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

[Asita]

But the difference is that there was escalation in almost every aspect the God of War games despite the mechanics fundamentally staying the same. In the original you spent the whole game gaining enough power to kill one god; by the third you are taking them down left right and center.

Irrelevant. By the criteria you supplied in the OP, at the end of the day it's the same, much like how you characterized the Zelda and Metroid series. You generalized the desciptions to the point that escalation does not and cannot factor in. By the criteria set forth, the only things that matter are your character, the villain and the motive. By those standards, the God of War games break down thusly: GoW1: Kratos goes up against the gods because they betrayed him. GoW2: Kratos goes up against the gods because they betrayed him. GoW3: Kratos goes up against the gods and the titans because they betrayed him. Is this an unfair characterization? Yes, and that's exactly my point.

As Stanislavski famously quipped, "Generalization is the enemy of art". This is very true. After all, when you break them down, how many stories can be represented by the Hero's Journey as defined by Joseph Campbell? The answer is 'more than a few'. What makes a given work unique - what makes it beautiful - is not its generalized nature, but the details it uses to tell that story. This is what distinguishes Tritain and Isolde from Romeo and Juliet, and what separates both from West Side Story. Their core themes are very similar, but the details make them all distinct entities. You will not get the same social criticism of New York in either of the former that you will in West Side Story. By a similar token, you will not see the themes of corruption and redemption in Ocarina of Time that you will in Twilight Princess[footnote]The former most notably seen in the effects of the Fused Shadow and Mirror Shards on the respective bosses, with special mention going to Yena. The latter is seen most prominently with regards to Midna herself who undergoes some of the best character development in the franchise[/footnote]. Now granted, many of Nintendo's games are formulatic in nature, but that's distinct from being 'the same game', as you yourself implicitly acknowledge in your God of War characterization. The devil is truly in the details and it's borderline insulting to ignore them.

 

[rob_simple]

Wow, I actually had to crack my knuckles for this one, here we go again...

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.

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.

But the difference is that there was escalation in almost every aspect the God of War games despite the mechanics fundamentally staying the same. In the original you spent the whole game gaining enough power to kill one god; by the third you are taking them down left right and center.

In the original there were one or two pretty spectacular bossfights but almost that entire game was dwarfed by the sheer scale of the very first battle in God of War II when you fight the animated statue. The locations you visit are gigantic (I'm thinking particularly of running up and down the giant chains to the horses that pulled open the gates of Olympus, was it?

In the original God of War, you are a mortal grieving the loss of your family and seeking revenge against the God who tricked you; by the third game you are nothing more than a callous beast driven by hatred, raising an army of titans and literally destroying the entire world so you can tear down Olympus and all the gods that live within.

In Mario? Peach is kidnapped so go and collect some stars, fight Bowser or a member of his extended family and save Peach. Exact same thing happens again in another couple of years.

Except that in the first Mario game, you're simply traipsing around the Mushroom Kingdom trying to save Peach, while by the time we get to Super Mario Galaxy, he is in fact travelling all over the galaxy in order to do so. Which would be an example of, wait for it... escalation.

Except the worlds are still just a series of obstacle courses to get stars. Just because the setting is bigger (and the worlds aren't much bigger, you can still explore most of them in a matter of minutes; the fact they're in space just gives a false sense of depth) nothing has changed: you're still chasing the same boring antagonist to get back the same old love interest.

It's literally 'Mario in Spaaaace,' the classic exaggeration critics use to demonstrate when a series has gotten so stale that the only way it's washed out creators can make it seem new and interesting is to blast it into the gulf of space.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I think we can all agree that most games have the same character templates:

-Hero
-Damsel
-Villain

The problem with Zelda and Mario is that these templates are always stuck to the same characters: Link/Mario is the hero, Zelda/Peach is the damsel, and Ganon/Bowser is the villain. After a multitude of games with these characters filling the same role everytime, they just start to feel stale. And they lack any indication that they might act in a new and surprising manner.

This was one of the reasons why I liked Wind Waker, because atleast Zelda was a different character... untill she put on a dress and became the same old boring damsel again.

have you ever played any of the paper mario series games?

