I disagree with Mario being stagnant, haven't played Tropical Freeze so can't talk about DK. 3D World was pretty fun and in my opinion, innovative. I really enjoyed the way 3D World made me think about platforming in a different way compared to the Galaxy platforming. DK looks pretty cool with the different characters that allow you to solve puzzles in different ways.
NSMBU and NSMB2 may be stagnant but not all Mario.
I'm not seeing it. You still have the same exact moves, there's no new gameplay mechanic to mix things up, the only things that really change between games are powerups and other gimmicks, and those don't really change much gameplay wise. As for DK, the only things Returns and Tropical Freeze have done that the Classics haven't are the ability to grab walls and ceilings and made Cranky playable. That's basically it, everything else is same old, same old. I wouldn't call any of that innovative by any means, and I wouldn't say they really justify an entire sequel.
We're talking about one of the most popular game series of all time. They have to retain many of the characteristics that make it Mario because Mario is awesome and well loved, the innovation in Mario is astonishing given it's tradition and popularity. Look at COD or EA sports games, they never change much and they come out every year, with good reason too because people are (IMO often foolishly) willing to buy them.
Nintendo has been going out of its way to shake things up lately. Especially given what we were shown at E3 2014. Splatoon is a new I.P. in a genre Nintendo has never touched, as far as I am aware (the competitive shooter). Mario Maker, while based on an old I.P., is a completely new creativity tool. Games like the new Star Fox will be experimenting with ways to fulfill the promise of the GamePad. S.T.E.A.M. is a unique turn-based strategy game with a steampunk setting and an aesthetic reminiscent of American comic books.
Also, there has been huge experimentation with the Zelda franchise. A Link Between Worlds is the most unconventional Zelda game in years, as it changes major facets of how the player is able to progress through the game world, making it more non-linear. The new Zelda coming out for Wii U is supposed to be an open-world game, which is HUGE, and might be one of the riskiest moves Nintendo ever pulls off if it follows through on that promise. Heck, even Paper Mario: Sticker Star was more innovative than past games. I consider that a failed experiment, but it did try to do different things than the previous games in the series.
For a company that has been so conservative for so long, it seems like they're finally willing to take some risks again.
I disagree with Mario being stagnant, haven't played Tropical Freeze so can't talk about DK. 3D World was pretty fun and in my opinion, innovative. I really enjoyed the way 3D World made me think about platforming in a different way compared to the Galaxy platforming. DK looks pretty cool with the different characters that allow you to solve puzzles in different ways.
NSMBU and NSMB2 may be stagnant but not all Mario.
I'm not seeing it. You still have the same exact moves, there's no new gameplay mechanic to mix things up, the only things that really change between games are powerups and other gimmicks, and those don't really change much gameplay wise. As for DK, the only things Returns and Tropical Freeze have done that the Classics haven't are the ability to grab walls and ceilings and made Cranky playable. That's basically it, everything else is same old, same old. I wouldn't call any of that innovative by any means, and I wouldn't say they really justify an entire sequel.
We're talking about one of the most popular game series of all time. They have to retain many of the characteristics that make it Mario because Mario is awesome and well loved, the innovation in Mario is astonishing given it's tradition and popularity. Look at COD or EA sports games, they never change much and they come out every year, with good reason too because people are (IMO often foolishly) willing to buy them.
Why do people always assume that innovation means throwing everything about the series out the window?
Also, don't even compare Nintendo games to the likes of CoD and EA.
I don't how often its mentioned, but apparently gamers want more of the same. Pikmin 3 brought a lot to the table, but I still liked the concepts of Pikmin 2 better. This is just one example, but I'm sure there are many more where people would rather have another standard Zelda than a weirdo remix Zelda with completely different controls and playstyle. People that liked, say, Twilight Princess are going to want more games like Twilight Princess, but polished better, of course, and with a differnt story/locations.
I would have never guessed Weezing was so useful until I played a HeartGold Nuzlocke! My YouTube Channel! Video game related, of course! My Pushmo Levels
3DS Friend Code: 2836-0589-3371 | Nintendo Network ID: MasterWario
I disagree with Mario being stagnant, haven't played Tropical Freeze so can't talk about DK. 3D World was pretty fun and in my opinion, innovative. I really enjoyed the way 3D World made me think about platforming in a different way compared to the Galaxy platforming. DK looks pretty cool with the different characters that allow you to solve puzzles in different ways.
