Topic: Nintendo: The Dead Horse Farm

You may know the reason for this post. No, it's not my internet-given "right" to flame, or that I'm some Xbox/PS groupie thats here to rain on your dinosaur riding, sewer pipe decorating parade. No, I'm a lover of cultures, and the gaming culture is one thats fond to me.
Due to this I nitpick left and right, up and down, inside and out just to see if I can make heads and tails of things. The prelude being over and done with lets move on to the subject.

This years E3 convention had some interesting showcases. Among others M$ and Sony bending over in the dust with motion sensor remote concepts and Nintendo nuking it's dead horse stables in the hopes that one of the mutations will carry them off to the next generation and trample the competition. Some kind of Super Mutant by the name of Maryoshelda Prime. Nintendo keeps their business model known as "Keeping all your eggs in the same bloody basket" and I for one (being a nintendo "fan" boy) am getting a little sick of it.

Well ok, I got giddish when I saw yoshi in the latest Super Mario Galaxy, and was intrigued by the gameplay in Metroid Prime Other M. But am I the only one thats sick of the recurring mutations of my childhood heroes? Is it to much to ask that Nintendo starts opening it's borders, share some of their characters with other consoles, in the hopes that Rare may forgive them for their propitiatory stubbornness and start making the new Donkey Kong Island series (Yeah, lets beat another dead horse that hasn't been touched for a while). Or even make some new characters, because the ones brought in my the licensed third parties that Nintendo has on a leash sucks. I don't even have to mention any of them because if you are on this forum you already know who they are and what they did, like some dog who took a dump inside the house.

Well that being said lets have some discussion points. I'll start:

New characters: Everyone here is a fan of the old retro characters (see avatar for reference), but don't we want something new? How about a new duo, like a monkey who uses his best friend, a snake, to swing from object to object, reach far away objects, and also whip the shite out of the opposition. Ok, so maybe not the best idea... but atleast I got the ball rolling. You don't use your first revision.

New Gameplay: This is probably the hardest one. In the past years there have been a myriad of new gameplays, and ofcourse the obligatory overusage of the old ones, but we could always use some new ways to play our games. Me for one am asking why Nintendo still hasn't made a deal with Lucas Arts or Sierra about releasing some of their classic point&click games (Monkey Island, Police Quest, Leisure Suit Larry) on Virtual Console. Or how about some new games based off the point&click concept? I mean wouldn't you kill (I would, gimme a sniper rifle and direct me to EA's HQ) for a new Leisure Suit Larry (not Leisure Suit Larry Jr from the cool (but boring) side of the family), or even (hold your breath and you will die): a new Day of The Tentacle.

On which horse do you bet on: Which company do you think could bring prosperity, respect, and love back to Nintendo? I think (as I've said before) Rave would be their only hope... but thats not gonna happen...

Thanks for reading this behemoth of a post, now I'll equalize my karma by reading and replying to other peoples posts.

Who the heck is Rave?

As to your bulleted points (the only part I could bother to read), if you haven't noticed, the Wii series of games has revolutionized game play.

And if you want new characters, that's fine, but tell that to the team behind that Disaster game that flopped. Nintendo has to be careful with new IPs.

I'd rather play a fun game with old characters than a million first-person shooters with hardly any noticeable differences.

You might have jumped to a conclusion there.

The only point of discussion is that Nintendo is beating a dead horse. On that note, your arguement doesn't hold any water, and why? The most recent games for Metroid, Zelda, and Mario all sold over a million in the case of Metroid and well over 3-4 million for Zelda and Mario. Fine, that's just sales, if we went just by sales then Nintendogs would be an amazing game BUT critics also love these games and all three score either at or over 90% on metacritic which means the public AND critics still love these series. Beating a dead horse is the Ray-man series that sees declining sales, Mega Man before 9 which saw the same thing, or even Sonic. Three series from three companies that keep turning out games with those characters and never doing something new with them...or turn them into werehogs...anyways, Sega, Ubisoft, and Capcom beat that horse to death, but Nintendo? Why make new characters? Why make new properties? Why sacrifice the resources on your core characters, like Mario, Link, and Samus, to try to develop new characters that could ultimately effect the quality of your core characters? The answer, you don't, and why? Because none of those games in the eyes of critics and in sales have not seen a decline in quality. There's no reason to sacrifice the all mighty dollar because a few thousand fanboys are sick of those games when millions are plenty happy with the quality they put into their existing characters.

On top of that, 3rd party publishers are desperately trying to establish new characters/properties but NO ONE is buying them? Don't get me wrong, I love No More Heroes, MadWorld, and will be purchasing The Conduit and The Grinder plus sequels if/when they're made, but they don't come near in touching the sales of Nintendo's main core characters. Looking at that, why in the world would Nintendo create new characters/waste money/sacrifice quality when established developers working on very good games can't sell on the console?

