My problem with Nintendo and the 'If it ain't broke' theory.
- Thread starter rob_simple
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Wow, I actually had to crack my knuckles for this one, here we go again...LastGreatBlasphemer said:
Mario Sunshine: And what is it you are doing in this new world? Hunting for stars (sorry, Shines) just like you did in Mario 64 and just like you'll be doing in Galaxy. And what story are you talking about? The imposter Mario or Bowser and his son kidnapping Peach? Because that's writing about on par with a saturday morning kid's show.
Mario Kart: If you love those old tracks go play those old games. If I'm forking out forty quid for a brand new game then you better believe I'm don't expect to be paying for the same content I already have two or three times before.
Smash Bros.: I'm not grasping at anything. The roster has expanded but every new character is a double of a previous one with only slightly tweaked movesets. Mario is Luigi; Fox is Falco; Captain Falcon is Ganondorf; Peach is Daisy on and on and on and on. It doesn't matter how big the roster is when it can still be boiled down to the original 12 characters or whatever. And you're right about Street Fighter, but that's my point. Every laughs about how bold-facedly Capcom releases the same Street Fighter games over and over but Nintendo does the same damn thing and people think it's brilliant.
LastGreatBlasphemer said:
That's actually my favourite Zelda title, precisely for that reason. But shoosh, you're ruining my point.Krantos said:
The main problem with Zelda's repetitiveness is not about graphics (which they obviously changed in 25 years) or the story (which they have changed, in more minor ways, in 25 years); but the design.
All the Zelda games I can remember revolve around your hero (Link) traveling to different dungeons (each one with different themes: there is a water level, a lava level, an underground level, etc), collecting different items (in mostly this order: a sword, a boomerang-like throw-able weapon, a bow and arrows, an explosive weapon that can break through some walls, a chain-attached weapon that can be used to cross chasms, an upgraded version of said sword), which help you solve the elemental themed level puzzles, beat the level boss (which can, most of the times, only be beaten by using the recently obtained item) and unlock areas in previously visited dungeons. Its the same layout, no matter if Link is cell-shaded, photo-realistic or a 2D sprite; or if he likes to travel by land, sea, air or on rails...
That is not to say Nintendo lacks originality; but he sure doesn't like it in their mayor IPs. There is far more originality in the latest Kirby game that in the last 10 years of Zelda games.
All the Zelda games I can remember revolve around your hero (Link) traveling to different dungeons (each one with different themes: there is a water level, a lava level, an underground level, etc), collecting different items (in mostly this order: a sword, a boomerang-like throw-able weapon, a bow and arrows, an explosive weapon that can break through some walls, a chain-attached weapon that can be used to cross chasms, an upgraded version of said sword), which help you solve the elemental themed level puzzles, beat the level boss (which can, most of the times, only be beaten by using the recently obtained item) and unlock areas in previously visited dungeons. Its the same layout, no matter if Link is cell-shaded, photo-realistic or a 2D sprite; or if he likes to travel by land, sea, air or on rails...
That is not to say Nintendo lacks originality; but he sure doesn't like it in their mayor IPs. There is far more originality in the latest Kirby game that in the last 10 years of Zelda games.
See, this is my exact problem. Why does it always have to be Mario saving Peach and Link saving Zelda, (I mean aside from the massive pools of cash)?Casual Shinji said:
Why can't it be a new character, say a prince, who has to save a village girl from being sacrificed to a giant dragon but the village is only doing it so the dragon doesn't destroy the world and then the hero has to sacrifice himself to the dragon so there can be no damn sequels. It's not much, but at least that's a bit of role reversal.
Well Majora's Mask has you fighting against a possessed Skull Kid and the Majora's Mask itself.rob_simple said:
This.Necron_warrior said:
As someone else in this thread stated, Nintendo's games could easily sell as unique and individual IPs, with the occasional case of sequels/etc. that normal series' get. But they're content to be nice and safe within the niche they've created, and so every year or two we get reports of another Mario (2D/3D Platformer) and another Zelda (Action-Adventure) and another Metroid (Action-Adventure-Shooter) and another Kirby (2D Platformer) and another Donkey Kong (2D Platformer) and another Pokemon (which hasn't changed its fundamental gameplay in sixteen years and has only convoluted it by bloating the roster and attack list by so much) then when they're finally deciding to mix it up, what do we get? Another Star Fox and another Kid Icarus and another Super Smash Bros (which is just a mash up of all the other characters you've been having fun with, kids!) and another Fire Emblem (except in the US, because obviously none of them would be interested in those titles, right? They didn't want Pandora's Tower either!).
