News Article

Miyamoto: Fresh Experiences Make A New Game, Not New Characters

Posted by Andy Green

Nintendo focusing on new experiences rather than characters

One thing Nintendo is certainly not short of is franchises and over the years the likes of Mario, The Legend of Zelda, Donkey Kong, Metroid, Kid Icarus and the plucky Pikmin have all emerged.

However, a complaint that is sometimes leveled at Nintendo is its continued use of the same intellectual properties, with many saying it should create a brand new series instead of "playing it safe" with the current ones.

In an interview with Game Informer, Shigeru Miyamoto spoke about the franchises that are at Nintendo's disposal - and the characters within them - and explained how it isn't as simple as just creating a new protagonist - there's much more thought to go into it first.

Certainly within Nintendo, we have people internally who are saying, "Well, we have our old characters from our old games, and that's old IP, and we should think about creating new IP." But the question that we always ask is: "Does a new character really make it a new game?" And to me, the answer to that is, "No."

What makes it a new game is new gameplay and new interactions. So when we're creating a game, we're always looking at it from, "What is the gameplay, and how are making that gameplay new?" And then, "Who is the character that is best suited to that gameplay?"

For Miyamoto, experiences come first and without something fresh and original a new character cannot be brought into the fray.

By taking this approach, for us, we feel like even when we're creating new installments in existing series, we're creating new experiences, because the gameplay that's in there is something that's entirely new. And in some cases, we may even end up creating new characters.

He went on to talk about how Pikmin became a new IP when it was developed for the GameCube. The first thing Nintendo did was create a new style of gameplay and then looked for a new character to make it work. The current characters such as Mario, Link, Samus and Donkey Kong could not fill the role and so Olimar and the Pikmin were born.

According to Miyamoto, The first thing Nintendo do at the very beginning of the development process is focus on creating fun and new gameplay - the character or IP that will feature in the game comes later on in the design.

In the future, we may see that that will bring us some new characters and new IP, but what's important to me is that, even with the existing IP that we're releasing games for, they're all new gameplay experiences.

What are your thoughts on Nintendo's IPs? Is this the right approach? Would you like to see some new ones emerge soon? Let us know in the comment section below.


From the web

Game Screenshots

User Comments (89)



WingedSnagret said:

He does have a good point. But at the same time new characters certainly can be a good thing too.



SanderEvers said:

Like the last Tomb Raider game, if they'd swapped Lara Croft with some unknown character I wouldn't have bought it and the game would've been worse. People love to see familiar faces. Like replace Mario in Super Mario Galaxy with a different char. It wouldn't be the same.

Now I named 2 games that did have major changes in their game play and both games are awesome. See where I'm going here?

I really don't understand all that "we need new IPs" and "ditch Mario" rubbish. Mario games sell better than some unknown character, even if the game is awesome. And a new IP is old as soon as a sequel is released, but that doesn't give an IP the possibility to gain followers. Like for instance I bought Another Code R (Wii) because I loved the DS version. And I'm happy I did, because I loved the Wii version as well. Pikmin 3 is the third game in that IP series, which means that it's still relatively new and is growing strong on it's followers.

Sure, we could do with less Mario games. Wait, no we can't. Mario games are almost always awesome. And don't start about dropping Zelda or Pokémon either. It's because of those games (Mario, Zelda, Pokémon) that I buy Nintendo consoles. And I'm very happy with that.



Gioku said:

I think the Mario & Luigi series and the Kirby series (and KI:U) are good examples of this philosophy in action. Dillion and Pushmo are on the other end, where they needed new characters to fit the game.



Luffymcduck said:

OK, but they still could have had new characters, enemies and backrounds in New Super Mario Bros series. There wasn´t much new after the first one.



thesilverbrick said:

But there's no reason why old characters have to be shoehorned into new gameplay experiences. Why does every new concept have to have Mario and company slapped onto it? Don't get me wrong, most of those games are fantastic, but they could easily be new IPs and go a long way in keeping Nintendo's image fresh.