NSMBU and NSMB2 may be stagnant but not all Mario.
I'm not seeing it. You still have the same exact moves, there's no new gameplay mechanic to mix things up, the only things that really change between games are powerups and other gimmicks, and those don't really change much gameplay wise. As for DK, the only things Returns and Tropical Freeze have done that the Classics haven't are the ability to grab walls and ceilings and made Cranky playable. That's basically it, everything else is same old, same old. I wouldn't call any of that innovative by any means, and I wouldn't say they really justify an entire sequel.
We're talking about one of the most popular game series of all time. They have to retain many of the characteristics that make it Mario because Mario is awesome and well loved, the innovation in Mario is astonishing given it's tradition and popularity. Look at COD or EA sports games, they never change much and they come out every year, with good reason too because people are (IMO often foolishly) willing to buy them.
Why do people always assume that innovation means throwing everything about the series out the window?
Also, don't even compare Nintendo games to the likes of CoD and EA.
You are greatly confused, i'm saying Mario is not like COD in that it innovates. Did you even read what i wrote? I know it was a little vague but i'm saying that Mario does an excellent job of pushing boundries while still retaining a similar feel to previous games. That's a good thing. COD on the other hand is a fresh coat of paint more than anything.
Nah, the Wii was a fluke IMO, they got lucky it was trendy within popular culture for a couple of years, but ultimately it failed to have staying power,......motions controls were a mistake,......keeping the Wii underpowered was a mistake,......and the pivot towards casuals was a mistake.
I guess if you grew up during the Wii years you may think differently,........I enjoy most of the Nintendo published content for the 3DS, it feels like console titles from the early 2000's.
I grew up with the Nintendo of the SNES era and I still think the Wii era Nintendo was more innovative than the GC and especially the N64 era. If you look at just the "core" titles and ignore the portables? It's maybe 50:50 and you could argue that the GC had more stuff. But overall? I don't know, IMO the stuff they were doing on Wii and DS nobody else even thought of doing.
Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"
I disagree with Mario being stagnant, haven't played Tropical Freeze so can't talk about DK. 3D World was pretty fun and in my opinion, innovative. I really enjoyed the way 3D World made me think about platforming in a different way compared to the Galaxy platforming. DK looks pretty cool with the different characters that allow you to solve puzzles in different ways.
NSMBU and NSMB2 may be stagnant but not all Mario.
I'm not seeing it. You still have the same exact moves, there's no new gameplay mechanic to mix things up, the only things that really change between games are powerups and other gimmicks, and those don't really change much gameplay wise. As for DK, the only things Returns and Tropical Freeze have done that the Classics haven't are the ability to grab walls and ceilings and made Cranky playable. That's basically it, everything else is same old, same old. I wouldn't call any of that innovative by any means, and I wouldn't say they really justify an entire sequel.
We're talking about one of the most popular game series of all time. They have to retain many of the characteristics that make it Mario because Mario is awesome and well loved, the innovation in Mario is astonishing given it's tradition and popularity. Look at COD or EA sports games, they never change much and they come out every year, with good reason too because people are (IMO often foolishly) willing to buy them.
Why do people always assume that innovation means throwing everything about the series out the window?
Also, don't even compare Nintendo games to the likes of CoD and EA.
You are greatly confused, i'm saying Mario is not like COD in that it innovates. Did you even read what i wrote? I know it was a little vague but i'm saying that Mario does an excellent job of pushing boundries while still retaining a similar feel to previous games. That's a good thing. COD on the other hand is a fresh coat of paint more than anything.
Mario definitely does not push boundaries, that would require it to do more than just add in new powerups and random gimmicks.
Dude lost all credibility when talking "innovation" when he said that the DKCR games added nothing new to the mix. Now they're nowhere near as creative as Mario has been IMO but even the DKCR games added quite a bit. The original games didn't have, and for good reason, the changing of perspective. They didn't have the silhouetted stages or the environmental secrets. They didn't have the rocket stages and they didn't have DK and Diddy on the screen at the same time. Those games do take a lot from the originals and they're a good 80% nostalgia machine... but they're not "the same thing".
