Depends.
Direct sequels like what Majora's Mask is to Ocarina of Time.... maybe. I'm one of those people who want another Zelda game with the Hero of Time. Metroid Prime 4 would be good too (Prime 3's 100% ending kind of left it open).
Sequels as in new additions to the series... I think a release of one new game from each series per console is a good pace. I don't want to see another Mario game on Wii U, because I think it's a waste of resources that could have gone into making something else. I think Pokemon needs to stop coming out annually. It's like Nintendo's Assassin's Creed.
Honestly, "gimmick" is just a derogatory term for feature, which people like to use to downplay the amount of thought that was probably put into it. You could really call just about anything a gimmick if you wanted. Graphics are a gimmick; open-worlding is a gimmick, overworld maps are a gimmick, etc. If you can write off everything I said about the game as gimmicks, save graphics, I'll just keep playing my gimmicks.
To me, those gimmicks made the multiplayer experience what it was.
It's a gimmick if it tries to get your attention without really doing anything. And that's exactly what they are, they're mechanics that only appear once in a blue moon and fail to offer any real value for the gameplay.
As if graphical improvements actually matter anymore.
Well whatever floats your boat. Apparently actual improvements don't count for anything to you.
FLUDD is an actual improvement. Spherical level design is an actual improvement. Level gimmicks aren't actual improvements, they're just level packs trying to disguise themselves as new features.
...it can be a subtle and important feature, an ingenous device, a novel idea...it doesn't have to be pejorative.
So yeah, those things can be considered "gimmicks." They're just the good kind of gimmicks.
Subtle is exactly the problem. Mario doesn't need subtle. He needs a big game with creative ideas on how to mix up the formula and/or represent a significant step forwards for the franchise. There have been far, FAR too many games released recently that do almost nothing for the series, which includes every NSMB and 3D game. The last game to display any true improvement for the series was Galaxy, and the series has been stagnating ever since.
FLUDD is an actual improvement. Spherical level design is an actual improvement. Level gimmicks aren't actual improvements, they're just level packs trying to disguise themselves as new features.
I fail to see how spherical level design is an improvement, but levels designed within ancient temples, locomotives, and Mario Kart levels are gimmicks. I fail to see how FLUDD is an improvement, but Captain Toad is a gimmick.
The only difference, in my eyes, is that these ideas are limited to one level each, and they don't span the length of the game. I can then see why someone would feel that these ideas aren't very deep, if Nintendo isn't willing to let the player test it out for long periods of time. But that's a much better argument than merely dismissing them as gimmicks. Personally, I like the variety, and it's a much better system for multiplayer.
Subtle is exactly the problem. Mario doesn't need subtle. He needs a big game with creative ideas on how to mix up the formula and/or represent a significant step forwards for the franchise. There have been far, FAR too many games released recently that do almost nothing for the series, which includes every NSMB and 3D game. The last game to display any true improvement for the series was Galaxy, and the series has been stagnating ever since.
I have yet to discover most mario games... but I suppose they might have run out of ideas, at least a little bit, I mean they have brought out 4 new mario bros games over the years... thats quite a lot (dont know how much they differ from each other, though). I guess it can be quite hard to come up with new ideas when most of the stuff that you could think of has already been done one way or another, and nintendo knows that as well and may not want to use old ideas in order to run the series into the ground.
Thats why I thinking about a Zelda sequel, it seems to me as if there were lots of option for zelda games, especially now that the hardware can run open world games.
I fail to see how spherical level design is an improvement, but levels designed within ancient temples, locomotives, and Mario Kart levels are gimmicks. I fail to see how FLUDD is an improvement, but Captain Toad is a gimmick.
The only difference, in my eyes, is that these ideas are limited to one level each, and they don't span the length of the game. I can then see why someone would feel that these ideas aren't very deep, if Nintendo isn't willing to let the player test it out for long periods of time. But that's a much better argument than merely dismissing them as gimmicks. Personally, I like the variety, and it's a much better system for multiplayer.
That's exactly the point. Limiting them to one level is part of what makes them gimmicks because then they don't provide any lasting improvements in the game. Once they're done, the game goes back to normal and you're left with the same generic gameplay as anything else. The other part of it is that they have to significantly change the gameplay. For instance, powerups tend not to come into play unless they're associated with a specific level either, so there's no real lasting improvement on that front either when they introduce a new powerup. FLUDD and spherical level design have a greater effect on the gameplay, FLUDD enhances the platforming and is useful for a wide variety of other situations and the antigravity allows for entirely new types of level design. Nothing that NSMB or 3D has come up with has even come close to that level of usefulness.