Einherjar said:

I completely agree. Some may call it a "nostalgia trip" and they may be right, but having something familiar within a game almost always gets you hooked more, than something completely new.
But you can never please both sides of the fanbase. There will always be someone crying for new IPs and someone crying for old ones. If its new, its bad because its not the old stuff, if its the old stuff, it is bad because it isnt something new.
Nintendos characters arent just mascots, they are icons and became the definition of their respective genre over the time. If nintendo would invent a new charakter for a platformer, wouldnt it be just the Doki Doki Panik problem all over again ? "Its just like mario with other characters boo hoo".
Look at other game series: Every military FPS is "like CoD", Every Hack and Slay is like "DMC or God of War" so on and so forth. Bayonetta was known as "DMC one with a female lead" for instance.
Its the game itself that matters, not the cast. And why switch the cast everyone knows and loves when you rather can tinker with the gameplay formular ? If you have a fresh style of gameplay and unknown characters, you have to get used to both, if you know at least the cast, you can concentrate even more on the gameplay aspects. The Zelda series is especially good with it. It can tell great storys with...well, not that much of story telling in game. Why ? Because we know all the characters beforehand and dont need that much explenation and character development and can instead focus on different things.
An aproach like that can open up much more potential than a game, that takes 50% of its game time explaining to you, why the man in red can jump so good and is so well known for it.



MAN1AC said:

Why no new IPs?
Maybe something that caters to another/new audience that shows 3rd parties that something else can sell on Nintendo hardware.

I like Mario, Zelda, Pikmin, etc but variety is nice.



DualWielding said:

The thing is if they can't get third party support the only way they can bring additional gamers to the Wii U is by creating new franchises that attract different gamers than the ones already have.... Some people simply don't like Mario because its cartoonish and they think is childsish, no matter what you do with him gameplay wise you there are always be a number of gamers that would shrugh it off..... to expand their fanbase they need complete new IPs



Kirk said:

While I agree with him I don't see why Nintendo couldn't use some of those new ideas in a game with a couple of new characters rather than always trying to add these new features into one of their current franchises, sometimes in instances where I don't actually think it fits particularly well or is even really needed.



RedRocBoy said:

Love the classics, they should definitely bring Kid Icarus, F-Zero,Star Fox to the Wii U. But it would be nice to have some new IP's.



Sceptic said:

They've got it backwards. Using the same characters is no excuse to make a lame rehash of a game.



umegames said:

"Fresh Experiences Make A New Game, Not New Characters"

I've never thought about that, but wow i have to agree.



Jaz007 said:

What about new IPs to fit new gameplay ideas? They could do what Sony does and crate new character that fit one type of new gameplay specifically. I new fresh new IP is fresher than just gameplay mix ups with a franchise. They could make even fresher gameplay with a new IP designed around that gameplay too. It would be nice to see a new non-platformer franchise come from Nintendo.



retropunky said:

I can agree to some point. It's just that they have new "concepts" for almost the same IP's.

It wouldn't hurt to make Star Fox U, with local/online co-op to take on special quests. A balance between ground or water missions would be good, but I think for the most part, we all love the air combat.

Not to mention F-Zero U, with local/online, racer customization, story mode, and new tracks.

A Metroid Prime Hunters kind of game for the Wii U would be amazing as well. Not necessarily a sequel, but something with multiplayer and new story.



TG1 said:

Certainly within Nintendo, we have people internally who are saying, "Well, we have our old characters from our old games, and that's old IP, and we should think about creating new IP."

It's one thing if it's just from the gaming fans ... but when Nintendo's own staff are trying to encourage new IP's, it's time the Big N start giving it more serious consideration.



redsoul91 said:

I've never really understood how people could demand for new characters then complain that some characters aren't used enough... This man is right all the way.



kkslider5552000 said:

He has a point. I mean I kinda question how many of these games just happened to always make sense for like Mario. Yep, when I think of Tennis I sure do think about an Italian plumber who throws fireballs at turtles. But that being said, there's some good points to that. There are plenty of games this generation that were just trying to be Call of Duty and just because it was a new IP with a couple of new ideas didn't suddenly make it not a Call of Duty knockoff (looking at you Homefront). Even if I was still a fan of CoD, a new F Zero and Metroid game that just plays like how you would expect them to is far more unique in gaming than a new IP that just plays like Call of Duty.



KLZ said:

As I said in other news post on the same topic.
In the case of a new game with new gameplay but already existing IP: God, I'm tired of these same "IP" game, give us something new nintendo!
In the case of new game with new IP: I dont get it, if they have a lot of awesome IPs why would they make new characters for this? It would have been much more fun and succesful with an already existing IP.

You can never have everybody happy, people will always complain about something.



Leon_Pryde said:

Yes, he does have a very good point, but what happens when the experience differs too greatly from what people expect the character to be associated with? For example, Banjo Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts was allegedly a good game. However, people wanted a collectathon instead of a car game and now it is largely rejected.