I never played it, but I have heard the characters are different from how they usually are.

 

[rob_simple]

But the difference is that there was escalation in almost every aspect the God of War games despite the mechanics fundamentally staying the same. In the original you spent the whole game gaining enough power to kill one god; by the third you are taking them down left right and center.

Irrelevant. By the criteria you supplied in the OP, at the end of the day it's the same, much like how you characterized the Zelda and Metroid series. You generalized the desciptions to the point that escalation does not and cannot factor in. By the criteria set forth, the only things that matter are your character, the villain and the motive. By those standards, the God of War games break down thusly: GoW1: Kratos goes up against the gods because they betrayed him. GoW2: Kratos goes up against the gods because they betrayed him. GoW3: Kratos goes up against the gods and the titans because they betrayed him. Is this an unfair characterization? Yes, and that's exactly my point.

Alright, tell me how you would describe the Mario franchise, specifically the platformers (so not the RPG's which I've already conceded go same way to pushing the boat out and not Mario spa weekends to play tennis and go go-karting)?

The point with God of War, or Gears of War or hell even Call of Duty's batshit insane storyline was that they are all building to something over the series of games; whether you liked them or not there was a conclusion in sight.

Nintendo hit the reset button on all their universes at the end of every game so everything you do is for nothing. You might be Link humble son of a farmer or amnesiac waking in a strange land or a fairy boy but you'll --almost-- always get wrapped up in a fight between good and evil to save the fate of the world and at some point a princess who might not be the princess at first will pop up. And I am boiling it down because there really aren't any variables that change that greatly in the series. I like the Zelda games, but by the time I got Twilight Princess I was like 'seriously, herding fucking cows? just give me the damn sword and let's get on with the dungeons.'

Gears of War, on the other hand, assumes you've played the previous games and gives you the option to get stuck right in, but Nintendo act as if every one of their games is a brand new experience and you have to sit through the same half hour of boring bullshit in your start village.

The only games with any kind of continuity were the Metroid Prime series which I'd consider the only original and truly brilliant piece of work Nintendo have done in the past fifteen years, and even they only had a tenuous link to let them use the same old light world/dark world dichotomy in the second game they've been using since Link to the Past in Echoes. By the third game they were using the same Dark Samus gimmick they'd used in Metroid Fusion or Majora's Mask or Mario Sunshine.

 

[rob_simple]

*Doesn't mention the fact that Mario 64 was just platforming and that Mario Sunshine had this whole new mechanic about cleaning shiz.*

For the sake of comparison, Mario has gone to space right after returning to his 2D roots. Mario went from jumping over barrels as Jump-Man to a RPG. Legend of Zelda went from a top down perspective about simply collecting triangles to a highly story based RPG involving three-dimensional people. Earthbound took the RPG genre and took out the grind. Yes, Earthbound and Super Mario RPG were actually made co-part by Square Enix, but Nintendo still helped.

Nintendo made Pikmin, a game without genre, made Animal Crossing, which was sims without needs and Pokemon Tournament games for the console, which revolve around just fighting other pokemon without grinding. Metroid went from a side scrolling game to a first person shooter to a third person action game.

No, Nintendo does not make the same game repetitively, while similarities, it is not the same.

---------------------------------

Honestly, anyone that says Nintendo makes the same game can go be fucked by what they never want to be fucked by and anyone who says this is ignorant just because if its the same franchise doesn't mean gameplay can't be changed.

Oh you're right, I'm sorry they gave him a water pistol that made the game totally different. I don't care how many bells and whistles you slap on him, if he's still collection stars then it's just the same old Mario 64.

Here's a question, though: of all the games you mentioned how many of them have only had a single game? Now how many of them have had several sequels and re-releases on different consoles/handhelds? Just scanning over your list I can see at least all of them have been re-hashed in one way or another.

Every original idea Nintendo have ever had they have then beasted into oblivion by releasing volumes of the same thing over and over.