Indeed. Sequelgrinding is standard in this business, and Nintendo is blamed most because they have been here longer than most. Still... its not that great outside. Let see some good examples from franchises that have born (or re-born) within last seven years:

Halo (six games)
Call of Duty (seven games)
Jak & Dakter (eight, including spin-offs)
Prince of Persia (four)
Ratchet & Clank (eight)
Grand Theft Auto (seven)
etc.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say Nintendo is beating a living horse, a horse that is very strong and to whom beating is not very effective.

Nintendo is grooming an alive strong horse,not a dead one. Flaming topic I sense,win this debate before that happens I must.

Thank you for posting this. This is exactly where I was going when I read the initial post. Halo is pretty much Microsofts "dead horse" with 2 more coming soon. Sony, poor poor Sony, well, they haven't really had anything to match up to in a while and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

So Nintendo's supposed to change their menu huh? I'm tired of playing Mario, Metroid, and Zelda? Nope, and nope! Wii is still in a phase where game designers are starting to push it's limits.

Even when Nintendo releases "Wii 2", I'm still going to want Mario, Metroid, and Zelda. There's still so much more potential than what's already been released. Now if Nintendo wants to stop making these games, then that's when I go to another console.

If Nintendo stopped beating its "dead horses" we never would have had A Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Wind Waker, Mario 64, Mario Galaxy, Mario Kart Wii, Metroid Prime, Donkey Kong Country, Smash Bros. Brawl...

They could put Mario's or Link's face on any old garbage and it would sell. But guess what? They don't. By and large, they concentrate on making large, unique, entertaining games that are often held (rightly) in very high regard.

Slapping Mario on a piece of crap game is beating a dead horse. Putting him in a genuinely strong title is just good business sense.

Are you angry that they're beating a dead horse, or just annoyed by the fact that they have horses to beat?

Sony seems to do a lot of new stuff like Infamous... but then again, it goes without saying that they are going to try something new. Sales show that sequels aren't enough. Their series just don't command the same diehard following Nintendo's do.

While I partly agree that I want to see more of Nintendo's main series, I think the series have changed too much to still be considered the same. They take so many risks as a business already, what with the Wii, DS, Balance Board, Vitality Sensor, etc., that you'd think they could risk introducing a new character -- but preferably in the same cartoony vein as their successful characters. Mario games (aside from NSMB) are so far from what Mario started with that I can't help but wonder if the same game play formula couldn't be used with a different starring character. Same with Zelda and Metroid.

But as long as the game plays well, that's what matters, so I don't care that much which mascot is chosen.

Nintendo has the best horses around,so don't complain ThirdEye.
Halo is a dead horse. Sadly,Sonic is a somewhat sick horse,but not Mario and Zelda. These games could actually show the Wii's true power,so don't complain.

They do take risks with new series, though. Most of these started out on the NES, but the Game Boy gave us Kirby, the SNES gave us Star Fox, the N64 gave us Paper Mario (a very different series from the main Mario games, in my eyes, and worth of separate mention), the Game Cube gave us Pikmin, Wii gives us Wii Sports/Music/Fit (certainly a recognizable series if not due to any main recognizable mascotte)...

...so it's not as though they're averse to adding new series to their arsenal. They do it. The difference is that they don't do it willy nilly for no reason; they do it when there's an idea good enough to justify creating a whole new universe for the series to exist in. They're not afraid...they're just discerning.

I just can't understand how someone can call Mario a "dead horse"? R U serious? I'll bet you that when NSMB on the Wii is released that it's one of the top selling games in history.

Yes,we are getting a brand new 2D Mario on a console for the first time since Super Mario World,and you call that a dead horse? Yeah,right!
By the way,GreyElephant,just letting you know that I already add your Mario Kart Wii code.

The Wii series is nice, but not really the same. Mario I understand being sequelized over and over because there is almost no story in the series, at least not that anyone cares about, and he is Nintendo's main mascot. But the Zelda story is beaten to death, and if Twilight Princess is any indication, they seem to be more confined by the expectations of a Zelda game than anything else. I think if they took the same basic formula but created a new character, mythos, etc. around it, they could come up with some more interesting ideas. Of course, maybe all they needed was for Twilight Princess to disappoint (Nintendo referred to its sales as disappointing, I mean) and for Motion + to open the door to other opportunities.

Again, I don't think Nintendo needs to do anything like this, but I do feel they are stretching three main franchises (Mario, Zelda, Metroid) very thin when they could be focusing on one main sequel and diversifying their game characters to suit the new worlds and game play ideas they are giving them.

For instance, there are a million Mario games being worked on right now. NSMB is the closest to what Mario was originally about, so it makes sense for him to be there. But the two Galaxy games feel like a brand new game series, to me. I think it would have been cool to have a cute little alien character starring in such a game series. Seems like a (small) missed opportunity to introduce a new character who would be better suited to his environment.