ShadJV said:

sigh And how is that working for you, Nintendo? This was a great strategy for the Wii as Wii Sports (which by the way was a new IP) put the system in so many houses off the bat. The casuals don't have any reason to buy the Wii U for sequels to games already on the Wii. They are happy enough with the Wii. Right now all Nintendo is catering to is their hardcore fans and that simply isn't enough these days. This new experience philosophy is great in theory, but not everyone is interested with a hundred Mario games. Other than notable titles such as Galaxy (which is superb), I don't want Mario slapped into everything, I get sick of him. And then Nintendo loses sales from people like me as I look to indie companies for new experiences and lose interest in Nintendo's franchises (excluding their rarely touched franchises). In a nutshell... I wouldn't mind all these Mario games if they had more variation. Recycled graphics, recycled bosses... These aren't new experiences. And a catsuit doesn't suffice (I played the demo and it was fun but hardly worth my Wii U purchase).



moroboshi said:

How does what Miyamoto said tally with Super Mario 3D World and the next Donkey Kong Country game? Or perhaps Animal Crossing on the 3DS. All excellent games no doubt, but original they most certainly are not.

Mario Galaxy was a new take on the Mario character, but even more interesting than that, was the original Pikmin. Innovation is not only more interesting that re-hashes, but it's also incredibly easy. You just need a functioning imagination, and the courage to believe in your creation. Sadly Nintendo seems to either run out of ideas, or is in survival mode and is playing it very, very safely.



TobiasAmaranth said:

Actually it does. There's this thing that Nintendo seems to have forgotten about called STORY. And did you know? STORY CAN SELL GAMES TOO!

It's like looks and personality. Yeah, they're each great on their own. But find someone with both and you've found a true gem.



JaxonH said:

@thesilverbrick Yeah, but people ignore games that have no familiarity about them. A fresh set of characters might be nice for the few that want it, but then the games would almost certainly flop because no one knew what it was or recognized any characters in it, and therefore didn't pay it any attention. How many games do you hear about on a weekly basis that are some unfamiliar franchise, or name you've never heard of? Do you google search each one and thoroughly investigate every IP released to determine if it's a good game? Of course not, there's too many games to do that unless you don't have a job and sit at a cpu 24/7. Adding a familiar face helps a game stand out in a blue sea of indifference, and can make or break a game saleswise. How many critically acclaimed games have there been that flopped because they were unheard of and no one paid them any mind? TONS. Think Okami...



DreamOn said:

Some of the fan base is mistakingly waiting for Miyamoto to retire in hopes to westernize the game development at Nintendo.



CanisWolfred said:

So we've noticed. I'm not really bothered, though if you don't maske new characters, Super Smash Bros. 5 might be looking a little dry.



Pierceton said:

Just because new experiences make new games doesn't mean that you should release nothing but Mario games.



Drewroxsox said:

I have to agree with Miyamoto about the whole a new character doesn't make a new game bit, but Nintendo could really benefit from a new IP. Consumers get tired of seeing the same type of games being released over and over again.



Pierceton said:

@iMii I don't want what they do to be westernized I want Nintendo to make western studios with freedom to make western games so that they would be more diverse.



Sanasalin said:

I agree with Nintendo, fresh ideas are better, so I believe they should, for the moment, stop putting out platformers on wii u. I am sick of them. Mario u, luigi u, Mario 3d, donky kong, MAKE A STARFOX GAME, OR A SAMUS GAME!



Drawdler said:

@Leon_Pryde There's a difference between expanding IPs you have and completely changing them. Yes, Mario has a doctorate, levels up in his spare time, and plays sports at Olympic levels, but the way that Nintendo handle it is great- they expand the range of things possible with their IPs, by creating those experiences as side games. They don't go, "hey, we want to use Mario in an RPG, so let's make ALL OF MARIO INTO AN RPG".

It isn't Crash Bandicoot or Spyro where they made the main games themselves fighting games, and changed the fundamentals of those series, and changed their identity completely. You can use characters in things that they aren't designed for effectively, as long as you don't make the very core of those completely different. That's what alienates consumers. You take something made for one thing, then completely change its identity. It's like how The Big Bang Theory used to be about four nerdy buddies cracking jokes, and now it's a generic, boring drama sitcom. I haven't played Nuts and Bolts so I can't comment, but Mario still does what he does best and what made people love him, unlike other franchises that have tried to completely change their direction.