Subtle is exactly the problem. Mario doesn't need subtle. He needs a big game with creative ideas on how to mix up the formula and/or represent a significant step forwards for the franchise. There have been far, FAR too many games released recently that do almost nothing for the series, which includes every NSMB and 3D game. The last game to display any true improvement for the series was Galaxy, and the series has been stagnating ever since.
I get where you're coming from, but I love Super Mario 3D World. It is the most fun I've had with a main Mario title since 64. To me Galaxy is just an inferior 64 which lands somewhere in-between 3D World and 64 in terms of how it "plays". If I like a good Mario platformer with challenges from a-z I want 3D World, if I want a collectathon feel I play 64. The most interesting thing for me when a new Mario game comes out are new levels that are somewhat innovative, and I recall playing the first level of 3D World and thinking "wow, this is new!". So I get you, and I am inclined to agree that the Mario franchise has staggered, but I still think 3D World is the best game in the franchise since 64 (excluding Sunshine, since I never played it).
I think Nintendo should release sequels more frequently. They need to drop the 'everything needs a new mechanic' mindset and start accepting that content itself is a selling point. For many people, Mario exploring interesting new locations or meeting interesting new characters or fighting new bosses... that is a selling point in its own right.
And that kind of new, meaningful content could be added for a game with near yearly installments.
I fail to see how spherical level design is an improvement, but levels designed within ancient temples, locomotives, and Mario Kart levels are gimmicks. I fail to see how FLUDD is an improvement, but Captain Toad is a gimmick.
The only difference, in my eyes, is that these ideas are limited to one level each, and they don't span the length of the game. I can then see why someone would feel that these ideas aren't very deep, if Nintendo isn't willing to let the player test it out for long periods of time. But that's a much better argument than merely dismissing them as gimmicks. Personally, I like the variety, and it's a much better system for multiplayer.
That's exactly the point. Limiting them to one level is part of what makes them gimmicks because then they don't provide any lasting improvements in the game. Once they're done, the game goes back to normal and you're left with the same generic gameplay as anything else. The other part of it is that they have to significantly change the gameplay. For instance, powerups tend not to come into play unless they're associated with a specific level either, so there's no real lasting improvement on that front either when they introduce a new powerup. FLUDD and spherical level design have a greater effect on the gameplay, FLUDD enhances the platforming and is useful for a wide variety of other situations and the antigravity allows for entirely new types of level design. Nothing that NSMB or 3D has come up with has even come close to that level of usefulness.
That's a fair point to make, actually, even though I was the one who came up with it. I would argue that, when the idea is over, the gameplay doesn't go back to normal, it goes to a brand new idea. However, because there are so many, it's hard to call any of them "important." I'm not going argue that 3D World was as innovative or groundbreaking as it's predecessors, it might have been, if 3D Land hadn't come out first. But you can't just say that 3D World had no value, and that everything out brings to the table is worthless, as featureless in disguise. What caught me off guard is when, in everything I or Tinglz said about the game, you wrote them off as gimmicks. There's a reason why a good portion of people here like the game.
I think Nintendo should release sequels more frequently. They need to drop the 'everything needs a new mechanic' mindset and start accepting that content itself is a selling point. For many people, Mario exploring interesting new locations or meeting interesting new characters or fighting new bosses... that is a selling point in its own right.
And that kind of new, meaningful content could be added for a game with near yearly installments.
More content isn't always a selling point though. In fact, I'd say it usually isn't. The problem with that approach is that eventually the entire gameplay formula gets repetitive, you're just doing the same thing in different levels in every game from now until the end of time. At some point, you get bored of the series. So they have to change SOMETHING every now and again or else the sales will decline.
I think that for its flaship franchises it has a good formula. Mario and each of its sub series (I think the biggest mistake most people make is lumping them all together) each get one to two entries per gen. By the time the next entry in what ever sub series comes out people are chomping at the bit to get to it.
I think where Nintendo could pick up the pace is in its least popular franchises. There are a lot of ghost franchises that would benefit from a budget (as in 40 dollars) entry. Look at the new kirby, and captain toad, both budget entries that at least in Toad's case was an interesting new franchise that likely didn't cost Nintendo a ton of time and money. I would love to see that for 1080, or punch out, or a new kid icarus or even metroid or fzero. These franchises all have vocal followings but they dont have really high sales. Budget titles could pad the library, give the dev teams more time to play with the system and its potential, and give moth balled franchises a new life with lower expectations.
