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

[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.

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

They're 3DS exclusives seeking to become new Nintendo franchises.

 

[rob_simple]

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"?

I recall hearing something about Prime being developed out-of-house, but I'm not certain. I'm not sure what side of the argument you're coming down on here, and I've not played Other M because I've only heard bad things, but I'd rather see a franchise go in a new direction and fail (Castlevania:LoS, in my opinion) than just keep repeating itself into stagnation (most every 2D Castlevania since SotN).

The weird thing is Nintendo somehow manages to do both these things: taking a well-known franchise in a new direction and succeeding then repeating it into stagnation.

The original Super Mario Bros. has had more sequels and re-releases than I can count, but then there's also...
The Kart series (seven times)
The Party series (NINE times)
The Tennis series (seven times)
The Golf series (four times)
The Paper series (four times)

Those are just the series I can think of at the moment, but I know there's more. And I've played enough of those games to know that most of them don't differentiate themselves enough to justify having that many sequels.

Honestly, looking at those figures alone I cannot for the life of me fathom how anyone can say Nintendo don't rehash their IP with a straight face.

 

[Aprilgold]

*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)

My point flew over your head 100%

Also, Cave Story had a port to the 3DS called Cave Story 3D, go figure. Portal is the same as half life is also wrong. Dues Ex is completely subjective.

Alright, my point was very simple, he says Mario is always the same, and as such his train of though is very simple "Because Nintendo made a sequel all of the sequels to that game are the same. He also had a point to do with "If a game is ever re-released then it is bad" which is just incorrect.

All of the games I listed have been either released on more then one platform, or to a mobile device at some time, all of these games are worth sinking your time into in one fashion or another. Honestly, he just hates Nintendo for hating Nintendo, a large portion of games we own have sequels or have been re-released. If re-releasing a game = bad then thats about 70% of gaming right there.

 

[rob_simple]

All of the games I listed have been either released on more then one platform, or to a mobile device at some time, all of these games are worth sinking your time into in one fashion or another. Honestly, he just hates Nintendo for hating Nintendo, a large portion of games we own have sequels or have been re-released. If re-releasing a game = bad then thats about 70% of gaming right there.

There's a difference between porting a game to other consoles to reach a wider audience, and re-releasing a game that's over twenty years old and pretending it's something new and amazing because now it's in 3D and you can have a four-player game and then charging full retail price for that.

Going through the list of games with sequels you provided, only a few are valid examples to challenge my own point, because none of them even come close to matching Nintendo in the numbers department.

Look at my post above yours, you'll find that Nintendo don't just release sequels; they release volumes of sequels, of all their franchises and their spin-offs at a rate unmatched by any other company except maybe Square-Enix.

And since I'll assume you're referring to me, I never once said I hate Nintendo, in fact several times I've clarified that I enjoy their games, but that doesn't mean I want to have the same experience seven or nine times in a row.

 

[DioWallachia]

SNIP

Ok, then both of you need to get clear what constitutes a good sequel, right? i think he wont have any problem with the Mario games if they only stick to release a new game instead of milking the ones that exist before move on. Instead of something like he said...

The original Super Mario Bros. has had more sequels and re-releases than I can count, but then there's also...
The Kart series (seven times)
The Party series (NINE times)
The Tennis series (seven times)
The Golf series (four times)
The Paper series (four times)

If there was only one of each then i am sure that it wont be a problem. But people want more games of x formula, so it would be nice to know what HE was expecting to be innovated on the sequels.

 

[rob_simple]

SNIP

Ok, then both of you need to get clear what constitutes a good sequel, right? i think he wont have any problem with the Mario games if they only stick to release a new game instead of milking the ones that exist before move on. Instead of something like he said...

The original Super Mario Bros. has had more sequels and re-releases than I can count, but then there's also...
The Kart series (seven times)
The Party series (NINE times)
The Tennis series (seven times)
The Golf series (four times)
The Paper series (four times)

If there was only one of each then i am sure that it wont be a problem. But people want more games of x formula, so it would be nice to know what HE was expecting to be innovated on the sequels.

I wasn't expecting anything to be innovated in the sequels --and it's not their quality I'm doubting-- my point is I wasn't expecting there to be that many damn sequels in the first place.

Let me flip this around for you: A lot of people keep saying 'we want more of X! We don't care if it's only a little different because it's what we like!' but what about the people who know Nintendo are capable of making great games, but want to see them releasing fun, new series with an entirely different cast of characters in a world we've never seen before where nothing is familiar, instead of Mario Kart 17 or Legend of Zelda: Quest for Link to Find a New Agent Because He's Become More Typecast than Danny Trejo?

In between the thirty odd sequels I listed up there, Nintendo only released a couple of games that strayed from their original formula (Luigi's Mansion, Metroid Prime; even that had two sequels) and two I can think of that were completely new IP (Animal Crossing, Pikmin).

There's nothing wrong with familiarity, but when you begin favouring that over new ideas then I'd say as a company you're stagnating, and you definitely don't have the right to call out other game developers for resting on their laurels or flooding the market with shovelware.