That's not to say that I wouldn't like new IPs, but in the end it's about the game, and if they don't have to create a completely new world with completely new characters and completely new lore, that means less time spent on that, and more spent on the game so that the game is better. Provided that they have the same quality, I'd rather see 10 unique Mario games than 5 new and different IPs. Story is great and can make great experiences as well, but... Well, I just ranted about it, so I'll just say look at the Mario RPGs which are as different as a new IP would be in my opinion.



edcomics said:

While there's some sense to his logic, I think Miyamoto is missing the mark with his comments. A single character illustration can kick off an explosion of creativity, as happened with Black Rock Shooter. By focusing entirely on gameplay first, you're ignoring the possibility of new characters and new TYPES of characters. Furthermore, by focusing on gameplay first and then applying it to an existing franchise like Mario, you're limited that new gameplay idea. People will buy the next Mario game, whatever it is, just like people by the latest FIFA or or whatever just because the year on the packaging has changed.

Mario doesn't need to star in a tennis, soccer, party, racing or family board game. He does, though, and we all know why. Nintendo's milking Mario for all he's worth. It's actually about the franchise and its ability to make money, and any new gameplay idea that presents itself — you better believe they'll try to cram it into a Mario game, rather than come up with a new character or world to use for that game.

It's interesting that there isn't a Zelda racing game... where you have horseback riding or something. There's not really any reason why you couldn't make that game. There are plenty of characters to use, and it wouldn't be all that different from a Mario cart — and yet it would be very different. But no, if Nintendo were to make a horseback riding game, it would end up being something like "Mario Derby."

(As a quick side note, Mario surely could have been used in Pikmin. Miyamoto's thinking there is beyond me. You would only have to adjust the story a bit, and you'd have the next Mario spinoff. That aside...)

There appears to be a deep fear within Nintendo of NOT using Mario. There are plenty of arguments for why they should continue to do things the way they do, but fans like myself are tired of the same old same old. The Mario story has been stale since Super Mario 3, in my opinion. (The same goes for Zelda, but that's a discussion for another time.) I just don't think that "They'll sell more games this way" or "People like nostalgia" are good reasons to NOT develop new characters. Even Disney introduces something new every once in a while, but Nintendo just keeps going back to the well. I certainly haven't been buying any of the latest Mario games. It's all the same thing over and over again.



Dizzard said:

I think there's still a lot to be said for creating a new world and set of characters to enjoy though.

I see where he's coming from but on the other hand I feel like it's doing new characters/worlds a disservice. There's something a new franchise offers that an old and familiar franchise will just never be able to offer.



Bass_X0 said:

I want to see a 3D action game starring Captain Falcon where you walk around various locations from F-Zero hunting your bounty and performing other tasks.

There would be some F-Zero racing sections but he would be mainly out of his machine.



ivanmata said:

Funny to hear that after they said they would not make a sequel to kid icarus uprising.... Also funny after seeing the new mario 3d world being just slightly different to the 3ds mario 3d land..... They mention this a lot, and yet, where are those games?? mario kart...don't think so, mario, I just talked about it, Donkey kong, again just slightly different to DKC 3D....



EaZy_T said:

I'd rather have a brand new game experience with an established character than a tired old copy paste game skinned with a new character.



Gridatttack said:

True words. People are always looking for new things. This is why COD has became so boring so fast



Hetsumani said:

A new Mario suit is as much a new gameplay experience as the dog in Ghost. In the end it's the exact same game they released the year before.



Pierceton said:

@JaxonH I can agree with that but it does seem Nintendo might get more notice right now because there is so much hype around them not having a new ip. So it would probably be all over the place with feedback good or bad. Also core Nintendo fans need pleased by Nintendo more than ever right now because I'm the only one of my friends with a Wii U and most of them are core Nintendo fans but won't buy a console on Mario alone. I will but I love Mario.



Magikarp3 said:

I would disagree. Having an old character in a new gameplay style might cause a bit of confusion for the sake of consistency. Plus, new characters with distinct personality traits can take a bland game structure into new and interesting areas.

I guess, new characters and same game framework isn't great, while new game framework and same characters is alright. But new characters in a new game framework, that should be the ideal.



schizor said:

I don't believe this to be completely true. Yes the gameplay is a huge factor, but if you take a game like The Last of Us which focus a lot on storytelling and setting, you can see that making an awesome game dosen't always require "new and fun gameplay styles". Also a game like Alan Wake did just that. However, making an EPIC game needs everything to be just spot on as of gameplay, setting, story, characters, style, music, graphics and so on. That's why The Legend of Zelda is the worlds most epic franchise. It has everything and Nintendo needs a different franchise matching the epicness of the Legend that is Zelda.