Or to put it differently: While the rest of the world was giving us Dante and Kratos and Bayonetta and the cast of Killer 7 and the Big Daddies and a plethora of colourful stereotypes from GTA; new additions to the Street Fighter team, Marcus Fenix and his buddies; Masterchief the Prince of Persia with a personality and the Prince and his dad, the King of the Cosmos ,what original characters did Nintendo give us that weren't resprays of older ones (oh, a tall skinny Wario called Waluigi...brilliant)?

Captain Olimar and Tom fucking Nook...*starts a slow clap*

 

[rob_simple]

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.

And once again, I never said Nintendo were defending their actions

Actually you did say Nintendo were trying to defend it. Right there in that part by you that I quoted. Twice.

'Nintendo seem to be the only one PEOPLE actually try to defend.' Learn to fucking read.

Or to put it differently: While the rest of the world was giving us Dante and Kratos and Bayonetta and the cast of Killer 7 and the Big Daddies and a plethora of colourful stereotypes from GTA; new additions to the Street Fighter team, Marcus Fenix and his buddies; Masterchief the Prince of Persia with a personality and the Prince and his dad, the King of the Cosmos ,what original characters did Nintendo give us that weren't resprays of older ones (oh, a tall skinny Wario called Waluigi...brilliant)?

Captain Olimar and Tom fucking Nook...*starts a slow clap*

Kratos which has two hanheld games, 3 console games, and an upcoming console game wherein you do THE EXACT SAME THING WITH NO VARIATION WHAT SO EVER.
Devil May Cry, which had four games in the span of two consoles and is getting a "reboot" in the same generation as it's last game. Oh, not to mention you do the same thing as in God of War just throw in some extra bullets.
Bayonetta could easily be viewed as a rip off of God of War by your logic.
STreet Fighter got what, 4 new characters over the course of three games this generation.
Gears of War produced the most 1 dimensional character since Master Chief, while producing 3 games with the exact same gameplay mechanics. The only new thing in number 3 was the ability for our teammates to revive you.
The Prince of Persia was last generation, and his second game is widely herralded as being extremely shallow.

You are really not good at this.

Oh for the love of sweet merciful Christ, how many times do I have to repeat myself? I am not saying that OTHER companies don't recycle their ideas, Capcom is a chronic offender and everyone knows it.

What I was pointing out is that, as you've now misquoted --twice-- is that Nintendo appear, to me, (and TRY to remember that this is all my opinion; not the gospel truth) to be the only company OTHER people --not the company themselves, so help me God I'm trying to be as clear as I can here-- defend as being original and/or innovative with their ideas.

My real question was why do Nintendo fans feel the need to do this? People who play CoD don't give a shit that we all think the story is bananas; they like the games and play them regardless. But many --not all-- Nintendo fans legitimately still believe Nintendo is a company with fresh new ideas, when they've just been rehashing the same old IP for thirty odd years, with most of that IP not being particularly original in the first place when half the characters they've created are literally just re-sprays of characters they already made.

 

[Asita]

Alright, tell me how you would describe the Mario franchise, specifically the platformers (so not the RPG's which I've already conceded go same way to pushing the boat out and not Mario spa weekends to play tennis and go go-karting)?

I wouldn't. To describe an entire franchise requires either a singular plotline connecting them or horrific vagueness. You'd commit a similar faux pas if you tried to describe the Batman franchise, and that doesn't reset. Seriously, you're asking me to argue a position I spent the last post describing as anathema.

 

[SD-Fiend]

I think we can all agree that most games have the same character templates:

-Hero
-Damsel
-Villain

The problem with Zelda and Mario is that these templates are always stuck to the same characters: Link/Mario is the hero, Zelda/Peach is the damsel, and Ganon/Bowser is the villain. After a multitude of games with these characters filling the same role everytime, they just start to feel stale. And they lack any indication that they might act in a new and surprising manner.

This was one of the reasons why I liked Wind Waker, because atleast Zelda was a different character... untill she put on a dress and became the same old boring damsel again.

have you ever played any of the paper mario series games?

I never played it, but I have heard the characters are different from how they usually are.

they are. if you include super mario RPG then half of the games in that series let you play as both bowser and peach

 

[rob_simple]

'Nintendo seem to be the only one PEOPLE actually try to defend.' Learn to fucking read.

I edited the post. The wording was throwing me off.