Same with the new Mario games. If you looked purely at the New SMB series? Then yes. They haven't done much new at all in that series at any point. The most novel thing they did and the last real creative moment was in the first one on DS. Mega mushrooms and the 2 player competitive mode. That's it. But Galaxy? 3D Land? 3D World? Sunshine? Galaxy in particular did stuff that I don't think I've seen in any other game before or since. 3D Land on the other end of the spectrum maybe less so but even that was the first 3D platformer I'd played which was "snack sized" while still being interesting.
If people are going to whine about a lack of innovation? They better start explaining why they think it rather than just asserting "because all Marios are the same"
Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"
Dude lost all credibility when talking "innovation" when he said that the DKCR games added nothing new to the mix. Now they're nowhere near as creative as Mario has been IMO but even the DKCR games added quite a bit. The original games didn't have, and for good reason, the changing of perspective. They didn't have the silhouetted stages or the environmental secrets. They didn't have the rocket stages and they didn't have DK and Diddy on the screen at the same time. Those games do take a lot from the originals and they're a good 80% nostalgia machine... but they're not "the same thing".
Those things are so insignificant that they may as well be. Silhouettes and rocket stages are gimmicks that only show up for a handful of levels. They don't really improve the game as a whole, just whatever stages they show up in. As for "environmental secrets", you're talking about things like using branches to hide secret areas, yes? Those are a good way to hide collectibles, but that's about it. It doesn't really affect the main gameplay in any way.
But Galaxy? 3D Land? 3D World? Sunshine? Galaxy in particular did stuff that I don't think I've seen in any other game before or since. 3D Land on the other end of the spectrum maybe less so but even that was the first 3D platformer I'd played which was "snack sized" while still being interesting.
I meant all Mario games after Galaxy. So that includes both NSMB and the 3D series. Anyone who says Sunshine or Galaxy adds nothing new to the mix is certainly crazy, the changes in those games pretty much pop out at you. But NSMB and 3D? Not so much. There's no real twist on the core gameplay, it's just the standard run and jumping stuff that we see in every Mario game. They just layer gimmicks on top of that formula, they don't make any actual improvements (except for the powerups, which I would put in the "gimmick" category because not a lot of levels really utilize them).
It is only innovation when nobody has done it before. It is extremely rare that incremental improvements are innovative.
That's not quite how I'd put it because some things that have been done before can still be innovative (I can't really think of a good example off the top of my head though). But I agree that incremental improvements aren't really innovative, innovation is more large scale, groundbreaking and easily demonstrable, usually something you can put on the back of the box or show off in the first gameplay trailer. Regardless of whether or not you call the changes in NSMB or 3D "worth it", I don't think you can really argue that they're innovative because they don't change your approach to the gameplay, you just play those games the same way that you would any other Mario game.
3D World definitely changed the way I will play play Mario games in the future. Innovation doesn't have to be on a large scale, in my opinion. Innovation just can't be small tweaks to the gameplay, it has to bring something new. You may consider power-ups to be gimmicks but I don't, especially when it comes to the cat suit. The cat suit broke down the boundaries in 3D world and brought a new element of exploration
People keep saying the Xbox One doesn't have Backwards Compatibility.
I don't think they know what Backwards Compatibility means...
3DS Friend Code: 2621-2786-9784 | Nintendo Network ID: DefHalan
3D World definitely changed the way I will play play Mario games in the future. Innovation doesn't have to be on a large scale, in my opinion. Innovation just can't be small tweaks to the gameplay, it has to bring something new. You may consider power-ups to be gimmicks but I don't, especially when it comes to the cat suit. The cat suit broke down the boundaries in 3D world and brought a new element of exploration
Fair enough then. I really think the next Mario game needs to do something more though, having the same core formula with new powerups is starting to get pretty repetitive.
Say, I just remembered something. Remember in the NSMB beta how enemies could steal powerups? That would be more along the lines of what I'd be looking for. Because then you have to rethink how you would use powerups, they wouldn't just be random items that float around waiting for you to grab them, there'd be a bit more pressure in having to pick them up or else you would have to fight tougher enemies. They could also implement risk/reward scenarios with this as well, for instance they could have "Green" powerups which glow green to indicate that they hold a Green Star, and if you pick them up yourself you can't get the Green Star, but if you let an enemy pick it up and defeat it while powered up, you get the Green Star. This would also make you rethink how powerups are used in the first place, you have to be smart about not just when you pick it up, but who picks it up.