Jllanos22 said:

The wii u it's your new console and as new so they have to think for their future game. They already have enough titles for kids but now they have to take it to another level with hardcore game. Make metroid your exclusive shooter with online multiplayer and bring other ones to the wii u and not just wii u play or mario and sonic. One was fine, two was over the limit, three it's just tells you that u don't know what else to make and now a fourth game it's crazy. Nintendo needs new faces because mario, link and DK are all famous character and they all would still sell but bringing new personality and worlds to their consoles, people can enjoy the wii u in many different ways.



Lalivero said:

@edcomics I completely agree with the first half there.

While gameplay is always important, why does making new characters(by that I mean not for existing franchises) have to necessarily come second? Why not give those new experiences their own characters from time to time?

By cramming everything into an existing franchise like Mario, not only are you making the character staler by the day, you are ruining the chances and missing opportunities to introduce new characters.

Honestly, what is really more fun?: Trying to find the right existing character all the time(mainly Mario) or having the fun of coming up with a fresh, new face every now and then to go along with the new experience, thus allowing it to be even more unique and letting said new character make a name for themselves?

That's not including old franchises that have long since been left for dead(looking at ones like you Ice Climbers!).



sleepinglion said:

Great comeback by Nintendo, but they cancel it out when they state new F-Zero and Starfox titles are not a priority because there is "nothing new" that can be brought to the franchises.



b23cdq said:

@TobiasAmaranth Story isn't worth poop if the game isn't fun to play. Example: I hate Uncharted: Drake's Fortune. Story is cool, but gameplay is terrible.
Gameplay should always be number one priority. If you want to put story over gameplay, make a living movie.

Watch the language, please. We've been very lenient, but if you continue your account may wind up banned. — TBD



WinterWarm said:

He makes a fair point, but new characters allows for the opportunity of whole new worlds and dimensions( if it's a new character AND IP), also, say Nintendo only had three franchises: Mario, Fire Emblem, and Metroid, but they had a whole slew of innovative, unique ideas that wouldn't fit into any of the franchises? All I'm saying is, more franchises allow for more flexibility when using new ideas. Like, for instance, what if Nintendo had the idea for a Age Of Empires-like game for Wii U, which would be totally unique and innovative, but they only had three franchises? It would be like Nintendo giving Mario dark magic, because they want a new experience.

On another front, part of the fun of video games and the whole industry is comparing memorable moments from different franchises, and debating which is the best, and so forth. It's also fun to talk about how you feel about the character, though sadly Nintendo isn't to keen on character development, except for Legend Of Zelda and Metroid( Twilight Princess and Other M), I mean, there isn't much character development in Donkey Kong and Mario, despite the fact both are generally good franchises.

Basically, Nintendo should find a balance, between new experiences, and new IPs. I think they're afraid of losing more money. And they should be, because sooner or later people will be shouting "NO MORE FREAKING MARIO!"

On yet ANOTHER note, sometimes a new character can be inspiration for new ideas, like, creating a whole new other-worldly character might give you inspiration about the world the character is in.

Either way, I'd like to see some new IPs. Although Nintendo's hesitation is slightly understandable.

And MAN, I worded that awesomely if I do say so myself.




I agree, but I disagree.

If you have a bunch of people complaining about "nothing new" on Nintendo consoles because Nintendo keeps using familiar faces to sell fresh experiences, then clearly you have a problem with communication.

If you want to reach these people you need to come up with fresh faces.



JaxonH said:

@Pierceton You do make a valid point, but I would argue The Wonderful 101 is Nintendo's attempt at bringing a new IP to the Wii U. Nintendo actually creates and funds through 1st and second party studios a number of new IPs. But because they are unfamiliar, and don't have a rich history like Mario, ppl don't recognize it. Sin & Punishment Star Successor (it had one game before it on N64), Xenoblade,and X are all examples. Plus popularizing games like Fire Emblem Awakening might as well have been a new IP, considering how small it's fan base was prior. But still ask for new IPs, I think ppl just want to see another IP attain legendary status like Zelda, but that won't happen until the franchise has been around as long as Zelda



WiiLovePeace said:

I completely agree with Shigeru Miyamoto. Each Mario, Zelda, etc. game has felt totally different to the other games in the same franchise & I've greatly enjoyed all of what I've played, so I say, bring it on!