Oh for the love of sweet merciful Christ, how many times do I have to repeat myself? I am not saying that OTHER companies don't recycle their ideas, Capcom is a chronic offender and everyone knows it.

What I was pointing out is that, as you've now misquoted --twice-- is that Nintendo appear, to me, (and TRY to remember that this is all my opinion; not the gospel truth) to be the only company OTHER people --not the company themselves, so help me God I'm trying to be as clear as I can here-- defend as being original and/or innovative with their ideas.

My real question was why do Nintendo fans feel the need to do this? People who play CoD don't give a shit that we all think the story is bananas; they like the games and play them regardless. But many --not all-- Nintendo fans legitimately still believe Nintendo is a company with fresh new ideas, when they've just been rehashing the same old IP for thirty odd years, with most of that IP not being particularly original in the first place when half the characters they've created are literally just re-sprays of characters they already made.

Because when Call of Duty went from WW11 to modern games, they were innovating. They then repeated the same game three more times, one for each year. Same weapons, barely different setting, and exact same mechanics.

When Mario Sunshine came out, we now had a jet pack that was used as a weapon, replace a nozzle for a rocket boost, replace the nozzle for a rocket jump.
Then there were the ways the nozzles interacted with you hanging from wires. Then there was Yoshi's first foray into 3d. The game changed the way Mario 64 was played.
It would be SEVERAL years before Nintendo came out with another 3d Mario game. And when they did, the water pack was gone and now we were fucking around with planetoid physics as the main gimmick.

Because with every Nintendo game that stars a character with the same name, they are CHANGING THE GAME. That's why we defend them. The only consistency is character names, which by definitions, they are no longer characters. They are archetypes. Mario and Link are now more metaphor then they are character. And that's innovation. We're not playing characters, we're playing the idea of characters and what they represent.
THAT'S WHY!

Well, I don't agree with you, but I admire your dedication.

I think anything I added at this point would just equate to stone-throwing at our respective glass houses, so I'm just going to leave it be.

 

[Aprilgold]

Oh you're right, I'm sorry they gave him a water pistol that made the game totally different. I don't care how many bells and whistles you slap on him, if he's still collection stars then it's just the same old Mario 64.

Here's a question, though: of all the games you mentioned how many of them have only had a single game? Now how many of them have had several sequels and re-releases on different consoles/handhelds? Just scanning over your list I can see at least all of them have been re-hashed in one way or another.

Every original idea Nintendo have ever had they have then beasted into oblivion by releasing volumes of the same thing over and over.

Or to put it differently: While the rest of the world was giving us Dante and Kratos and Bayonetta and the cast of Killer 7 and the Big Daddies and a plethora of colourful stereotypes from GTA; new additions to the Street Fighter team, Marcus Fenix and his buddies; Masterchief the Prince of Persia with a personality and the Prince and his dad, the King of the Cosmos ,what original characters did Nintendo give us that weren't resprays of older ones (oh, a tall skinny Wario called Waluigi...brilliant)?

Captain Olimar and Tom fucking Nook...*starts a slow clap*

*stabs knife through clapping hands* NO, THAT MEME SHOULD DIE!

Honestly man, how many companies have re-hashed and made sequels to death if we go through a list.

Doom
Duke Nukem
Half-Life
Portal
Sam & Max
Street Fighter
Mortal Kombat
Deus Ex
God of War
Tekken
Max Payne
Prototype
Monday Night Combat
Battlefield
Call of Duty
Call of Duty: Black Ops
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare
Silent Hill
Resident Evil
Sonic the Hedgehog
Porte Royal
Risen
The Elder Scrolls
The Witcher
Saints Row
Grand Theft Auto
Final Fantasy
Final Fantasy: X
Chrono Trigger
Mega Man
Mega Man X
Mega Man Network
ZX games
Madden
Fifa
Tony Hawk
Paper-Boy
Simpson Games
Civilization
Torchlight
Diablo
Warcraft
Red Orchestra
Mass Effect
Avernum
Counter Strike
Left 4 Dead
Serious Sam
Team Fortress
Cave Story
Mount and Blade
Worms
Katamari Damacy
Destroy All Humans

and there are so many others that if I kept going I would probably run into a post limit. The problem with series, and you don't need me to say this, is that their fucking everywhere in gaming. Everywhere since the begging to the end in the forever future, series will exist. All of these in one form or another had a sequel, a port to a different console, a hand-held version or versions to phones. None of the games you listed are the pinacles of gaming anymore, neither is Nintendo but straight up saying that they don't vary their games is like saying Horses can fly across the sky while shitting out greatswords made of solid gold.