Or take Zelda. There's a DS and Wii game in the works. We know nothing about the Wii game except that progress has included painting a picture (Awesome, I wonder if they used MS's Natal to paint it), so what about Spirit Tracks? Trains are completely out of place in Zelda which takes place in a sort of medieval fantasy world. I keep imagining the game subtitled "My First Train Ride" or "Link Rides a Train" instead of Spirit Tracks because it just seems so forced.

Buuuuut, I'm not really complaining like the original post (they're not dead horses) because the games are still fun regardless and that's what counts most. Just saying that it would be neat, basically, and that it isn't exactly a nilly willy idea. Their characters are being forced into places they are not native to, and it seems more natural to do this with a new character.

Adam, new property in the same cartoony fashion as Mario? Well, sir, your wait is over because, well at least new to the West is Starfy. That's the same vein platformer as Mario and appears to be great, at least that's what I'm hearing about the series from out East.

In that vein, lets not forget is the sole publishers of the Fire Emblem Series, Advanced War series, and starting later this year, the Trace Memory series. Now, are they the developers of them? No, but neither is Metroid now but it's still a Nintendo property so I consider those three franchises, Nintendo properties and all three (maybe jury out on Trace Memory, I liked the first) are good series. So, there's something new already and I know characters from at least two of those games have already appeared in the Smash Bros. series. I think part of the issue is that Link, Mario, and Samus are such HUGE characters that they over shadow the fact that Nintendo actually develops more characters than we realize.

There's no way nintendo would or should let their mascots on another platform. No insult to you intended, but I don't think that'd be a good move. I like Rare too, but I'd never want them to "share" their Mascots. That's one of the Biggest cards in their hand. One of the things that give Them an edge over Microsoft and Sony.

By the way, their redoing Monkey Island for Wiiware.

@J Bitties

The difference though is that Fire Emblem, Advance Wars, etc. are consistent series. They aren't stretched thin across a million spin-offs. Link, Mario, Samus... they are huge characters, and I hope they live forever and ever -- I really do -- but I think some contexts they are placed in are done so purely for marketing reasons, not because they are the best possible characters for those contexts (as I explain in the post above, though you were probably typing yours at the same time).

I think if those main characters weren't given so many more games than their other characters, those smaller series would have a better chance to shine. Who is going to notice the Ike face on a shelf full of Mario faces?

Most 2D to 3D transitions produced great games, but they feel like new series to me. I always wonder if I would like Ocarina and subsequent "Zelda" games if it weren't attached to all the expectations of a Zelda game, most of which it fails to meet for me. Same goes for Mario and Prime, etc.

Oh, and yes, I am very glad Starfy is being brought over. I wish he were on console, but that's just a selfish preference and not a complaint or even related to this. Great news for DS owners though.

@ Long Time Gamers
Sharing mascots? Wow, I missed out on one weird argument in that original post, it looks like.

[quote="Chicken+Brutus"]

It makes sense from a fan's perspective, and I agree with you on it. But from a business perspective, it makes more sense to stick Mario into that console's strongest platformer (or platformer-like title) because it'll do two things: 1) it'll sell like hotcakes, meaning it's a financial success and 2) it'll be a critical success, because they found a unique approach to game-making and saw it through. By having Mario in the game, they get to have their cake (mmmm) and eat it, too.

I agree, there's no reason that Mario Galaxy couldn't have been about some brand-new character. But if that had happened, sales would have taken a huge drop. It may still have been a smashing success...but no way in heckfire would it have been a MARIO-level success. Nintendo needs to hedge its bets with Mario and Zelda because THAT's what gives them the money to stick into the lesser franchises, and the new ones.

Everyone who gripes about the lack of a new Pikmin / Kid Icarus / Star Fox / F-Zero / whatever the heck (myself included) would do well to realize that those games don't pay the bills. Mario and Link pay the bills; they're necessities in a business-oriented world. Nintendo is wise to give them GOOD games each generation (overall...), otherwise they'd turn into something like Sonic the Hedgehog, where each new game's highest praise is something like, "Well, it's not the WORST game he's been in..."

Regarding the train in Spirit Tracks, I'll admit that I don't give a flying monkey log. If the game is fun, Link can fight vikings on the Hubble telescope for all I care. I understand and respect your concern, but with few exceptions (such as Majora's Mask) the game's story/internal consistency means very little to my enjoyment.

Haha, no, I completely agree. I would play The Legend of Hubble. And I will enjoy the recently announced games regardless. I liked almost every Zelda game, though I only loved the old ones, SNES and earlier. Same goes for Mario and Metroid.

I'm just saying that it'd be nice. Pure wishful thinking rather than a complaint. I will be playing Galaxy 2 with the rest of you, and if Spirit Tracks brings back the Phantom Hourglass multiplayer, I might even get a DS for that, despite how un-Zelda that versus mode is.