AtomicToaster said:

You go and play Spirit Tracks, Skyward Sword, and Oracle of Ages like I just did recently and they don't even remotely seem like the same experience! These complaints are probably from people that don't actually play the games! Even in the Mario series there's an extremely varied experience among all the games.

I don't really care about a new ips necessarily, I just want to see their old ones in HD! I think they might need a new IP to grab the attention of the casual market though, the way Wii Sports, Nintendogs, Brain Age, etc. did. Something that utilizes the gamepad. I want to see a brand new IP that couldn't have been done before the gamepad!



FineLerv said:

I have shared this attitude towards games for the past decade. Modern gaming is too "concept heavy" where many games just take the same gameplay mechanics and slap on a new story or character. I haven't played a First Person Shooter that felt fresh in years. Putting RPG elements in a game (ala Call of Duty) does not "revolutionise the genre".

If you were to take out all the aesthetics, all the cosmetics and all the narrative of a game, it should be different to other games. Gameplay first; Everything else second.



FineLerv said:

@Hetsumani That's a mistake that people often make (and not surprising considering that tends to be the focus in the media). New Mario games are not about what new suit he will wear, they are about new level design. If I can be impressed with a new level in a Mario game then the developers have done their job.



19Robb92 said:

I can't empathize how much I agree with this. I've played way to many shooters that feel exactly the same despite different storylines and characters.

I just find it weird that he feels this way and we still manage to get the NSMB franchise, which games are very alike to each other. I don't think I can remember a single level from NSMB2, that games was just like a DLC pack.



Geonjaha said:

I agree with what he's saying, but I don't agree that Nintendo has actually been following this logic in the last few years.



Pierceton said:

@JaxonH also very valid points sir the only thing I would say about W101 is, though you and I see the difference, it has to look very confusing to consumers with Pikmin coming out a month before. As for FE that is newer to the west but it something that people have been asking for quite a while. X I believe will help sell the Wii U because Xenoblade did pretty well for being a later Wii game but Nintendo needs a new IP that stand out from all their other IP and though I am excited to play W101 I don't believe it is that stand out game, I hope I'm wrong. Even if they bring back more old IP like KI and DK it would help but Nintendo needs to take a step towards something like Portal or Unfinished Swan. Compelling story and deep gameplay for more core gamers. I'm not saying they should be exactly like those game but I feel that would be a good direction. Either way something that truly sticks out in comparison to anything they else are doing is what I feel they need to get people interested in Nintendo's capabilities again.



element187 said:

"Why does every new concept have to have Mario and company slapped onto it? Don't get me wrong, most of those games are fantastic"

@thesilverbrick sounds like you answered your own question.. Nintendo has the deepest bench, they learned early on that creating new characters sell like poop... You may not like it but just putting Mario's mug on a game instantly sells millions more automatically... It seems people are concluding that Nintendo shouldn't do what brings in a profit, they should instead do what loses them money.

Look at the meltdowns over DK instead of Metroid.. Gamers are angry because Nintendo decided to make a multi million copy selling game over a few hundred thousand copy selling game and that makes Nintendo the worst company in the world.



AVahne said:

Unfortunately, too many people believe that only new characters can bring new gameplay.



Dpishere said:

Nintendo has made quite a few new IP's in the last couple of years. Just look at Dillon's Rolling Western, Denpa Men, Sakura Samurai, and Pushmo as perfect examples... People really have no clue what they are talking about when they say Nintendo doesn't make new IP's.



Solatorobo said:

To be fair, all the so called "New IPs" are actually quite Generic. I mean, Sunset Overdrive and Ryse were far more forgettable E3 announcents (And yes, I know E3 is old news, but it's still the last time any major new games have been announced) than Kingdom Hearts 3, Final Fantasy XV, Star Wars Battlefront 3, Mario Kart 8, Smash 4 and (Here's a shocker to some of you) Donkey Kong Country Returns 2. Yes, look at all those EEEVVVVVIIILLLLL sequels! Some of them are [Gasp] the next entires in long running series! But that can't be right! Ryse is a new IP, that should be enough to compensate for the generic quick-time-event filled gameplay Right?




Shambo said:

please bring back Doshin, Cubivores, Drilldozer,... they were and still are unique and fun!



Nabbit101 said:

He makes a good point but bringing new characters with an entirely different world makes more sense. If they made some kind of shooter and slapped mario's name on it, would seem weird wouldn't it?