Mario has been in a Sports Game, Board Game, a Video Board Game, a Game about versing Mario at games like Chess, Platformers, Fighters and a Music Game along with a Dance-Dance-Revolution Rip off.

Kratos is arguably a rip off of Devil May Cry. Bioshock could very well be a rip off of System Shock 2. GTA had a hand held version, once more along with a phone version. Prince of Persia is arguably Laura Croft as a male with a time reversing mechanic.

And if your going to ask what Nintendo has done for gaming? Well they pretty much jump-started the gaming market after its crash so without them we would be left without many or any games.

I don't say this often, but reading through your responses you won't understand the simple fact that all series from the history of ever have always had similarties or done the same thing twice, but Nintendo does so much different that saying their releasing the same game is a straight up lie when their post child has more variation then Modern Battle in Space 79.

 

[rob_simple]

Oh you're right, I'm sorry they gave him a water pistol that made the game totally different. I don't care how many bells and whistles you slap on him, if he's still collection stars then it's just the same old Mario 64.

Here's a question, though: of all the games you mentioned how many of them have only had a single game? Now how many of them have had several sequels and re-releases on different consoles/handhelds? Just scanning over your list I can see at least all of them have been re-hashed in one way or another.

Every original idea Nintendo have ever had they have then beasted into oblivion by releasing volumes of the same thing over and over.

Or to put it differently: While the rest of the world was giving us Dante and Kratos and Bayonetta and the cast of Killer 7 and the Big Daddies and a plethora of colourful stereotypes from GTA; new additions to the Street Fighter team, Marcus Fenix and his buddies; Masterchief the Prince of Persia with a personality and the Prince and his dad, the King of the Cosmos ,what original characters did Nintendo give us that weren't resprays of older ones (oh, a tall skinny Wario called Waluigi...brilliant)?

Captain Olimar and Tom fucking Nook...*starts a slow clap*

*stabs knife through clapping hands* NO, THAT MEME SHOULD DIE!

Honestly man, how many companies have re-hashed and made sequels to death if we go through a list.

Doom
Duke Nukem
Half-Life
Portal
Sam & Max
Street Fighter
Mortal Kombat
Deus Ex
God of War
Tekken
Max Payne
Prototype
Monday Night Combat
Battlefield
Call of Duty
Call of Duty: Black Ops
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare
Silent Hill
Resident Evil
Sonic the Hedgehog
Porte Royal
Risen
The Elder Scrolls
The Witcher
Saints Row
Grand Theft Auto
Final Fantasy
Final Fantasy: X
Chrono Trigger
Mega Man
Mega Man X
Mega Man Network
ZX games
Madden
Fifa
Tony Hawk
Paper-Boy
Simpson Games
Civilization
Torchlight
Diablo
Warcraft
Red Orchestra
Mass Effect
Avernum
Counter Strike
Left 4 Dead
Serious Sam
Team Fortress
Cave Story
Mount and Blade
Worms
Katamari Damacy
Destroy All Humans

and there are so many others that if I kept going I would probably run into a post limit. The problem with series, and you don't need me to say this, is that their fucking everywhere in gaming. Everywhere since the begging to the end in the forever future, series will exist. All of these in one form or another had a sequel, a port to a different console, a hand-held version or versions to phones. None of the games you listed are the pinacles of gaming anymore, neither is Nintendo but straight up saying that they don't vary their games is like saying Horses can fly across the sky while shitting out greatswords made of solid gold.

Mario has been in a Sports Game, Board Game, a Video Board Game, a Game about versing Mario at games like Chess, Platformers, Fighters and a Music Game along with a Dance-Dance-Revolution Rip off.

