Not only is this good news because this means we get more games (which in Nintendo's case is usually a good thing), but this means that they won't cut short the Wii U and launch their next console prematurely.
In my opinion, the biggest mistake Nintendo can do right now is launch a whole year before Sony and MS again. Unless of course, they're planning on pulling all the stops, and going with a beast of a machine. If they launch first again, with a severely underpowered machine, it's going to be even worse than this time.
We all love Nintendo for the things they do differently, but sometimes I wish they'd play a little bit more by the rules that the industry has set. Just a little.
I don't understand your logic. I think that Nintendo should just do what it does and continue to ignore what everyone else is doing because to be honest, everyone else is a bunch of idiots. Nintendo makes great games, so why change anything.
You don't understand what I said at all then. Nintendo makes great games, yes, I agree, but that has nothing to do with what I said.
Nintendo has its place in the industry because they do try to be different. And we can appreciate that. There is a discernible difference in the quality of a Nintendo developed/published game and one from a different developer. That's all well and good.
The point of my post, however, was in reference to them wanting to be so different, so unique, that they are going against market/consumer trends. Yes, trends change with the wind, so it's dangerous to just go with the consumer, because the consumer is fickle and ignorant, but to completely ignore everything is not good.
The mistakes Nintendo made with the Wii and the Wii U are real, and they cost Nintendo in terms of 3rd party support and hardware sales. To say otherwise is foolish. Nintendo can correct these mistakes, and one way is to not jump the gun a release the Wii 3 too early, or too underpowered. That's all I mean. I don't think, and I never said Nintendo should do everything Sony and MS are doing.
You're right about everyone else being a bunch of idiots right now, but Nintendo isn't much better. And quite frankly, they're differentiating themselves in all of the wrong ways right now.
Their games are part of the problem, Nintendo constantly talks up about how their games are so "different" and "innovative" but the truth is that for the most part they're just milking their older IPs. Tell me, how are NSMB or 3D World innovative? What about Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze? What are Yoshi and Kirby doing that's innovative? Right now the only real innovative game they have is Splatoon, and even then it's essentially treated as a side project. People complain about games like CoD and Assassin's Creed being rehashes, but the truth is that Nintendo's IPs are no different at this point, we're getting a lot of obligatory sequels that feel like their predecessors instead of fresh concepts that take advantage of new hardware.
And then there's the hardware. Look, I'm all for new types of control schemes like the Wii Remote and the Gamepad, but tell me, what exactly does the Gamepad actually do that opens up new gameplay concepts? It's just different for the sake of being different, and very little has been done with it that couldn't already be done on the DS and Wii. Differentiation is only effective when it provides a distinct feature that nothing else can do, and the Gamepad is far from distinctive. Meanwhile, the unique hardware comes at a heavy cost, which is third party support. Minimal third party weakens their lineup and makes them less competitive, costing them huge sales. this I agree with 100%
So if Nintendo wants to fix their reputation, they need either to return to the forefront of innovation for the industry or to tailor their console more to the needs of the market, ideally both. They can't do any of this with the Wii U, that's why they can't let it stay on the market too long (and I'd say anywhere after 2017 is "too long").
Tell me, how are NSMB or 3D World innovative? What about Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze? What are Yoshi and Kirby doing that's innovative? Right now the only real innovative game they have is Splatoon
Tell me, how many of the Wii U games you mention here have you actually played?
I'm not going to quote everything you've written, because that would take too long.
Suffice it to say that 1) you simply can not fully get a game without playing it. I don't care how much you think you can understand the gameplay and level design and plot from a trailer or a preview, to truly understand a game you have to play it. To say otherwise is just plain nutty. It's like saying you know what a certain food tastes like because you saw it, and someone told you what it's like. Wrong. You have to play a game, and if you don't play it, you can't comment on its innovation or lack thereof.
Second, yes, Nintendo milks certain franchises. Mario and Pokemon are definitely two franchises that are overdone, IMO. But to say (and forgive me if it wasn't you who said it) that Zelda is part of that milking of franchises is factually wrong. To compare them to the absurdity that Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed have become is even more wrong.
However, it's worth noting that MS milks Halo as well, not to the extent that Nintendo milks Mario, but that's because it isn't as big of a brand. Mario is Nintendo. Sony doesn't have a franchise as entrenched in the public mind as Mario, but I'm sure they wish they did so they could milk it as well. Don't misunderstand, I'm sick of Mario just as much as you probably are, but in Nintendo's case, it's understandable from a business point. Because they don't have the 3rd party support that MS and Sony have, they have to do their own hyping, and nothing is as recognizable in the video gaming world as Mario.
Finally, to address the last paragraph from the quote I pulled, I think exactly as you do, but I feel that they need to keep the Wii U out there as long as possible, to get as much money from it as they can, and start fresh with the Wii 3. Releasing too early will put them in the same situation as they are now, unless, like I said in my original post, they're going to to match what the PS5 and XBwhatever are doing in terms of hardware, or at least come close. Releasing a console too early is a huge risk, if you get it wrong.
Suffice it to say that 1) you simply can not fully get a game without playing it. I don't care how much you think you can understand the gameplay and level design and plot from a trailer or a preview, to truly understand a game you have to play it. To say otherwise is just plain nutty. It's like saying you know what a certain food tastes like because you saw it, and someone told you what it's like. Wrong. You have to play a game, and if you don't play it, you can't comment on its innovation or lack thereof.
No, no you don't. The experience doesn't define the game, the gameplay mechanics do. That's like saying you can't learn the rules of checkers without playing it, of course you can learn the rules, those things can be described with words and visuals. Likewise, the "rules" of a video game (i.e. the gameplay mechanics) can easily be demonstrated without having to play it, doubly so if it's a series you've already played. And that's the problem, they refuse to do anything to change up the gameplay mechanics, there's no big twist on the gameplay and they don't use new hardware to modernize the gameplay or anything.
And no, you don't have to play a game to know if it's innovative. The very definition of an innovation is something that completely changes the way you think about something. Does keeping the same gameplay mechanics change the way you think? Absolutely not. An innovation is going to be something that's easily noticeable and easily marketable. And that's the thing, games like NSMBU, 3D World, and Tropical Freeze don't really do that. There's no huge, noticeable changes to the gameplay that change the way you think, these games could've easily been done on a previous console with little to no conflict. The gameplay is pretty copy/paste and doesn't do anything to further the series. An innovation is more like FLUDD or Galaxy's antigravity, those things fundamentally change the way a game is played. I haven't seen anything on that scale on the Wii U.
Totally wrong. 3D movement is a fundamental difference that brings with it tons of gameplay differences like long jumping, backflipping, totally different enemy behavior, etc. 2D and 3D games are rarely comparable, and they definitely aren't in this case. I know because I enjoy basically every 3D Mario I play and I haven't ever enjoyed a 2D Mario platformer outside of the original NSMB on DS.
None of those things make much of a difference in the gameplay. They're rarely utilized in the level design, so you still end up platforming the same way in both styles.
If you don't use the features of a game that's your own problem, not a design flaw. I backflip when I need to get higher and long jump when I need to jump further.
Furthermore you can hardly understand the intricacies of a game's mechanics without playing it. And to generalize a few Mario games that look similar from the outside and assume all Wii U-era Nintendo games are same-y as a result is just a stupid unscientific conclusion.
If you don't use the features of a game that's your own problem, not a design flaw. I backflip when I need to get higher and long jump when I need to jump further.
No, I've seen the level design. Those moves are rarely necessary for anything. Move additions aren't meaningful unless the gameplay utilizes them.
Suffice it to say that 1) you simply can not fully get a game without playing it. I don't care how much you think you can understand the gameplay and level design and plot from a trailer or a preview, to truly understand a game you have to play it. To say otherwise is just plain nutty. It's like saying you know what a certain food tastes like because you saw it, and someone told you what it's like. Wrong. You have to play a game, and if you don't play it, you can't comment on its innovation or lack thereof.
No, no you don't. The experience doesn't define the game, the gameplay mechanics do. That's like saying you can't learn the rules of checkers without playing it, of course you can learn the rules, those things can be described with words and visuals. Likewise, the "rules" of a video game (i.e. the gameplay mechanics) can easily be demonstrated without having to play it, doubly so if it's a series you've already played. And that's the problem, they refuse to do anything to change up the gameplay mechanics, there's no big twist on the gameplay and they don't use new hardware to modernize the gameplay or anything.
You can learn how to play checkers, but you don't know what playing checkers is like until you play. It's like reading on How To Swim, and saying "I know what it's like to swim." Knowing about gameplay is fine. Reading about it is fine. Reading about it can give a general idea on whether or not you want to play the game, but it won't give you a real idea of what the game is actually like. Only putting hands on it can do that.
And no, you don't have to play a game to know if it's innovative. The very definition of an innovation is something that completely changes the way you think about something. Does keeping the same gameplay mechanics change the way you think? Absolutely not. An innovation is going to be something that's easily noticeable and easily marketable. And that's the thing, games like NSMBU, 3D World, and Tropical Freeze don't really do that. There's no huge, noticeable changes to the gameplay that change the way you think, these games could've easily been done on a previous console with little to no conflict. The gameplay is pretty copy/paste and doesn't do anything to further the series. An innovation is more like FLUDD or Galaxy's antigravity, those things fundamentally change the way a game is played. I haven't seen anything on that scale on the Wii U.
I'm not really arguing against you on this point. I agree that not everything Nintendo does is innovative. I do disagree, however, that they claim everything they do is innovative. Are they more innovative than other developers? I think yes, but not with everything. If Nintendo (or any other company) only released games that were innovative, there would be months, maybe years, between game releases.
My biggest complaint with other developers is that they aren't even trying. Games like CoD and AC aren't even trying to innovate or try new things. Even if Nintendo fails (and they do) at innovating, at least one can say they're trying.
However, is innovation necessary? I don't think so. There are very fun games that use tried and true game mechanics, and there's nothing wrong with that.
If you don't use the features of a game that's your own problem, not a design flaw. I backflip when I need to get higher and long jump when I need to jump further.
No, I've seen the level design. Those moves are rarely necessary for anything. Move additions aren't meaningful unless the gameplay utilizes them.
Wrong. Some mechanics are added not to enhance gameplay but to enhance player experience. Example: Gears of War, being able to crouch and run. It only served the purpose of getting to players faster, gameplay wise it doesn't serve much (if any) purpose.Later in the series they expanded on it but in the original it was only added for player experience, not gameplay.
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
You can learn how to play checkers, but you don't know what playing checkers is like until you play. It's like reading on How To Swim, and saying "I know what it's like to swim." Knowing about gameplay is fine. Reading about it is fine. Reading about it can give a general idea on whether or not you want to play the game, but it won't give you a real idea of what the game is actually like. Only putting hands on it can do that.
This is a general idea issue, though. Lack of new gameplay mechanics are what's causing the problem.
I'm not really arguing against you on this point. I agree that not everything Nintendo does is innovative. I do disagree, however, that they claim everything they do is innovative. Are they more innovative than other developers? I think yes, but not with everything. If Nintendo (or any other company) only released games that were innovative, there would be months, maybe years, between game releases.
Every single game is a bit ridiculous, but to go nearly 10 years with the same games is a little excessive. Especially in Mario's case where there's been half a dozen games in that time frame, that series is definitely due for something new.
However, is innovation necessary? I don't think so. There are very fun games that use tried and true game mechanics, and there's nothing wrong with that.
You have to change things up every once in a while to keep things from getting boring. We're at that point right now. In fact, I think they should change things up at least once in a generation, because generation shifts aren't meaningful without some kind of gameplay evolution.
Take a step back, guys. You're becoming so overly critical that, if you take some of your posts quite seriously, it's pretty much impossible to truly innovate.
Tell me. What franchise, on any console, has been innovative in the last 10 years? Really. Go ahead. But don't go for low punches; play fair. If we're going to talk first-party Nintendo games, then you need to keep it to "first-party" level stuff on other consoles. So we're definitely talking AAA fare - not indie stuff. We could be pretty ruthless and literally keep it to Microsoft or Sony, but we'll go ahead and expand it to other publishers just to give you a shot. You may really come up with something. It'll be interesting.
With that being said, some of the biggest franchises of recent memory come to mind as NOT being innovative in any way whatsoever. We all know Call of Duty. Nothing's changed.
Mass Effect. Three games, mechanics never changed.
Assassin's Creed. No need to elaborate.
Gears of War. God of War. Halo. Uncharted. Grand Theft Auto. Even Little Big Planet (the first was innovative, the subsequent entries only added new bells and whistles).
Just like Nintendo's games that you are all so keen on attacking, the first entries of these franchises I mentioned can be considered "innovative" (they were the first of their kind, after all), but have since shown absolutely zero innovative qualities, much like the Nintendo games we seem so interested in attacking. Go ahead, take an honest crack at this (using your ruthless definitions of "innovative," of course).
@Bolt_Strike No, the true issues, and the reasons no one ever gets through to you, is:
that you have such a strict, superficial, nearly unachievable, and downright stupid definitition of what gameplay elements actually constitute as "new"
You keep talking as if newness is the only thing that matters when excution is what makes or breaks a game.
The fact that you keep bringing up how things in certain games don't affect the feel or how you actually play the game when you yourself have stated you have not played the games in question is indeed utterly insane.
And most importantly, how you throw out things for being "too subtle" - as if subtlety itself is a bad thing.
Affect, how things get effected in the long run, how they mold and change other aspects to create more changes - That's huge. That's the most important thing in anything. "Small things can make a big impact" <- a saying I'm sure you've heard before (in one form or another, I kinda paraphrased...).
Listen, we're long past the experimentation phase of Gaming that lasted through the 90's and now the industry has to build off the things that actually work. And I can't see a single reason why that isn't a good thing.
Yes, there are things that you can decern simply from visuals, but the feel is not one of them. How gameplay features come together anbd affect how they play is "the feel". Especially in platformers (which is more than half of what you've complained about), where every level can be different and have new surprises around every corner.
I had an idea of a time based game that has events dependent on if you get to where you need to be on time. Like, if an important character is about to be killed at sunrise and you have till then to find them, but you fail, it doesn't end the game, just makes it so the player needs to find a new way to solve the game. It'd be like real life. If you fail a mission in real life, a game over sign doesn't just appear and you push continue, but you have to figure out a new way to solve a problem
Do you like videogames? If so, you must know
It's dangerous to go Alone.
Take a step back, guys. You're becoming so overly critical that, if you take some of your posts quite seriously, it's pretty much impossible to truly innovate.
Tell me. What franchise, on any console, has been innovative in the last 10 years? Really. Go ahead. But don't go for low punches; play fair. If we're going to talk first-party Nintendo games, then you need to keep it to "first-party" level stuff on other consoles. So we're definitely talking AAA fare - not indie stuff. We could be pretty ruthless and literally keep it to Microsoft or Sony, but we'll go ahead and expand it to other publishers just to give you a shot. You may really come up with something. It'll be interesting.
With that being said, some of the biggest franchises of recent memory come to mind as NOT being innovative in any way whatsoever. We all know Call of Duty. Nothing's changed.
Mass Effect. Three games, mechanics never changed.
Assassin's Creed. No need to elaborate.
Gears of War. God of War. Halo. Uncharted. Grand Theft Auto. Even Little Big Planet (the first was innovative, the subsequent entries only added new bells and whistles).
Just like Nintendo's games that you are all so keen on attacking, the first entries of these franchises I mentioned can be considered "innovative" (they were the first of their kind, after all), but have since shown absolutely zero innovative qualities, much like the Nintendo games we seem so interested in attacking. Go ahead, take an honest crack at this (using your ruthless definitions of "innovative," of course).
I think you're being too strict with the meaning of 'innovative'. While todays games might not have the luxury of, say, inventing the platformer, most good games still offer a new experience by making a novel combination of different gameplay mechanics and narratives.
Take Twilight Princess, which brought a new level of polish to the story and mechanics of the standard 3D Zelda template. Mass Effect's story and shooting certainly evolved since the first game, if you don't believe me then go back to the first game, it's downright primitive.
Uncharted and Halo certainly innovated. The stories grew in a positive direction from their first to third installments. The set piece moments certainly improved as time went on; the scarab fights in Halo 3 and train sequence in Uncharted 2 still blow me away.
Comparatively 3D Mario hasn't really done anything very new since Galaxy, besides the coop, but that hardly makes it the same game being rereleased over and over. That's just a stupid thing to assert.
Mario games have been much more iterative than innovative since Galaxy, but they're still very inventive in level design. The variety and quality of levels in 3D World is truly staggering.
So Anakin kneels before Monster Mash and pledges his loyalty to the graveyard smash.
Mario games have been much more iterative than innovative since Galaxy, but they're still very inventive in level design. The variety and quality of levels in 3D World is truly staggering.
I can't say much on this argument, but I will say... it doesn't take a genius to figure out what 3D World is all about-gameplay wise. Even if you haven't played it, you know how it goes. You run, jump, and get to the end of a level, just like you did in 3D Land, and if you played that, you pretty much know the exact way in which 3D World plays. Sure, experience is always preferable, but Bolt_Strike is simply saying he feels 3D world isn't innovative in many ways. When he does pick up the controller, he's not suddenly going to feel like this game does everything different. He can tell by the videos he's seen or watched other people play. And to be honest he's right. 3D World's only "innovative" moments, in which gameplay goes against expectation, is the Captain Toad levels and the gamepad-centric levels. Everything else was pretty run of the mill. Extremely fun and well-designed, but not very innovative.
that you have such a strict, superficial, nearly unachievable, and downright stupid definitition of what gameplay elements actually constitute as "new"
Funny, because it wasn't so unachievable before 2010. I don't have high standards, the industry's standards just dropped.
You keep talking as if newness is the only thing that matters when excution is what makes or breaks a game.
Execution is certainly important, but don't downplay the importance of newness. Without newness to draw people into the game in the first place, good execution is all for naught, people will just ignore the game because they've gotten bored with the gameplay.
Listen, we're long past the experimentation phase of Gaming that lasted through the 90's and now the industry has to build off the things that actually work. And I can't see a single reason why that isn't a good thing.
We're never past experimentation. The industry is constantly evolving, both technologically and culturally. And even when those changes are slow (such as nowadays), there's always room for more creativity. So there's no reason for the industry to stagnate as it has now.
Yes, there are things that you can decern simply from visuals, but the feel is not one of them. How gameplay features come together anbd affect how they play is "the feel". Especially in platformers (which is more than half of what you've complained about), where every level can be different and have new surprises around every corner.
Feel isn't a huge part of the fun though. You're not going to enjoy a game just because it's functional (although you're certainly going to not enjoy a game when it's not), it takes more than that to entertain someone. Games are enjoyable for the actions the player can perform in the game and the mechanics that dictate how the game is played. The problem with the 3DS and Wii U platformers is that they're too simple, it basically amounts to running and jumping and whatever signature mechanics the series as a whole retains. Conveniently though, this means that there's plenty they can add to mix things up but Nintendo doesn't take this opportunity anymore, they just keep them as simple and generic as possible.
@Bolt_Strike is actually a cool person. He just has different views on stuff and that's fine. I still respect his opinion. Didn't he say he doesn't consider Super Mario 3D World innovative? That's fine with me. Doesn't bother me. I really enjoyed that game.
I own a Wii U and 3DS. I also own a PS4!
Master of the Hype Train
3DS Friend Code: 2921-9690-6053 | Nintendo Network ID: Mediking9
@Bolt_Strike is actually a cool person. He just has different views on stuff and that's fine. I still respect his opinion. Didn't he say he doesn't consider Super Mario 3D World innovative? That's fine with me. Doesn't bother me. I really enjoyed that game.
Not only that, but his original contention also stated that Nintendo had just been milking their IPs for a decade, a ridiculous statement. Since bolt strike exists on this forum mainly in the form of his/her strong opinions, and I strongly disagree with those opinions, you can probably deduce what I think of bolt strike.
Anyway, I've personally been disappointed with Nintendo from about late 2009 to now. That's the result of them not releasing many story driven games, and of those they did release Skyward Sword was somewhat lackluster, Fire Emblem bored me, and Xenoblade gave me no enjoyment whatsoever. Heck, even the well-reviewed Luigi's Mansion Dark Moon fell flat for me, and I loved the gamecube original. I've never really bought into all of the platformers outside of 3D Mario games, as I'm more of a solo story-focused gamer, so Mario Kart and Smash Bros felt soulless to me as well, and the Wii U hasn't been very attractive until games like Bayonetta came out.
One of the few late wii era games I loved was Monster Hunter Tri, so Monster Hunter 4 will likely be my favorite game in the 3DS, but even that's not a Nintendo-developed game. Man, this year's Zelda better be great.
I guess I'm just missing the gamecube and early wii era, which contained Pikmin 1 & 2, The Wind Waker, Luigi's Mansion, Paper Mario TTYD, Metroid Prime, Echoes, Twilight Princess, Corruption, Super Paper Mario, and the first time I played Okami; the majority of those rank in my favorite 20 games ever. I don't mean to distort logic with nostalgia, but it just seemed that those Nintendo games had a lot more frequency and higher peaks of greatness than the current, still good, crop.
The problem with the 3DS and Wii U platformers is that they're too simple, it basically amounts to running and jumping and whatever signature mechanics the series as a whole retains. Conveniently though, this means that there's plenty they can add to mix things up but Nintendo doesn't take this opportunity anymore, they just keep them as simple and generic as possible.
You're making stuff up as you go.
Yes, the New Super Mario Bros series happened and we're all a little embarrassed by it. Play some other games.
So Anakin kneels before Monster Mash and pledges his loyalty to the graveyard smash.
Forums
Topic: Iwata Says “Wii U Is Not Over Yet” More Unannounced Titles To Be Announced
Posts 101 to 120 of 134
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.