Nabbit101 said:

Also if so, couldn't they make some kind of game with Star Fox, Ice Climbers (Yeah that's right) , Earthbound or F-Zero



Wittgenstein said:

This explains why Miyamoto did not want new characters for Sticker Star. But he was wrong to do this because Sticker Star was not a "fresh experience" for me, it was a NSMB rehash. I would have preferred a Super Paper Mario rehash with Dimentio than a flop of a game with no story at all.



Captain_Balko said:

I completely agree with this.

This idea transcends all forms of media and is applicable to the vast majority. For example, when I go to the cinema, I will likely choose something familiar rather than a random film that has no ties to anything (likely, not always, obviously). For example, if a sequel to a movie that I quite liked is playing, I'll watch that rather than a different movie. Or I'll pick a film that features actors that I enjoy, rather than one with actors that I've never seen before. Or perhaps I'd choose a film that was a reboot because I liked the original. People crave familiarity.

Put it this way. Imagine a world where Batman never existed. Batman Begins literally invents Batman. Will it be successful? Will there even be a Dark Knight Trilogy. No, probably not.



JaxonH said:

@Pierceton I was about to jump in and stress how different the Xeno franchise is from anything else they're doing, but I stopped when I read Portal. Yes, a game like Portal really could jump out of the pack and grab people, but the only possible base it could draw from is the more core gamer crowd on Xbox and PS who are the type that like those games and don't ever game on Ninty consoles already. Still, I won't argue that would help.

But I guess it just comes down to the fact Nintendo's only one company, and while their strengths are varied and they make many different types of games in several different genres, I don't think they're good at everything. For instance, I don't think Nintendo should ever make a western styled game like The Last of Us for example, because simply put, they're just not good at telling stories. They have to play to their strengths. Now, I DO believe they are good at inventing puzzles (as seen in Metroid and Zelda games), so a game like Portal could be done. But Portal was a work of genius that only comes around every 5 years or so.

I do see where you're going though, you want Nintendo to make something, anything, just as long as it's epic and stands out as different and new. Won't argue with that. But I do think Nintendo encourages innovation and creation, so if someone within Nintendo were to ever have an idea for a game like that, I'm sure Nintendo would back the game 100%. Unfortunately, as brilliant as minds like Miamoto's are, it's still very rare to see more than one breakthrough work of genius by one person. We see many of those works of genius across the full gaming spectrum, but they are all usually done by different developers and creaters, who almost never make a 2nd breakthrough game their entire career. The developers of Portal did something of a miracle, but I doubt besides iterations of Portal we'll ever see something of THAT caliber from them again (don't forget, the ones who actually created Portal were those kids at developement school, and had already made a 2D version of Portal before ever approached from Valve- THOSE creative minds have had their 15 minutes of fame, and while they might go on to successful careers working on great games, I seriously doubt they'll EVER do something so impactful again)

Miamoto is one of the few, the VERY few, who have done not one, not two, but several breakthrough games that are pure works of genius. That is extremely uncommon, and as much as I hope to see another someday, I'm not counting on it. I mean, Nintendo could always sit down and try to come up with a new idea and something different, and would probably get a pretty decent game out of it when everything's said and done, but there are ALOT of "decent" games out there, and that's not enough to stand out. It wouldn't have that awesome impact that games of pure genius have, which is necessary to draw the crowds with a new IP. It should also be noted that games of pure genius can't be forced- the idea usually has to come naturally, not artificially concocted in a think tank.

I just see how different and epically awesome Xenoblade was and how great its spiritual successor X is looking, and yet the only ones who seem to care are us Nintendo fans. The masses aren't paying attention, and the Sony/MS fans look and say oh, great game, but I'm not buying a Nintendo console for one game, and go back to their Halo and Killzone. I truly believe a game like Portal could perhaps do the trick, I just think games like that can't be forced, and considering how many epic, timeless franchises and genre-defining games Nintendo has already created over the years, I just don't know if the odds are in our favor that they can do it again (with a new earthshattering, genre-defining IP, that is). Which is why we see further iterations of what they're good at, games like Pikmin 3 and Mario & Luigi Dream Team, which in my book appear to be masterpieces in their own right, even if they're not "new".

