least you aren't one of those people who swear up and down that every game you play is different in every way than the last you've played.

 

[Mr. Omega]

Mario and Zelda do what they do very well, and its not like the market is flooded by Zelda clones or something like that. That's why I keep playing them: Extremely high quality and lack of real competition.

Plus, I got a nice list of games from Nintendo I can play.

Mario, Zelda, Star Fox, Kirby, Metroid, Fire Emblem, Advance Wars, Donkey Kong Country, WarioWare, F-Zero, Pikmin, Punch Out, Kid Icarus, Custom Robo, Pokemon and Smash Brothers.

Plus, they do make games like Animal Crossing, Brain Age, the "Wii ____" games, Nintendogs such that, while they don't appeal to me personally, I can at least recognize that they are good games.

Every single IP I just mentioned got a game/sequel within the past 10 years. Most of them in the last 5. So where the fuck is all this "Nintendo only makes the same 3 games over and over" nonsense coming from?

It's almost as if "hardcore gamers" are getting so whiny and butthurt about Nintendo deciding to appeal more to another demographic that they can't see the actual facts past all the whining and butthurt. BUT THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN!

 

[Phlakes]

The only way to think of Nintendo's games being the same thing re-released is by just generalizing them all. Yes, in each Zelda you're some variation of Link saving some variation of Zelda from some variation or Ganon. But if that's all you look at you're just being ignorant.

 

[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.

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.

That`s why I specified no more than other games. These are samall changes yes, but normal compared with any given franchise. The only reason you want Mario or Zelda to change completely as opposed to, say - Gears of War or Mass Effect (random examples) is because you don`t like them.

 

[GeneralFungi]

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

I can't think of a R&C game that doesn't have some form of rich and evil overlord. Though I have not played the PS3 versions so excuse my ignorance if they changed up that detail. And Majora's mask's antagonist is a skull kid who was possessed by an evil mask, which is changing it up a bit.

The thing about the variations in the Zelda games is that Link is still saving the princess, but the world changes every single time. It's all about the details, if you actually pay close attention. I would give you guys examples, but it would entail massive spoilers. Like, really bad game ruining spoilers. If you want to google up the games and look at the plot for yourselves go ahead, but I can only think of one game that does not have massive spoilers in it's basic plot that shows the kinds of details I'm talking about.

In LoZ; Minish cap you begin as Link of course whom lives with his father in his workshop. Princess Zelda often sneaks out of the castle to visit your home, and you both set out on to the 'Picori festival', a festival celebrating the 100 year anniversary when the hero, armed with the sword of the legendary Picori people, sealed an evil force within a block of stone.

During this festival they have a sword tournament, and the winner is the wizard Vaati. The reward for winning the tourney is getting to touch this legendary blade, but Vaati wants what is sealed inside of the chest. He uses his dark powers to overtake the guards, but Zelda has a magical necklace that protected her against the attack. Vaati seen her as a threat to his plans and turned Zelda to stone, while also shattering the powerful sword and releasing the dark force inside.

Zelda's father, the king, sends link on a quest to save Zelda. They believe the only way to free her from her state is to find the legendary Picori people and have them fix the blade, as they were the original creators. The Picori people only approach children, so that's why Link was given the job.

I know, it's still 'Save the Princess' but it's all about the supporting details that makes the plot unique. If you open your eyes beyond the simple premise of 'Link saves Princess' there is a lot of innovation to be had here. I also ignored Majora's mask, which probably changes it up the most out of any LoZ game. If you've played it you know why.

 

[TheSapphireKnight]

My issue with nintendo as of late is that they have not really made that generational with most of their franchises. The only franchise I really recall that has truly updated the experience is the Metroid Prime series. Not because it turned into an FPS, but because it took everything that was great about the original 2D games and let you experience them in a new way. Even the most recent one tried to move ahead despite its issues.

Compared to Mario or Zelda there has not been a new change in ages. They basically come in 2 flavors. Zelda comes in top down 2D or 3D and Mario comes in Sidescrolling 2D or 3D.

Pokemon has been the most recent perpetrator. I completely understand wanting to get to a point of stopping adding new pokemon and Regions sot the next logical step would be to expand the experience right? But it just doesn't happen. I figured for the 3DS that we might finally get at the very least a new pokemon game with 3D battles but instead we get more of the same. I figured Coliseum and the second region in Silver, Gold, Crystal were signs of things to come but they never get expanded upon.

I'm not saying any of these are bad games by any stretch of the imagination. But it seems like Nintendo, and the Japanese industry at large, are having issues moving forward and taking that next step.

There is a point where "don't fix what isn't broken" becomes "well that just how we have always done it." and that leads to stagnation.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

HAHAHA This is RIIIICH.

>Nintendo made three new franchises this gen
>Made a Zelda without Ganon and completely new control scheme and innovative puzzles
>Mario games are almost always different
>Metroid Prime and Other M are different that it's hard to believe they're in the same franchise
>Pikmin is its own genre
>Reviving side-scrollers has been a bunch of similar games so they REVIVE THE SIDE SCROLLERS
>Pokemon constantly trying risks in social networking, new tactics, story, and level design


Rich. Just rich.

Btw, if you want Nintendo to innovate more with Zelda? Shut up about it. No really, think about it. It's the diverse franchise that feels like they know what's best that pulls it apart in two constantly conflicting directions. In short, Ocarina of Time was the worst thing to happen to Zelda.

 

[Frozengale]

Stopped reading right there.

Stopped reading right there. Because after all if I stop reading that means that obviously I am an enlightened individual that knows how to put you in your place. Maybe one day I will actually look through peoples posts and absorb the whole argument before I decide to dismiss them so easily. But nope I'm a busy man that needs to argue with people on the internet, so many wrong arguments, and never enough time to even read them. But they aren't my opinions so, therefore, wrong.

TALLY-HO!

 

[Kimarous]

Ignoring all the arguments about innovation and whatnot, I'm just going to say that Majora's Mask is my favourite of the entire Zelda series. Why? Because it felt the most unique out of the rest. A completely different world, a distinct time mechanic, different modes of play via transformations, a strong focus on masks, a gradual sense of impending doom... even if the other games do have their unique mechanics and styles, they don't form the same "whole" that pulled Majora's Mask out from the mould.

 

[Negatempest]

Ah. Hmm.
Argue that a game is different between story. Or argue that a game is only different if the aesthetics change.

One can easily argue that God of War is DMC but with greek mythology. X jump. [] light hit. Triangle heavy hit. Air combos, ground comboes...I can go on and on with this.

What helps make a game different is whether or not the same game engine was used. Wind Waker looks nothing like Skyward Sword no matter how "HD" you make the game. To me, even though Nintendo makes "similar" games, they usually start that game from scratch instead of using a previous engine....though it ends up with a similar game again.

While most modern games just copy/paste the previous engine so the similarities are far more noticeable that way. For example, Vice City and Vice City Stories was more or less the same engine, but hardly see them get flack for it. Down on his luck gangster hero for a few games straight isn't exactly changing the mold is it.

How about I put it this way, short and simple. If you enjoy the game, than do so and have fun. If you don't, than that is your own opinion and it doesn't mean your wrong or right.

I love Megaman Legends and believe it is the best MM game that will ever exist. There is also many "critics" who say otherwise but that is all our own opinion.