Nintendo's games being always the same

[asacatman]

Yahtzee and many other commenters on this forumn always say that Nintendo always just rehashes the same mario zelda and metroid titles and the 'dumb fanboys' just eat it up, allowing Nintendo to continue making huge amounts of money with little work.

Really?

I don't see where this is coming from. Take Metroid as an example. NES metroid -> Super Metroid -> Prime trilogy. Every game was completly different from before (well, not Prime 2 and 3, but they were part of a series, so I can forgive them being mostly the same)

What about Zelda? NES Zelda -> Lttp -> Oot -> Majora's Mask -> Wind waker. Every game I just listed has had major alterations from the previous ones. Twilight Princess was perhaps a return to tradional Zelda, but then Skyward Sword is frankly quite a big change up. New controls, new weapons, new villians, new, less open world style.

Finally Mario. In this regard I feel Nintendo probably should change something. Exactly the same story and music and art style tends to get put out in every game. But even so, I don't think you can argue that Galaxy is different to sunshine is different to 64. They're just not the same game.
Of course NSMB ds and NSMB wii look a lot like old games (even if they do have their own little innovations) but then it's been 20 years since Super Mario world, is that not long enough to make it seem at least a little bit fresh?

They all have some basic similarities, icons of the series that make them part of the same universe and give the player something familiar to grasp onto, but that's before normally completely changing the gameplay. To be honest, they change it up a lot more than most modern sequels do, although I'll admit modern series haven't been running as long as the Nintendo franchises. Nintendo doesn't even keep exactly the same teams making these games as well, as you might be aware of what with the recent deperture of Shigeru Myamoto (well, sort of departure anyway.)

Finally I don't buy the argument that 'the only reason people are playing these games is nostalgia' As a 16 year old kid who never grew up with a NES, SNES, or even N64, I still really enjoyed Twillight Princess and Mario Galaxy when they came out. They're just good games. A lot of my 'video game nerd' friends also got drawn to Mario and Zelda games, and talk about how great they are.

Now, I don't even play my Wii that much anymore, I prefer the PC. But I think Nintendo is being treated unfairly here, and the people saying 'they're just not as good anymore' are the ones suffering from too much nostalgia.

 

[ranger19]

Yeah, it's always tough when people say "all Mario/Zelda/[insert game series here]" games are the same. The way I see it is this: even when the changes are less noticeable, new games in each franchise tend to make incremental changes that make meaningful differences to fans. But if one is not a fan, these differences appear trivial and thus nothing seems to change.

What comes to mind for me is Halo. Reach actually changed up quite a lot with armor abilities and loadouts, and as a Halo fan those differences were huge to me and I have enjoyed them immensely. But if I were not a fan of Halo, or if I had grown tired of the series, I would still see Reach as the same core gameplay as the previous games, and see that "nothing" has changed. In your examples, even as Zelda moves to 3D, the core gameplay is still very similar.

So when people say nothing has changed, I think they're exaggerating to make their point. For me, this is true with Call of Duty. I only got MW3 because my friend did so we could play online together; despite seeing the tweaks to multiplayer, the series has grown a bit stale and I would probably say "nothing" has changed.

 

[AyreonMaiden]

This is one of the things I wish would die once and for all. Not only do I agree, OP, but what about when compared to the rest of the gaming world at large?

What other platform franchise besides Mario is successful solely on jumping on things, collecting coins for extra lives and solely living on its amazing level design?

Or what other highly successful action/adventure franchise uses the dungeon/overworld interplay, the puzzle-by-puzzle progressions and the usage of items that Zelda has?

Has Pokemon been dethroned yet as the king of monster-collecting? I wonder why the hell not, even with the ice-cream and trashbag pokemon of late...?

Minor tweaks are no "revolution" but they are certainly not "staying the same." There is a difference between tweaked simplicity and putting out the same exact game all the time.

I hate hearing people condemn things in such absolutes because who's to say they don't then turn around and are Dynasty Warriors fans, seemingly (to the outside eye) the most repetitive franchise of all time? Or X-Com fans, jilted and spurned because what they wanted was more or less old X-Com with new graphics? Or Devil May Cry fans who whined about Dante's new look and want white-hair Dante back? Or, haha, Skyrim fans who praise the game to the moon and back despite it being a polished Oblivion? If they truly are so condemning of iterative, small-tweak formulas, they'd would be more open-minded about the upcoming games I mentioned and angrier at the ones I mentioned that are already released.

I'm saying this a lot but here it is again: Every single person has a price. Everyone has their one (or many) franchise that they'd rather see die than make a truly revolutionary change, and said people should stop speaking in absolutes with this "repetition" and "originality" issue. Because change isn't always good, and sometimes iterative things aren't as broken as they seem.