Again, IF Nintendo had the power to pull an Ace like Portal out of their sleeve at a moment's notice, I'm sure they'd have already done it. But it is what it is, we just roll with the punches, and take the good and bad as it comes. I would still caution people to be careful what they wish for, as "new" isn't necessarily a good thing. I think of masterpieces like Okami as I mentioned before, or Beyond Good & Evil, or Sin & Punishment, or The Last Story, hell even Xenoblade didn't reach a million units worldwide... I think of these awesome new IPs and how poorly they sold because no one knew them or was familiar with the games' concepts, and can't help but think Nintendo is using the right strategy.

But again, if someone within the Nintendo framework ever does have a mind-busting idea for a totally new experience, I'm fully confident we'll see that concept funded and backed to fruition.



ThreadShadow said:

I agree with Miyamoto. But for me it's not about creating "new" IP's, it's about using the seriously underused catalog of IP's Nintendo already has. There are other Nintendo IP's beside Mario, Zelda, Kirby, and Donkey Kong.



kyuubikid213 said:

Let's sit back and think for a moment. Take a glance at Smash Bros. All familiar Nintendo faces in a Free For All. Great. Sure they are "old" IPs, but they are beloved and fun.

Now look at PlayStation All Stars. There are a few truly memorable IPs in that game that are even relevamt today. Parapa? Where has he been the past decade? Cole as two separate characters? How many IPs has Sony kept around as a familiar way to connect to the company itself and the games it produces?

Microsoft barely has any memorable IPs that people know them for. Gears of War and Halo. Okay... Anyone remember Alan Wake? It was fun, but we've not seen Alan since.

I want new IPs as much as the next guy, but familiarity is something I don't want to let go of.

I probably would buy a game that plays like Zelda if it didn't have Link, but that wouldn't make it any better. Not in my opinion...



WinterWarm said:


Well, yes, you're correct there. But I stated in my comment that for the sake of the argument, Nintendo only had 3 franchises. Also, "That's old IP."

I'm talking new 2013 IP.



Captain_Balko said:

I think that the bottom line is that new IPs could be great, but they are simply and will always be a much harder sell. For example, the Wonderful 101 is a new IP. I saw a lot of footage of the game, but didn't really understand it, so I wasn't too keen on buying it. However, I had the opportunity to try it myself whilst on vacation in Chicago, and realized what I was missing. I will now purchase this new IP game.

But I wouldn't have had to try it first if it was an IP that I know and love - be it Mario, Zelda, Pikmin, Kid Icarus, Kirby, Pokemon, Fire Emblem, whatever else - because I trust that those games will be fantastic since I've played other games that featured those IPs and I quite liked them. However, I'm suspicious of new IPs, because I can't be sure that they will appeal to me or that I will like them at all. That's why Wonderful 101 was such a hard sell - it was new and unheard of. And that scares a lot of people (or at least makes them, as I pointed out, suspicious), myself included.



BlackStar9000 said:

@MAN1AC I think a good solution to this problem is to introduce new characters within exhisting francise games, Wario is a great example, he was the last bad guy in Super Mario Land 2 and that enable Nintendo to take a different approach and launch a series of new games based on Wario. Even the new Kid Icarus, thats a New IP in my eyes since its literally the 3rd game ever made with him with the last one being on the gameboy. He had a voice, a personality and all new gameplay COMPETELY different and exciting, Luigis Mansion is better than any other ghostbusting game only in its second installment. Nintendo knows how to flip its exhisting franchises and characters and make something new and fresh and I dont want a new IP crammed down my throat just because ppl want it, BTW The Wonderful 101 is looking great, Most likely a new IP for Nintendo.



Rect_Pola said:

While I do appreciate his vantage, there is an issue of confinement when using existing IP. Mario and Kirby are pretty flexible, but there still a certain nature of how things can be presented with either than them, limited your own options to create because these things have already been established. Also, some of the gameplay is not as fresh as you think. A new Mario game may have new elements and it's fun as hell to play, but the game is still Mario hopping and bobbing through 8 semi-themed worlds. Probably because the core gameplay is so simple and narrowly focused that you can't make it feel fresh like exploring in Zelda or Metroid.

That's why Mario RPG and (most) Paper Mario games were such a great use of this concept (Sticker Star not withstanding). Hell, even SMB2, waaaay back when nothing was cast in stone. That's the heart of the issue, so much of an existing franchise is "cast in stone" that you can feel it grating against another game's potential (seriously what the hell happened in Sticker Star).

Then there's the argument of when an IP is attached specifically for brand appeal. Like the train-wreck that was Dinosaur Planet (feat. Star Fox for some reason).

Leave A Comment

Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...