Kratos is arguably a rip off of Devil May Cry. Bioshock could very well be a rip off of System Shock 2. GTA had a hand held version, once more along with a phone version. Prince of Persia is arguably Laura Croft as a male with a time reversing mechanic.

And if your going to ask what Nintendo has done for gaming? Well they pretty much jump-started the gaming market after its crash so without them we would be left without many or any games.

I don't say this often, but reading through your responses you won't understand the simple fact that all series from the history of ever have always had similarties or done the same thing twice, but Nintendo does so much different that saying their releasing the same game is a straight up lie when their post child has more variation then Modern Battle in Space 79.

Again, I never once said Nintendo have done nothing for gaming, I said that I think nowadays they're pretty much resigned to releasing new games with the same old mascots slapped on the front because it's a guaranteed money-spinner. And again, I said that all companies do this because that's the whole point of a mascot but Nintendo are still held up by many as some gold-standard of gaming when pretty much everything they've released in the last fifteen years has been a repeat of a game they'd already made with little to no changes or improvements.

And if by poster child you mean Mario then he is easily the most whored out mascot in all of video-game history. There is absolutely no reason Nintendo couldn't have come up with entirely new characters for their kart racing game or their tennis game or their Paper RPG series but instead they just slap Mario and his buddies on the box instead of coming up with an entirely new universe of characters.

The thing that bothers me about it all is I'm absolutely certain that half the games Nintendo release would not review nearly as well as they do if they didn't have the strength of the brand behind them, and I think that's lead them to rest on their laurels.

But it's all just my opinion, and if you disagree that's fair enough. I personally still enjoy Nintendo games, but I'm no longer excited about them and I never have the same wow factor I got the first time I switched on Mario 64 or Ocarina of Time. It's not because those games are timeless classics that can never be bettered and it's not because I've become jaded as a gamer, either, because plenty of other games still manage to give me that feeling (Shadow of the Colossus literally left me slack-jawed in amazement; Killer 7 was just a complete mindfuck that I still haven't really got over; Katamari Damacy had me laughing my arse off and made me dizzy with the concept of rolling up the entire cosmos; Deus Ex and DE:HR gave me true immersion and made me feel incredibly smug when I was able to manipulate people through words alone.)

No, the reason I don't get wowed by Nintendo is because I've seen it all before: it's because I know that within minutes of playing the latest Mario, Peach is going to get kidnapped and I'm going to be collecting stars; I know that within twenty minutes of picking up Link's reigns again I'm going to grab my sword and shield and go hunting for the latest batch of plot-convenient macguffins to banish some ancient evil and possibly interact with a princess of some variety.

To put it another way: I'll still regularly play Luigi's Mansion and the first Metroid Prime, because they're different from what I am used to with their respective backgrounds and I won't get it anywhere else. More than that, they are fantastic games and proof that Nintendo are capable of going in new directions, even if they do slap on the same old IP from old franchises. On the Wii? I can literally think of no game I've picked back up after finishing.

 

[BytByte]

Hehe, omitting details of others posts is fun. I am biased towards Nintendo. Take that as you will.

 

[Strain42]

The fact that I absolutely love the Paper Mario titles (I admit I haven't played much of the other Mario & Luigi RPGs) but am not a big fan of the main mario series sort of hints that the games aren't the same. They vary in their gameplay, their writing and their characters.

>Nintendo made three new franchises this gen

Which 3? I'm actually confused here. Do you mean those Project Rainfall games?

 

[DioWallachia]

Erm... come again?

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.

Go look at Twilight Princess. Then go look at Skyward Sword. Then go compare both of them to Windwaker. Then tell me exactly how all three of these games are identical knock-offs of each other. Because I always thought that:

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 mean, if someone can point out to me how Windwaker and Skyward Sword are actually the same game, I'd much appreciate it. I will of course reciprocate by then pointing out how Mass Effect and Gears Of War are fundamentally the same game as well.

I get that Nintendo have been using the same brand names for a long time now, but when you actually look at what they do from game to game, I don't understand why people think they're so uncreative as a company. 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? 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?

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?

Well, GoW3 and ME3 did become one and the same in gameplay...just saying.

