What should Nintendo do?

[EyeReaper]

What people want is the same but different. They have to change up level design, game play mechanics, and exploration in such a way to make the series feel fresh, but familiar. They can't go too far and change things completely and make it unrecognizable, and they can't stay put and change nothing. There needs to be a balance between the two.

Exactly correct here. This is how existing IPs need to be treated.

Use new IPs to introduce the drastically different mechanics unless they make particularly good sense with existing IPs. Otherwise you run significant risks of alienating your existing fanbase while failing to attract new ones who weren't attracted by the original IP.

I'm not sure I can agree with this. I mean, look at the Mario RPGs, Or Mega Man Battle Network. Or hell, even World of Warcraft. All of them Drastically different, all of them range from pretty good (WoW) to Top Ten Worthy (Thousand Year Door) and they all came about from taking a pre-existing franchise and doing some radical changes to the series.

And, honestly, I don't see a problem with Samus not being playable in Federation Force. I mean, she's basically a Sci-fi lady Link. Minimal personality, minimal speaking, you don't connect or relate to her, she's just the playable avatar. When they tried to change that, well, Other M happened. Hell, If the rando guys you play as look, act, and have the same power-ups as Sam, then does it matter all that much? Especially in a first person game.

 

[Nazulu]

And, honestly, I don't see a problem with Samus not being playable in Federation Force. I mean, she's basically a Sci-fi lady Link. Minimal personality, minimal speaking, you don't connect or relate to her, she's just the playable avatar. When they tried to change that, well, Other M happened. Hell, If the rando guys you play as look, act, and have the same power-ups as Sam, then does it matter all that much? Especially in a first person game.

The problem is you forgot that Samus has abilities uniquely her own, and we want to use them again in the special detailed atmospheric stages/worlds. Also, you can connect to characters that don't have much of a personality, whether it's through their other quality's or using them as an avatar, it's an entertaining idea.

 

[Luminous_Umbra]

What people want is the same but different. They have to change up level design, game play mechanics, and exploration in such a way to make the series feel fresh, but familiar. They can't go too far and change things completely and make it unrecognizable, and they can't stay put and change nothing. There needs to be a balance between the two.

Exactly correct here. This is how existing IPs need to be treated.

Use new IPs to introduce the drastically different mechanics unless they make particularly good sense with existing IPs. Otherwise you run significant risks of alienating your existing fanbase while failing to attract new ones who weren't attracted by the original IP.

I'm not sure I can agree with this. I mean, look at the Mario RPGs, Or Mega Man Battle Network. Or hell, even World of Warcraft. All of them Drastically different, all of them range from pretty good (WoW) to Top Ten Worthy (Thousand Year Door) and they all came about from taking a pre-existing franchise and doing some radical changes to the series.

And, honestly, I don't see a problem with Samus not being playable in Federation Force. I mean, she's basically a Sci-fi lady Link. Minimal personality, minimal speaking, you don't connect or relate to her, she's just the playable avatar. When they tried to change that, well, Other M happened. Hell, If the rando guys you play as look, act, and have the same power-ups as Sam, then does it matter all that much? Especially in a first person game.

Exactly right. Drastically different spin offs can be done well and can lead to very interesting games. Heck, the mentioned Battle Network series is a alternate timeline from the original series and was honestly pretty good (Minus BN4...shudder).

 

[Something Amyss]

There was a time when I could appreciate Nintendo's changes in form, even when I didn't necessarily like them. I don't like 3D Zeldas, but I can get why they did it. I do like the 3D Marios, and the switch absolutely made sense. I get why they changed Metroid to a First Person Action game in the Prime series. All of these were brought on by changes in technology, additions of genres previously not done, or both.

FF? I don't get it. Instead of giving us something new or something they've done before, they're giving us...what looks like a reskined F2P game. Why? What's the end game here? It looks like a cynical move. Maybe I'm wrong and they think this is some brilliant "innovation," but I doubt it.

Personally, I'm fine with Nintendo giving traditional games a new coat of paint. Give me my Pokémon fix, and I'm a happy nerd. But it's not the advances that I have a problem with.

Oh, and I also don't really care about Metroid: F2P Farce. I just won't buy it. Nor would I buy a first person Metroid. ButI'm not angry. Just snarky.

And, honestly, I don't see a problem with Samus not being playable in Federation Force. I mean, she's basically a Sci-fi lady Link. Minimal personality, minimal speaking, you don't connect or relate to her, she's just the playable avatar. When they tried to change that, well, Other M happened. Hell, If the rando guys you play as look, act, and have the same power-ups as Sam, then does it matter all that much? Especially in a first person game.

Other M happened in part because we've pent 30 years imprinting our own ideas or personalities on Samus. Link is one of the most popular characters in gaming, and there are a lot of different ideas about who he is because he's "me." Or whoever we want him to be. We had such an idea of Samus in our minds that there would have been a deal of backlash no matter how she was voiced or written.

It doesn't hurt that it was lame, but still.

 

[Lightknight]

What people want is the same but different. They have to change up level design, game play mechanics, and exploration in such a way to make the series feel fresh, but familiar. They can't go too far and change things completely and make it unrecognizable, and they can't stay put and change nothing. There needs to be a balance between the two.

Exactly correct here. This is how existing IPs need to be treated.

Use new IPs to introduce the drastically different mechanics unless they make particularly good sense with existing IPs. Otherwise you run significant risks of alienating your existing fanbase while failing to attract new ones who weren't attracted by the original IP.

I'm not sure I can agree with this. I mean, look at the Mario RPGs, Or Mega Man Battle Network. Or hell, even World of Warcraft. All of them Drastically different, all of them range from pretty good (WoW) to Top Ten Worthy (Thousand Year Door) and they all came about from taking a pre-existing franchise and doing some radical changes to the series.

I didn't say they should never do it. But Nintendo tries to ALWAYS do this. They do it far too much and as such have lost the opportunity to have new brands over the past couple decades. They average about 1 IP per ten years at the moment compared with the 80's and early 90's where they exploded with new things.

Other companies have entirely broken past Nintendo here. They are being left behind.

Can they make a Mario RPG or something like that? Sure. But make it an exception rather than the rule. Otherwise you're just weakening your brand and cannibalizing your IP range.

 

[TelHybrid]

Maybe they should sell out and make Call of Duty clones to try and get more sales.

Sales = quality right?