 

[Snoozer]

It's really stupid how people rage against Nintendo. There are a tons of other game series from other developers that come out more often and add even fever new elements. Almost all Ps3/xBox 360 titles are now part of a series, within a single console generation. Nintendo at least takes it's time with the games. We end up with 1 or 2 titles per console generation.

 

[Racecarlock]

Or what other highly successful action/adventure franchise uses the dungeon/overworld interplay, the puzzle-by-puzzle progressions and the usage of items that Zelda has?

Oh come on. You've basically set yourself up for 2000 people to quote you going "Elder scrolls". I don't even play the series and yet I can make that connection. Hope you've got quote notifications disabled, otherwise your inbox will explode.

 

[him over there]

Or what other highly successful action/adventure franchise uses the dungeon/overworld interplay, the puzzle-by-puzzle progressions and the usage of items that Zelda has?

Oh come on. You've basically set yourself up for 2000 people to quote you going "Elder scrolls". I don't even play the series and yet I can make that connection. Hope you've got quote notifications disabled, otherwise your inbox will explode.

I don't really see the connection. The elder scrolls feels more like a traditional rpg while zelda is really more adventure oriented. Skyrim is like zelda meets shadow of the colossus with pointless numbers and stats tacked on and the emotion sucked out.

 

[isometry]

Nintendo used to challenge themselves to make games that were fun for all ages, but they went through a major change in the 3D era, they started targetting children with childish game elements. Mario and Link never needed these high-pitched "yipees", and that's why I scorn Nintendo's recent games and praise their old 2D ones, not because I'm clouded by nostalgia*.

*Another problem with the nostalgia argument is that no one ever uses it for PC games, no one says Civilization 1 (1992) or Elder Scrolls: Arena (1994) are better than the current installments of those series.

 

[AyreonMaiden]

Or what other highly successful action/adventure franchise uses the dungeon/overworld interplay, the puzzle-by-puzzle progressions and the usage of items that Zelda has?

Oh come on. You've basically set yourself up for 2000 people to quote you going "Elder scrolls". I don't even play the series and yet I can make that connection. Hope you've got quote notifications disabled, otherwise your inbox will explode.

I don't really see the connection. The elder scrolls feels more like a traditional rpg while zelda is really more adventure oriented. Skyrim is like zelda meets shadow of the colossus with pointless numbers and stats tacked on and the emotion sucked out.

This, more or less (the "emotionless" bit too, but that's my opinion only.)

When last I checked that was the consensus on TES. An RPG through and through. There's actually a thread debating whether Skyrim should have been an action/adventure instead. Stats, perks, levels, huge open world, fully customizable equipment and hero, crafting, optional lore, a myriad of quests, etc. There's a reason the upgradeable gear in Skyward Sword was called an "rpg element."

You can tell TES' meat and potatoes aren't the dungeons and how the treasures within allow you to explore places you previously couldn't...In Zelda's dungeons most, if not every room is a puzzle of some sort that serves to solve a greater overarching one on the way to the boss. I've yet to come across anything like this in TES, the closest thing being Dagoth Ur in Morrowind with Keening and Sunder. They've all been sorta cave-esque things with enemies to fight and chests along the way. Barely any puzzles to solve, no nifty special new item that'll open up a bit more of the world for me...unless Skyrim has things like that I haven't seen? I dunno, I only have 17 or so hours into that game.

 

[him over there]

Or what other highly successful action/adventure franchise uses the dungeon/overworld interplay, the puzzle-by-puzzle progressions and the usage of items that Zelda has?

Oh come on. You've basically set yourself up for 2000 people to quote you going "Elder scrolls". I don't even play the series and yet I can make that connection. Hope you've got quote notifications disabled, otherwise your inbox will explode.

I don't really see the connection. The elder scrolls feels more like a traditional rpg while zelda is really more adventure oriented. Skyrim is like zelda meets shadow of the colossus with pointless numbers and stats tacked on and the emotion sucked out.

Elder Scrolls? Traditional RPG? No parallels to Zelda as far as dungeons are concerned?

Pffffhahahaha

Really the dungeons are more linear corridors with traps and enemies and a token thinking puzzle followed by a boss in Skyrim. Zelda you go into a dungeon themed around something and receive an item that introduces a whole new mechanic that opens up totally new parts of the game followed by a boss you use the weapon to defeat. Plus zelda has one form of combat with no rpg elements to it as well as a differently set up overworld dungeon interplay. In skyrim the overworld is the whole world. Zelda it is a connector from dungeon to dungeon with things to do and characters in it to drive a story.