Taiko is good for the soul, Hoisa!
Japanese NNID:RyuNiiyamajp
Team Cupcake! 11/15/14
Team Spree! 4/17/19
I'm a Dream Fighter. Perfume is Love, Perfume is Life.
3DS Friend Code: 3737-9849-8413 | Nintendo Network ID: RyuNiiyama
I think where Nintendo could pick up the pace is in its least popular franchises. There are a lot of ghost franchises that would benefit from a budget (as in 40 dollars) entry. Look at the new kirby, and captain toad, both budget entries that at least in Toad's case was an interesting new franchise that likely didn't cost Nintendo a ton of time and money. I would love to see that for 1080, or punch out, or a new kid icarus or even metroid or fzero. These franchises all have vocal followings but they dont have really high sales. Budget titles could pad the library, give the dev teams more time to play with the system and its potential, and give moth balled franchises a new life with lower expectations.
That's not always possible. Many of those games need big budgets because their gameplay involves fast paced gameplay or large, open ended level design.
I think Nintendo should release sequels more frequently. They need to drop the 'everything needs a new mechanic' mindset and start accepting that content itself is a selling point. For many people, Mario exploring interesting new locations or meeting interesting new characters or fighting new bosses... that is a selling point in its own right.
And that kind of new, meaningful content could be added for a game with near yearly installments.
More content isn't always a selling point though. In fact, I'd say it usually isn't. The problem with that approach is that eventually the entire gameplay formula gets repetitive, you're just doing the same thing in different levels in every game from now until the end of time. At some point, you get bored of the series. So they have to change SOMETHING every now and again or else the sales will decline.
Wait, CM30 was serious? Why would you only want new content in a formula that would just get stale? It might be fair from a business standpoint, but I couldn't imagine playing a Super Mario 3D World 2, 3, 4, and 5 if there was no new game mechanic or theme. Is this why the Mario Party series still sells? Geez, Nintendo Directs would be no fun!
The way I see this 3D World discussion I think the answer is pretty simple. Super Mario Galaxy was Mario's Ocarina of Time. Every game after is going to be compared to it, every game is going to fall short to some. There will always be a weird period a couple of years after launch where people complain about how it's the worst entry in the series. However at launch people loved it and five years from now people will be talking about it like it was one of best entries in the series. That's just how it goes.
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"
The way I see this 3D World discussion I think the answer is pretty simple. Super Mario Galaxy was Mario's Ocarina of Time. Every game after is going to be compared to it, every game is going to fall short to some. There will always be a weird period a couple of years after launch where people complain about how it's the worst entry in the series. However at launch people loved it and five years from now people will be talking about it like it was one of best entries in the series. That's just how it goes.
You just Zelda-cycled the Mario franchise. Lol, makes sense.
The way I see this 3D World discussion I think the answer is pretty simple. Super Mario Galaxy was Mario's Ocarina of Time. Every game after is going to be compared to it, every game is going to fall short to some. There will always be a weird period a couple of years after launch where people complain about how it's the worst entry in the series. However at launch people loved it and five years from now people will be talking about it like it was one of best entries in the series. That's just how it goes.
Welcome to fanboyism, that can apply to any game in theory. The games are falling short because Nintendo's development habits changed, not because they reached some kind of limit.
The way I see this 3D World discussion I think the answer is pretty simple. Super Mario Galaxy was Mario's Ocarina of Time. Every game after is going to be compared to it, every game is going to fall short to some. There will always be a weird period a couple of years after launch where people complain about how it's the worst entry in the series. However at launch people loved it and five years from now people will be talking about it like it was one of best entries in the series. That's just how it goes.
Welcome to fanboyism, that can apply to any game in theory. The games are falling short because Nintendo's development habits changed, not because they reached some kind of limit.
Either that, or they're going in a different direction. 3D World, for example, seems much more like a game for casual players compared to Sunshine.
Welcome to fanboyism, that can apply to any game in theory. The games are falling short because Nintendo's development habits changed, not because they reached some kind of limit.
The whole "they're development has changed" sounds like a load of fluff to me. And you're right, the same can apply to any game or any thing that has been released after a landmark title. The fact that what I said can be applied to anything makes it more true not less.
Also I'd like to defend remakes again, I found a more compelling argument than the one I made on the previous page.
More remakes please....
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"
Forums
Topic: Should Nintendo bring out sequels more frequently???
Posts 61 to 80 of 83
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.