And since i never played Uncharted, i actually wish to know how does it get away for being "allegedly" the same (Maybe people are STILL shell-shocked at Indiana Jones 4?).
I am biased against it, however, because the writer got the brilliant idea of degrading herself to write that kind of "same but different" crap instead of something as ambitious as Legacy of Kain.

 

[DioWallachia]

*stabs knife through clapping hands* NO, THAT MEME SHOULD DIE!

Honestly man, how many companies have re-hashed and made sequels to death if we go through a list.

Doom
Duke Nukem
Half-Life
Portal
Sam & Max
Street Fighter
Mortal Kombat
Deus Ex
God of War
Tekken
Max Payne
Prototype
Monday Night Combat
Battlefield
Call of Duty
Call of Duty: Black Ops
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare
Silent Hill
Resident Evil
Sonic the Hedgehog
Porte Royal
Risen
The Elder Scrolls
The Witcher
Saints Row
Grand Theft Auto
Final Fantasy
Final Fantasy: X
Chrono Trigger
Mega Man
Mega Man X
Mega Man Network
ZX games
Madden
Fifa
Tony Hawk
Paper-Boy
Simpson Games
Civilization
Torchlight
Diablo
Warcraft
Red Orchestra
Mass Effect
Avernum
Counter Strike
Left 4 Dead
Serious Sam
Team Fortress
Cave Story
Mount and Blade
Worms
Katamari Damacy
Destroy All Humans

What is essentially wrong with the following on your list? on your logic of sequels being a bad thing.

Half-Life (it actually continues the story where we left off and manages to bring several technological achievements rather than being just a "the same but different" formula)
Portal (same as Half Life)
Deus Ex (the sequel sucked because it was dumbed down rather than being the same)
Silent Hill (now this one called my attention, the premise is perfect for having sequels since the town manifest its shape and monsters in a different way according to the protagonist we happen to control. If your complain is that they are cashing in on the formula of Silent Hill 2 then i agree)
Grand Theft Auto (at least from GTA4 we could say that they tried to deconstruct the series just a bit)
Cave Story (it got a Wii remake and nothing else)

 

[DioWallachia]

To put it another way: I'll still regularly play Luigi's Mansion and the first Metroid Prime, because they're different from what I am used to with their respective backgrounds and I won't get it anywhere else. More than that, they are fantastic games and proof that Nintendo are capable of going in new directions, even if they do slap on the same old IP from old franchises. On the Wii? I can literally think of no game I've picked back up after finishing.

Wasnt Prime develop by americans and PUBLISHED by Nintendo and nothing else? What about the fanboys defending Metroid Other M because "it tried something different" and "was a big risk"?

 

[DigitalAtlas]

The fact that I absolutely love the Paper Mario titles (I admit I haven't played much of the other Mario & Luigi RPGs) but am not a big fan of the main mario series sort of hints that the games aren't the same. They vary in their gameplay, their writing and their characters.

>Nintendo made three new franchises this gen

Which 3? I'm actually confused here. Do you mean those Project Rainfall games?

No, those aren't franchises. They're stand alone titles. I'm referring to Dillon's Rolling Western, Sakura Samurai, and I think at the time I meant Pikmin (but that was last gen), but we can just say the 4-player co-op sidescroller is one of their franchises. If not, I won't have to look too hard to find a third over on that 'der 3DS.

 

[Strain42]

The fact that I absolutely love the Paper Mario titles (I admit I haven't played much of the other Mario & Luigi RPGs) but am not a big fan of the main mario series sort of hints that the games aren't the same. They vary in their gameplay, their writing and their characters.

>Nintendo made three new franchises this gen

Which 3? I'm actually confused here. Do you mean those Project Rainfall games?

No, those aren't franchises. They're stand alone titles. I'm referring to Dillon's Rolling Western, Sakura Samurai, and I think at the time I meant Pikmin (but that was last gen), but we can just say the 4-player co-op sidescroller is one of their franchises. If not, I won't have to look too hard to find a third over on that 'der 3DS.

Ah, alright...I have not heard of any of those (except Pikmin, obviously) that's probably why I was confused.