Saying absolutely nothing about the quality of each specific game (because I do think Nintendo still makes high-quality products even if I'm not interested in them), Nintendo has been afloat on the exact same IPs they originally created back in the NES/SNES days. And think about it. That was the 1980's.
Really, you are using those as an example? Uncharted has 4 games and 5 years, Final Fantasy has a different cast and is mechanically different in almost every single game and you are going to compare them with a franchise that has 25 years and 27 games, and I could bet you real money the next game will involve Link trying to save Zelda by getting a master sword, a boomerang and sticking bombs to walls.LastGreatBlasphemer said:
They're not plot-driven games, for fuck's sake. They're gameplay, environment and challenge-driven. The stars are simply goal posts, and something you collect upon beating the actual challenges set before you.rob_simple said:
One moment you are to scale a mountain, the next you race against a rival character, fight a boss battle, attempt to collect flying coins by shooting yourself out of a cannon, explore underwater caverns, help a penguin mother find her baby, or storm a lego fortress that seemingly hovers above hell itself.
The "story" is just a basic fairytale scenario to get you going, or to explain a shift in environments.
Funny, because Skyward Sword had Link trying to catch up with Zelda, as she had her own world-saving mission to take care of. Also, Link never got a boomerang and there were maybe three or four points in the game where a wall had to be bombed to get to an optional item hidden behind it.hermes200 said:
Because, believe it or not, with Skyward Sword they've actually tried to distance themselves from the traditional puzzles and the items associated with them. And Zelda hasn't had a true damsel in distress role since A Link to the Past.
Yeah? And how many times have you raced that rival? How many times have you had to climb to the top of something really high? How many times have you stun-locked a boss three times to jump on him or hit his weak spot or swing him into something?JediMB said:
Without a plot, you are just repeating the same motions through the same games. The levels might be different and the extras might be slightly re-skinned but the task is always the same: get the star. Help a mother penguin find her baby in one game is just help X find Y in another game; they're just hoops to jump through to reach the same goal you've been aiming for for four games now.
It doesn't make the games bad, though, they're just not creative or particularly special.
Can someone making this topic turn into an auto warning? Its getting ridiculous now... I'm a nintendo fan, granted, but these topics are just massive amounts of flamebait.
OT- I'm a fan, so I cant offer an unbiased opinion, but I ask the OP, how long has Halo been around? And how long has Mario been around? Both are system mascots, both have spin off games and are hugely popular. Mario started in 2d, switched to the larger titles being in 3d, whilst having 2d games continue (on handhelds). The games are still as popular, and some are heralded as being revolutionary. Compare that to the halo series. Started in 3d, the graphics have improved over time as is to be expected, it helped innovate fps's.
I see both of these not as examples of "If it aint broke, don't fix it" But more like masters of their domain building to make themselves better. Like I say, Im a nintendo fanboy.
OT- I'm a fan, so I cant offer an unbiased opinion, but I ask the OP, how long has Halo been around? And how long has Mario been around? Both are system mascots, both have spin off games and are hugely popular. Mario started in 2d, switched to the larger titles being in 3d, whilst having 2d games continue (on handhelds). The games are still as popular, and some are heralded as being revolutionary. Compare that to the halo series. Started in 3d, the graphics have improved over time as is to be expected, it helped innovate fps's.
I see both of these not as examples of "If it aint broke, don't fix it" But more like masters of their domain building to make themselves better. Like I say, Im a nintendo fanboy.
Same here. I would also add that of the 2D Zelda games, Links awakening was my favorite.Kimarous said:
The Pokemon thing I really CAN'T explain. All I can say is simply: Have you only been playing single player? Because if you've ever gone through a competitive Pokemon phase, you'd know just how different each game is. Each move they add changes how the entire game is played. Think of the move Stealth Rock and how it made fire types and flying types terrible unless you bring a counter.RafaelNegrus said:
As for Zelda, I'll try once more with some quick descriptions, if you still don't get what I mean, I'll try get more detailed, deal?
