Topic: Should Nintendo bring out sequels more frequently???

I was talking about the original Majora's Mask on the N64. Even though it used the same graphics engine and the same combat mechanics, it had a unique story, new dungeons, the time factor, and other completely different, gameplay-changing elements added in. As far as I'm concerned, Ocarina of Time is a completely different game.

Humongous exaggeration, as 3D World does nothing to further the gameplay. It's a baby step at best. Better examples of a good sequel are 64 -> Sunshine -> Galaxy or Metroid Prime -> Metroid Prime 2 -> Metroid Prime 3.

For that matter, I disagree that a sequel needs to be "night and day better". It just needs to improve over its predecessor in some way.

N64 isn't a very relevant example, as their development habits were very different back then. Game development is longer and more expensive now, so it would be harder to have multiple unique games in that timeframe.

Technically speaking the OP's complaint toward Assissan's Creed and Call of duty doesn't make sense and is marrerd by his/her own baisis. If you follow the development cycles you'd know that both games are on a three year development cycle which is the norm for most games. We won't see the next games From the Advanced Warfare and Unity squads until 2017.

But more sequels wouldn't help Nintendo unless its a concept that really needs exploring. They have pretty much annualized their bigger IPs to a degree so sequels really wouldn't do much.

Ah yes, the "too many sequels Vs not enough sequels" epiphany.
Look, I'm fine with a sequel as long as its being made because the developers wanted to and they had enough ideas to make a new game, which seems to be Nintendo's angle anyway.
The Mario franchise has a crap ton of games, but you can tell most have a sort of idea behind it that drove the entire development and design process.Sunshine isn't just 64 2, by bringing in F.L.O.O.D. they essentially ended up making a new game entirely. You can tell the game was designed around using Flood while also expanding (and in some cases, streamlining) the main game of Super Mario 64. In the same way, Wind Waker is pretty much the same for Ocarina of Time. By adding one new idea and designing the game around it, the core game changes drastically.
That be said though, no amount of difference is going to mean anything if people are tired of Mario's face every year, Problem is: make the face different and the game won't sell nearly as well. I'd hate to be a pessimist, but this is looking to be Splatoon's fate. No brand familiarity, alongside Nintendo's quite frankly terrible marketing department is dooming this game to low sales, if Bayonetta 2, Wonderful 101, and the Wii U's original (some may argue this is still true in someway) terrible sales are any indication.
Don't get me wrong, I want new ideas. However from a business stand point, new IPs are a risky endeavor.

I think Splatoon will do much better than Bayonetta 2 and Wonderful 101. I have been following Nintendo very closely since the 3DS release, and no new IP has caught my eye like Splatoon did. I don't know if they've managed to engage people outside the Nintendo community, but most Nintendo fans seems to be looking forward to the game. I honestly didn't recall Bayonetta 2 being released, and Wonderful 101 is just one of those games that never intrigued me. I tried the demo, didn't like it. Of course, this is just from my perspective, and I don't have a broad perspective on gaming.

Twilight Princess was released on the Wii first. It makes more sense to say that the GameCube only had one Zelda game (although there was FSA as well), and the Wii had two; TP and SS.

More than a baby step, as most people don't factor in the development in HD that Nintendo had to learn, and learn the hard way. That shouldn't be downplayed, even if 3D World isn't as mind blowing as the Galaxy games.

I would say that the average franchise should have no more than 1 sequel every 5 years... or 1 sequel every gaming generation. This applies separately for console and handheld differences. For example, Animal Crossing should be on the Wii once and the DS once, but no more than that. For LoZ, that cap should be two unless it's a spin-off. (remakes seem like they count as 0.5 of a sequel) For Mario games, which have a million different types, should be dependent on what it is. 2D Super Mario should appear once for each system, and 3D Super Mario should appear once or twice. Mario RPGs should appear once or twice per system. I personally feel like 3D Super Mario games should appear twice on consoles whilst Mario RPGs should appear twice on handhelds.