Nintendo used to challenge themselves to make games that were fun for all ages, but they went through a major change in the 3D era, they started targetting children with childish game elements. Mario and Link never needed these high-pitched "yipees", and that's why I scorn Nintendo's recent games and praise their old 2D ones, not because I'm clouded by nostalgia*.

*Another problem with the nostalgia argument is that no one ever uses it for PC games, no one says Civilization 1 (1992) or Elder Scrolls: Arena (1994) are better than the current installments of those series.

I don't think they should be scorned for aiming at children, it makes sense business wise. Nintendo was usually aimed at children, and instead of growing up with the original gaming generation, which I always thought was weird that the industry seemed to mature with the audience instead of just continuing on, they aimed there products at a new batch of kids instead of trying to keep the attention of an ageing fanbase. Plus it isn't like they stopped trying, with the shovelware crap uneducated mothers buy their kids at walmart at least Nintendo makes quality products regardless of maturity or target audience.

Edit: one last thing that what nintendo is doing is not rehashing (except mario galaxy 2)they are refining a formula through tweaking and experimenting. I would like to see a new franchise though, or at least Pikmin 3 please.

 

[Waaghpowa]

Yahtzee and many other commenters on this forumn always say that Nintendo always just rehashes the same mario zelda and metroid titles and the 'dumb fanboys' just eat it up, allowing Nintendo to continue making huge amounts of money with little work.

The people who say this are probably the same people who buy an EA sport game and CoD game every year using the stat balancing as justification for paying 60 dollars.

People find entertainment in different things. I get more fun out of Nintendos "rehashed" games, than I do out of the annual CoD.

 

[NickySquicky]

I'm unfortunately not a very big Nintendo gamer, out of practicality rather than preference. I wanted a Nintendo 64 for Christmas 1999, but they sold out, so my parents got us a PlayStation instead, so I never got around to playing a lot of Nintendo's big franchises like Zelda and Metroid. While I've read enough reviews to the same effect as you stated, that sequels in Nintendo franchises are often rehashes, I've always wondered why that's a bad thing in general for games.

I mean each game should offer something new to the series. Perhaps that's the problem with Assassin's Creed, that while each installment has had a few new features, the story's seemed just to be stretched out to create more releases. However, I don't see why people think the actual gameplay needs to be altered drastically. The core gaming elements for a series become somewhat trademarks of the game, so to alter it significantly would only take an unnecessary risk in damaging what wasn't broken, assuming that aspect of the game was received well before. Combat in Mass Effect 1, for instance, was kind of shitty, and so the improvements debuted in Mass Effect 2 were very welcome, even if the more realistic ammo system was a bit less science fiction-y. Assassin's Creed, however, has always had good gameplay from the melee combat to the parkour and has just had minor tweaks to make it more fluid. Now you don't always have to wait for counter kills, as you can chain kills together and feel like a badass in an action movie.

I don't remember where it was discussed, but someone mentioned that creating a new game is a huge risk to a developer, which is why it's often safer to create a sequel. The same can probably be said about the gameplay of a series. Developers might be interested in giving a fresh spin on the gameplay of Zelda, but why risk accidentally churning out something the public will hate when the usual sells like hotcakes?

 

[OldNewNewOld]

People are idiots who don't know why a series is called a series in the first place.
And Yhatzee is someone who loves to make tiny flaws look like a nuclear strike and ignores everything good at the same time.Even a masterpiece in his eyes looks like a piece of crap. Ok, he most likely does enjoy games, but being a cynic is what keeps people watching his videos. Even if he likes a game, he will be to harsh. I find this to be a bad thing because his impact on the community is a big and a good game could easily slip into the "crap" category because he exaggerated some flaws. But that's for another thread.

I love to watch his videos, but I have never bought/didn't bough a game because of him. He's more of an entertainer than a critic. Never take his critic into account when buying games.

"Nintendo lost their hardcore fanbase". BEST.FUCKING.ARGUMENT.EVER.
Makes me laugh every time.

FACT
Nintendo games have NEVER been hardcore only titles. They where always for everyone. The darkest Nintendo title would be Majora's Mask, which is all flowers and sunshine compared to other companies titles.
Nintendo makes games for everyone. Not only for children. Does someone really think that a 10yo kid would be able to solve some Zelda puzzles? Not even in their dreams. just because the aesthetics looks a bit toon-ish, but more of a watercolor painting, doesn't mean it's for children. Sex and blood aren't something that make a title more mature. That will mostly appeal to teenagers who need to some way to "prove them self being adults".

 

[BreakfastMan]

Yeah, it's always tough when people say "all Mario/Zelda/[insert game series here]" games are the same. The way I see it is this: even when the changes are less noticeable, new games in each franchise tend to make incremental changes that make meaningful differences to fans. But if one is not a fan, these differences appear trivial and thus nothing seems to change.