Co-op has been in a lot of Mario games recently, I wouldn't mind if they made co-op focused levels (or an entire game) like how Portal 2 has a whole co-op campaign. I think they could do some interesting things with their power-ups and gameplay... just an idea
People keep saying the Xbox One doesn't have Backwards Compatibility.
I don't think they know what Backwards Compatibility means...
3DS Friend Code: 2621-2786-9784 | Nintendo Network ID: DefHalan
I disagree with Mario being stagnant, haven't played Tropical Freeze so can't talk about DK. 3D World was pretty fun and in my opinion, innovative. I really enjoyed the way 3D World made me think about platforming in a different way compared to the Galaxy platforming. DK looks pretty cool with the different characters that allow you to solve puzzles in different ways.
NSMBU and NSMB2 may be stagnant but not all Mario.
I'm not seeing it. You still have the same exact moves, there's no new gameplay mechanic to mix things up, the only things that really change between games are powerups and other gimmicks, and those don't really change much gameplay wise. As for DK, the only things Returns and Tropical Freeze have done that the Classics haven't are the ability to grab walls and ceilings and made Cranky playable. That's basically it, everything else is same old, same old. I wouldn't call any of that innovative by any means, and I wouldn't say they really justify an entire sequel.
We're talking about one of the most popular game series of all time. They have to retain many of the characteristics that make it Mario because Mario is awesome and well loved, the innovation in Mario is astonishing given it's tradition and popularity. Look at COD or EA sports games, they never change much and they come out every year, with good reason too because people are (IMO often foolishly) willing to buy them.
Why do people always assume that innovation means throwing everything about the series out the window?
Also, don't even compare Nintendo games to the likes of CoD and EA.
You are greatly confused, i'm saying Mario is not like COD in that it innovates. Did you even read what i wrote? I know it was a little vague but i'm saying that Mario does an excellent job of pushing boundries while still retaining a similar feel to previous games. That's a good thing. COD on the other hand is a fresh coat of paint more than anything.
Mario definitely does not push boundaries, that would require it to do more than just add in new powerups and random gimmicks.
Do you not understand that Nintendo wants to make money and the people willing to give them money want Mario games? 3D World was a game i've never played before with stages (like the running platform ones) that were unique. They aren't going to toss the baby out with the bath water. What you want is dumb. They innovate Mario more than any other extremely popular franchise gets innovated at all. You keep ignoring my main point but tell me what series of games that's anywhere near Mario in popularity actually innovates as much? Certainly nothing i can think of, God of War, Resident Evil, Mega Man, none of these franchises bring nothing overly new to the table, even the spin off series fill comfortable market niches. Sunshine-Galaxy-3D World amount to massive changes when we're talking about such a popular IP.
I disagree with Mario being stagnant, haven't played Tropical Freeze so can't talk about DK. 3D World was pretty fun and in my opinion, innovative. I really enjoyed the way 3D World made me think about platforming in a different way compared to the Galaxy platforming. DK looks pretty cool with the different characters that allow you to solve puzzles in different ways.
NSMBU and NSMB2 may be stagnant but not all Mario.
I'm not seeing it. You still have the same exact moves, there's no new gameplay mechanic to mix things up, the only things that really change between games are powerups and other gimmicks, and those don't really change much gameplay wise. As for DK, the only things Returns and Tropical Freeze have done that the Classics haven't are the ability to grab walls and ceilings and made Cranky playable. That's basically it, everything else is same old, same old. I wouldn't call any of that innovative by any means, and I wouldn't say they really justify an entire sequel.
We're talking about one of the most popular game series of all time. They have to retain many of the characteristics that make it Mario because Mario is awesome and well loved, the innovation in Mario is astonishing given it's tradition and popularity. Look at COD or EA sports games, they never change much and they come out every year, with good reason too because people are (IMO often foolishly) willing to buy them.
Why do people always assume that innovation means throwing everything about the series out the window?
Also, don't even compare Nintendo games to the likes of CoD and EA.
You are greatly confused, i'm saying Mario is not like COD in that it innovates. Did you even read what i wrote? I know it was a little vague but i'm saying that Mario does an excellent job of pushing boundries while still retaining a similar feel to previous games. That's a good thing. COD on the other hand is a fresh coat of paint more than anything.
Mario definitely does not push boundaries, that would require it to do more than just add in new powerups and random gimmicks.
Do you not understand that Nintendo wants to make money and the people willing to give them money want Mario games? 3D World was a game i've never played before with stages (like the running platform ones) that were unique. They aren't going to toss the baby out with the bath water. What you want is dumb. They innovate Mario more than any other extremely popular franchise gets innovated at all. You keep ignoring my main point but tell me what series of games that's anywhere near Mario in popularity actually innovates as much? Certainly nothing i can think of, God of War, Resident Evil, Mega Man, none of these franchises bring nothing overly new to the table, even the spin off series fill comfortable market niches. Sunshine-Galaxy-3D World amount to massive changes when we're talking about such a popular IP.
Sure they want to make money. But they also want to innovate, or so they claim. So they can't just treat Mario like a cash cow like CoD and friends if they're serious about the innovation stance. Either that or the whole "innovative" thing is just PR talk and Nintendo is making empty promises.
Those things are so insignificant that they may as well be. Silhouettes and rocket stages are gimmicks that only show up for a handful of levels. They don't really improve the game as a whole, just whatever stages they show up in. As for "environmental secrets", you're talking about things like using branches to hide secret areas, yes? Those are a good way to hide collectibles, but that's about it. It doesn't really affect the main gameplay in any way.
Or having to throw something at an object to get something from the background to come forward. Or the way that in some levels the environment is falling apart around you. They had a few levels like that in some of the DKC games but it was never as frantic. It was usually the tried and true "lava going up the screen and you have to race it". In the new ones, particularly TF, there are stages where if you don't time it right the platform will literally fall out from under you. Also in the originals you started a stage and knew where it was going to take you, in the new ones it may start in one way and then change mid-level.
They're not the most innovative games around but to put them in the same boat as New SMB? To say that they didn't do anything new at all? That's a bit too far I think.
I meant all Mario games after Galaxy. So that includes both NSMB and the 3D series. Anyone who says Sunshine or Galaxy adds nothing new to the mix is certainly crazy, the changes in those games pretty much pop out at you. But NSMB and 3D? Not so much. There's no real twist on the core gameplay, it's just the standard run and jumping stuff that we see in every Mario game. They just layer gimmicks on top of that formula, they don't make any actual improvements (except for the powerups, which I would put in the "gimmick" category because not a lot of levels really utilize them).
I said I agreed with New SMB not being an innovative title but outside of that Mario has been changing things up. Plus I think it's a bit disingenuous to be pointing to Galaxy and saying "what have they done since then". Galaxy is a monolith of innovative gameplay, any game will look like a tiny step in it's shadow. But in isolation? 3D Land is the first 3D platformer I've played that felt like a 2D platformer. I didn't once get hit by the sort of camera issues or the difficulty with jumping accuracy that you get in even Galaxy. 3D World was the first multiplayer platformer that actually worked as a cooperative game. Compared to Galaxy's spherical gravity platforming and epic boss battles? Insignificant. But what isn't? I don't think that means they've "stopped innovating" or that they have nothing left to offer.
I said I agreed with New SMB not being an innovative title but outside of that Mario has been changing things up. Plus I think it's a bit disingenuous to be pointing to Galaxy and saying "what have they done since then". Galaxy is a monolith of innovative gameplay, any game will look like a tiny step in it's shadow. But in isolation? 3D Land is the first 3D platformer I've played that felt like a 2D platformer. I didn't once get hit by the sort of camera issues or the difficulty with jumping accuracy that you get in even Galaxy. 3D World was the first multiplayer platformer that actually worked as a cooperative game. Compared to Galaxy's spherical gravity platforming and epic boss battles? Insignificant. But what isn't? I don't think that means they've "stopped innovating" or that they have nothing left to offer.
You can take Galaxy out of the equation and it would make no difference. NSMB and 3D still only offer incremental improvements either way.
Forums
Topic: Complete honestly...is Nintendo washed up?
Posts 61 to 80 of 90
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.