A sequel really depends on the game no. I don't see a Mario Kart 9 happening anytime soon because frankly there isn't much more that could be done to the current game that can't be an expansion or add-on content. However a new F-zero or a Smash Kart would probably be worth choosing.

As for 3D world, I think there's room for a Mario game in the vain of the mainline 3D games. Something that's more of a single player affair.

Eh the Mario Kart team had to learn the hard way as well and Mario Kart 8 is a far more interesting looking game than 3D World is. I'd kill for a Mario game in that artsyle.

I don't think saying Nintendo had to learn the hardway that HD development was hard and costly is a good excuse. Nintendo ignored HD development for the Wii because they didn't think that the technology would have become as widespread as fast as it did. (06-07 had a ton of HD TV's enter the Market. Any comptent company seeing the adoption rate of the technology and watching its competitors develop games for it would have internal 3&D going on the familiarize their developer base with the cost and extra time that HD needed. The fact that after six years Nintendo had been caught off guard and suffered major delays and monetum killing says a lot but what type of company they are and failures with the leadership. But I guess that's a conversation for another time

So, you want more sequels, but not yearly sequels? Reasoning?

Nintendo's current approach with sequels is different from what it used to be though. Back in 5th, 6th, and early 7th gen, they worked like that. But nowadays? It seems like most of the sequels are just quota-fillers with no new ideas. Mario games nowadays feel less like they're putting forth new ideas to drive new games and more like they just want a Mario game on Wii U. It's more of the CoD or AC approach, they're just new games for the sake of being new games.

Also, I think Splatoon has a better chance of succeeding considering it's gotten more hype and promotion than The Wonderful 101 or Bayonetta. I don't expect it to sell tremendously, but I do think it'll sell around a millionish.

And what was the result of that HD development? Slightly prettier graphics. This isn't elementary school, we don't just give out an A for effort. We care about results. And whatever improvements they added to 3D World amounted to almost nothing.

There are games that I like to see more or built upon, yet with DLC being the way it is I think the need for yearly full sequels has sort of gone away.

I did not know that. I suppose that's fair.

Fair enough, but wouldn't it be possible for Nintendo use the same graphic and physics engine on their sequel (which I wouldn't mind at all) and produce a unique game in the 2 or so years that are left of the console? I know it takes longer nowadays, but it's worth considering.

Either way, I still prefer quality over quantity.

3D World works properly. Can be played at pace like a platformer should be due to the better frame rate.

And it never gets boring

3D Land is slow and everything looks and feels the same.

3D World is night and day better I stand by my statement.

Sure, let's praise every game that's functional. Because it's not like there's other factors involved like fun or anything.

I've never really noticed. I'm more worried about the new games rehashing the same formula ad nauseum.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA No.

The latter half of that statement is true of every Mario game after Galaxy.

Frame rate isn't a night and day difference unless it's terrible (like, around 30 it starts to become less noticeable).

If 30-60 makes no difference you are not playing platformers properly.

If you are playing 3D World at snails pace I can imagine it would be boring.

10 mins - 5 characters - 5 total different levels - never boring.

It's what they always do, adopt technology late to save money. I don't know why people even accuse them of being late to the game anymore...it's their company philosophy, and it works, to be honest. They just go through what everyone else goes through later, and look inept to some people. It's not really that, it's just that they choose to delay the adoption of high end technology until it is more affordable, and widely spread. They ultimately chose the correct path, whether you want to argue sales or not, and not directly compete with Sony, or Microsoft. Completely different audiences.

Lemme let you in on a little secret: I tend not to notice subtle differences in graphics and processing without a side by side comparison. There hasn't been a significant step in graphics since 6th gen, everything past then has been fairly incremental and mainly just adds detail.

High on content =/= fun

Well they've kinda got this thing going where they alternate between portable, non-portable, remakes and new. I think that's kinda working pretty well because we are getting regular games (almost one a year now) but they're always something different. So if you ask me I reckon the Next Zelda should be something like a new portable Zelda for the launch of the 3DS' true successor in late 2016/early 2017