What comes to mind for me is Halo. Reach actually changed up quite a lot with armor abilities and loadouts, and as a Halo fan those differences were huge to me and I have enjoyed them immensely. But if I were not a fan of Halo, or if I had grown tired of the series, I would still see Reach as the same core gameplay as the previous games, and see that "nothing" has changed. In your examples, even as Zelda moves to 3D, the core gameplay is still very similar.

So when people say nothing has changed, I think they're exaggerating to make their point. For me, this is true with Call of Duty. I only got MW3 because my friend did so we could play online together; despite seeing the tweaks to multiplayer, the series has grown a bit stale and I would probably say "nothing" has changed.

Everyone, see this man here? He knows what he is talking about. I pretty much agree with all he said. The point about fans of the series seeing it differently is an important and an excellently made point.

 

[ranger19]

Everyone, see this man here? He knows what he is talking about. I pretty much agree with all he said. The point about fans of the series seeing it differently is an important and an excellently made point.

Now this guy knows how to spot a good poster.

[small]err... didn't really have much more to contribute, my OP pretty much said it all. I mean, sometimes people want 'more of the same', and that's perfectly fine, too. Being 'more of the same' isn't always have to be a bad thing.[/small]

 

[Mr. Omega]

I'm just going to repost something from another thread...

The thing about the Mario series is that it's able to experiment. To do all sorts of different things with a solid base formula. To me, that's what makes it interesting. But everyone is just willing to see "Oh lookm there's running and jumping and a princess, therefore it's all the same!"

 

[Shoggoth2588]

There are some gameplay mechanics that get reused to the point of questioning the big N. For example, while it's true that the art direction of the Zelda games is an ever-changing creature, it seems like from Link to the Past on the basic gist of the game is Link Wakes Up -> gets sword/shield -> Zelda in Danger -> gather 3 maguffins -> sword upgrade -> gather 6-8 more maguffins -> final temple -> final boss (Ganon mostly) -> all is well again in this particular world.

Zelda is the only area where I can claim enough experience to really see that the same mechanics are being used (give or take the new instrument or, console-exclusive controls). As far as Kirby goes those games all seem to bring something new to the table. The Metroid games seem to be more or less unique from one another too from what I've seen but this is someone who still has yet to play Super M.

Mario seems to be doing alright. If anything there seems to be a tradition of releasing his older games on newer hand-helds. I'm curious to see when/if we get Mario Sunshine on the 3DS to be honest.

On a final note, you seem to be forgetting Pokemon, which is the same thing EVERY TIME. The changing variables are graphics, number of Pokemon and the character names. Of course I'm just talking about the traditional color/gem Pokemon games, I'm surprised how many off-shoots Pokemon are getting into like with the Nobunaga'a Ambition thing.

 

[asacatman]

There are some gameplay mechanics that get reused to the point of questioning the big N. For example, while it's true that the art direction of the Zelda games is an ever-changing creature, it seems like from Link to the Past on the basic gist of the game is Link Wakes Up -> gets sword/shield -> Zelda in Danger -> gather 3 maguffins -> sword upgrade -> gather 6-8 more maguffins -> final temple -> final boss (Ganon mostly) -> all is well again in this particular world.

Hmm, good post, becaue I can't really think of a good rebuttal to this. What I can say is, while the same basic structure (of zelda) is perhaps the same, the elements within the structure are different enough to make each game very fresh. It's like he structure of a sonnet or something. You don't go 'oh, Shakespeare really should use more than ten lines for his sonnets, it's just getting old.' I even agree with you about that probably needing to change, but I feel it's made up for by big changes in gameplay and setting.

And Pokemeon. I was going to talk about that in the opening post, but I couldn't be bothered. Basically, you're right. The pokemon games are laughably similar, and the fanboys do eat them up. I will say that game freak is somewhat seperate from nintendo, and at least there is some change, especially in Black/White where it seems like they have tried to address the problem of 'always the same' and they added a few new things (e.g Pokémon Dream World). But yeah, you're right.

 

[LilithSlave]

Among many reasons I have little respect for the Yahtzee guy. Anyone who says things like that immediate takes a huge shot down in how much I regard their opinions. I'm also not into the "I hate everything" brand of humor.

Nintendo has iconic franchises. Of course they're not going to throw the important things about them out the window. Nintendo, does, however, do quite a bit of good variations on gameplay. Think about the amount of variety of gameplay in just the Mario series. You've got interesting and sort of unique RPGs, unique racing games that have inspired pretty much every non-realistic racer out there, and a huge, massive variety of platformers. Including ones that have planetoid gravity as a gameplay mechanic.

And I suppose this is the most derivative, uninspired gameplay ever.