Basically, every time the Zelda franchise tries to innovate, fans complain. They complain a lot. Majora's Mask, Wind Waker, and Skyward Sword are innovative and fantastic titles that try to do something new with the formula and people just rag on it. And it's mainly the Ocarina of Time loyalists who do the complaining. There are still people who complain that the 3D games aren't like the original and want you to bomb every inch of Hyrule, but they don't get a lot of attention. Back to the Ocarina of Time fanbase, Twilight Princess was basically a gift to them and Nintendo listened to everything the fans wanted.... And it was mostly pretty crappy.
How is what Nintendo does any different than anything any other company does?
Every FPS is nearly the same, every MMO is nearly the same, every JRPG is nearly the same, every platformer is nearly the same... yeah you get my point.
Other than minor nuances, gimmicks, themes, or characters every game is same game these days.
Every FPS is nearly the same, every MMO is nearly the same, every JRPG is nearly the same, every platformer is nearly the same... yeah you get my point.
Other than minor nuances, gimmicks, themes, or characters every game is same game these days.
And with Zelda, Nintendo just needs to do something COMPLETELY different to just make them shush.WanderingFool said:
I don't blame Nintendo. They have tried to bring out some new stuff (like that Sub-marine game and the game with the armadillo in it) but everybody just keeps buying Mario instead. They have been doing somewhat better since the release of the Wii, as there was the average Wii series and Nintendogs.
Still though, Mario had four games last year. That's just ridiculous. Stop milking this cash cow.
My only real grudge is the Mario series. I looked at Game's "chart" shelf and they had three party games featuring Mario (mario party 9, Boom/Fortune Street, Olympics). That's just bloody ridiculous. If you want to keep making sports and party games, try someone else for once. Maybe Kirby, he would fit well. Or some brand new characters. Anything but those god-damn plumbers.
Even Capcom, who are known for over-milking franchises, have made quite a few brand new games recently, some of which have done pretty well. Dead Rising was great, Lost Planet was pretty successful,and this year alone they have Asura's Wrath and Dragon's Dogma. Just because Mario sells well doesn't mean nothing else will.
Also, if Nintendo made another F-zero for the 3DS, I would buy it as soon as possible.
Still though, Mario had four games last year. That's just ridiculous. Stop milking this cash cow.
My only real grudge is the Mario series. I looked at Game's "chart" shelf and they had three party games featuring Mario (mario party 9, Boom/Fortune Street, Olympics). That's just bloody ridiculous. If you want to keep making sports and party games, try someone else for once. Maybe Kirby, he would fit well. Or some brand new characters. Anything but those god-damn plumbers.
Even Capcom, who are known for over-milking franchises, have made quite a few brand new games recently, some of which have done pretty well. Dead Rising was great, Lost Planet was pretty successful,and this year alone they have Asura's Wrath and Dragon's Dogma. Just because Mario sells well doesn't mean nothing else will.
Also, if Nintendo made another F-zero for the 3DS, I would buy it as soon as possible.
Again, disingenuous considering your defense of God of War. Let's put that example in similar terms, shall we? "And just what is it you are doing in GoW2/GoW3? That's right. You're unleashing a bloody trail of carnage against monsters and gods again, using similar combat mechanics to boot." Seriously, be consistent in your criteria.rob_simple said:
And who, praytell, are Sonic, R.O.B., Snake, Meta Knight, the Ice Climbers, Bowser, Diddy Kong, Ike, Marth, King Dedede, Mr. Game and Watch, Olimar, Pit, Zelda/Sheik, Peach (incidentally, Daisy is not a character in the Smash Bros. series' roster) and Pokemon Trainer copying? Really, you are reaching if you're trying to portray every character as a copy of another. The biggest offenders in that regard are the Star Fox characters which - despite their nigh-identical moveset - have different enough leans to occupy different tiers[footnote]Falco is Rank A, Fox and Wolf are Rank D. Amusingly, Wolf has some of the more noticeable mechanical differences, such as the angle of his forward-b attack, his weight class and a unique standard moveset (as opposed to special moveset)[/footnote]rob_simple said: