Topic: Nintendo is Lazy and Doesn't Care?

Skywake, I think you're going more than a bit overboard there. He said honest and upfront that he hadn't played it and was just going by screenshots. Nothing delusional about that. What's delusional is acting as if someone has said something he clearly hasn't and then accusing him of hating a game he hasn't played. No one made a claim to "objectivity" here, as if such a thing is possible when saying which games you like and don't like.

As for your comparison of the series different art directions, I really can't say NSMBW is an improvement over SMW. It's good, but not great. And I own the game and love it, so I think my opinion passes your test for being "objective."

It seems like there's really only one full priced game that people are using as an excuse for Nintendo being "lazy." That's Wii Music. One full priced first party game most people don't like. A game, that, like it or not, tried something new. Would it be easier to just churn out some new tracks for an F-Zero game? Probably. Just because you'd rather see something else, doesn't make Wii Music lazy. It's not my thing either, but it's ONE GAME. Hardly enough to malign the entire company and console over.

I love having these screen shots side by side. It really shows how Mario has grown over the years. Thank you. =)

Um. Wii Music is great.

Token Girl, lots of other examples have been offered: Twilight Princess and the other NPC titles, Animal Crossing, even (bafflingly) NSMBW, despite having 0% reused levels. There was one duplicate character and the graphics aren't perfect, so apparently it's lazy.

[quote=Trevor_FoxI love having these screen shots side by side. It really shows how Mario has grown over the years. Thank you. =)

[/quote]

Yes, if we take into consideration the number of years, Mario growth is almost nothing at all (I would only excuse the new SMB as Wiiware and quite cheap). If you want to see some growth, compare very first zelda with ZTP for NGC. If you want to see a brutal step, compare first Metal Gear for MSX2 with latest one for PS3. But until now, steps with Wii exclusives are minimal if any. Even Mario Galaxy is just a minor step over N64/DS Mario 64 versions. Mario Kart Wii is a null step over the NGC predecessor (in fact they seem almost the very same game aside of some new circuits and MP). Wii Metroid is almost identical to these of the NGC too (these 3 being quite good games btw), but not any huge step forward at all.

Yea, no. You compare Galaxy with Mario 64 instead of Galaxy with Super Mario Brothers, and yet you compare Metal Gear Solid 4 with Metal Gear instead of Metal Gear? It's not parallel. Changes made between Galaxy and Mario 64 are actually far greater than between Twilight Princess and Ocarina of Time. MGS4 may be a greater change from MGS1 than Galaxy and Mario 64, but it's hard to compare. The gameplay in the MGS series hasn't changed much. They've just kept inflating that ridiculous story more and more, which is hard to compare with Mario since it doesn't have a story and shouldn't.

The Prime series was developed over a short time span, so you can't expect huge changes, but it still managed to change a good bit with each sequel. Prime 2 added dark world, ammo-based weapons, and better morph ball puzzles, including bosses. Prime 3 restructured the game with space travel, greatly expanded the role of narrative and cinematics, and probably did other things if I bothered to play the game more.

And what has the MGS series done? Well, MGS2 fixed the camera and controls and introduced Raiden (not to mention the worst ending of any video game ever). Otherwise, it was basically the same game, the bosses and story designed to feel like a simulation of MGS1's events. MGS3 took the same game play from 2 but plopped it in more open environments. MGS4 was basically the same as MGS3 in terms of play, just which a much more grandiose story.

Back to Mario, even if we ignored the 3D ones, you can't act like there was continued development on the sidescrolling series between SMW and NSMB. NSMBDS was the product of Nintendo trying to refamiliarize themselves with the series' roots and was not intended to be a huge step forward. The Wii one does incorporate a lot of new things though, new power-ups, new level design twists, and of course the biggest change the series has seen yet, simultaneous co-op. The formula really doesn't need an overhaul, so why give it one? What they've done shows careful consideration went into what the game needs and does not need.

The fact is, most series are developed incrementally, not with a huge revolution in every iteration of the series. If they completely rethought how the game is played every time, you'd end up losing what attracted you to the series in the first place.

I don't think Nintendo is lazy at all. They still make terrific games, and they have like 5 or 6 great looking ones coming out next year.

And Super Mario Galaxy 2. Which is something more than a game.

Did you know that...
New Super Mario Bros. Wii is awesome!
Now you know!
Bill Nye the Science Guy!

Playing through Metroid Prime Trilogy is a great way to see what enhancements Retro made from game to game. I did not notice a lot of Metroid Prime 3's enhancements until playing through the Trilogy.

This is the hard part, I would imagine, for any game. Developers can't keep a certain game exactly the same, or it will get stale, but they also can't innovate greatly (or "revolutionize" if you prefer) or it becomes something entirely different than what it started off as. Sometimes that's good, but it could possibly cause the game to be so different that it's no longer a "Mario" or "Zelda" or "Metroid" game. That's the hard part. Innovating within that game. Providing enough differences to make the gameplay better and fun, but also keeping Mario, Mario and Zelda, Zelda.

I think if anything 2009 has proven that they do care about their loyal fans. Punch-Out--hardcore challenge, classic gameplay, gorgeous graphics, and Title Defense mode was like an entire game within the game. New Super Mario Bros--the first 2-D Mario platformer on a home console in over 15 years, and it's his best 2-D game yet. It's also incredibly challenging. Zelda: Spirit Tracks: beautiful, incredibly well told story, innovative boss battles, and once again it proves that Nintendo does know how to create a challenging game for its long time fans. Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story: Do I even need to explain this one?

If those games are the result of Nintendo not caring about it's longtime fans, then I wish they'd stop caring about their longtime fans more often, because all of those games would be in my top 10 Nintendo games ever--no joke. The article is called "Nintendo is Lazy and You Don't Care". And you know what, if they keep on making kickass games like that then I honestly don't care. If IGN wants to be cynical then I'm not going to stop them. But what's the purpose of this artice? Making Nintendo fans revolt against Nintendo? And why? Because there was no online multiplayer in NSMBW and Matt hates Wii Music?

I'm usually the one guy around here to support IGN, because there's a lot of hate around here about them and I happen to like 'em, but this article was more of a diary rant than anything.

Oh sooo true! I agree, IGN is generally alright (it's Gamespot I can't stand). Obviously there are going to be articles we don't agree with. But this one is just a little ridiculous... I just don't like how he's kind of abusing his influence (having been part of the Nintendo team) to put across such a negative image. It's taking advantage of all the idiots that read stuff like this and agree just because they don't know any better. Of course if you actually don't like the games then that's a fair call (though just personal preference). To call Nintendo lazy with such flawed logic is a step too far.

really?! more often than not, i find gamespot more balanced than ign... hm. oh well. i guess it doesn't matter given that i don't often check either anymore... not since i found nintendolife, anyway.

He claimed that from simply looking at the screenshots he could tell that New SMB Wii looked "terrible" like the DS version and that the original NES games and Super Mario World had a better "aesthetic". I called his objectivity into question because clearly, even from screen shots, that's not true. This wasn't about the gameplay or the year it was made as far as I am aware. This was about the screenshots and their "aesthetic"

In the screenshots I grabbed you see the "standard level" style over four "generations" of 2D Mario games. The similarities between Super Mario World and New SMB Wii are right there for all to see but at the same time its fairly obvious that the Wii version has a much more detailed, cleaner and generally more aesthetically pleasing look.... and this is from me, a person who LOVES the look of Super Mario World. If New SMB Wii looks terrible then so does SMW.

I wasn't saying that my assessment was objective just that his is painfully less so.

Maybe, I mean I don't really check Gamespot like... ever anymore. But it seems so often that they totally botch their scores. They seem to find the most trivial things to complain about, and put way too much weight on those things. Then for another game, even sometimes the same reviewer, will just ignore them completely :S. I just really don't like them .

I don't EVER check either of those sites since I found NL, but when I did, it was seldom, and I remember thinking IGN sucked, but it was better than Gamespot.

NSMB, a short 2D game with very simplistic artwork (year 2009, not 1996) and little innovation: 45Eur. This is how much Nintendo cares about its pocket, not about the players. Even more, the very same game with quite similar artwork was out for DS and Wii, which also means even less development hours for Wii version. You may love NSMB, ok, but selling that outclassed, obsolete, short and simplistic game for 45Eur is whatever but fair. This might have a good Wiiware candidate, but of course, money is money which is the very only thing Nintento is taking care of with the Wii.

New Super Mario Bros, a short easy 2D game with very simplistic artwork that help bring new fans to the series (year 2006)
New Super Mario Bros Wii, A hard what some may see short game with the same simplistic artwork that Nintendo has improved after their outing on the DS (year 2009)

Comparing NSMBDS with NSMBW is like comparing a Crisp to a Cracker. They may have the same similarities be it a crunch or the same iconic jump but they are very different. NSMBW improved on the DS with each of his enemies were newly drawn, giving them an updated look and feel from the DS game. Look at all the enemies that you encounter in the DS game, compare their walking patterns, attack patterns etc with the Wii game and you will see how much has changed. They added Multiplayer, sure it looks like it has been a last minute add on but frankly, it doesn't matter. The Wii being a 'family' console has achieved a family game. This game allows families to enjoy Super Mario Bros, or you could enjoy the DS version, pretending that you playing Luigi is someone else. They changed bosses. With there not being the same boss in a different location (Bowser Jr.) then bigger enemies or platformer bosses (Pokey, Petey etc.) NSMBW is not the same game, and Nintendo were not lazy with its development.

I couldn't be bothere reading all of the comments in the 7 pages worth that already exist, but I left a comment on IGN's boards so i will simply copy and paste my opinion here too.

"It doesn't matter to me if what this article says is right or not, I have an undeniably good time playing my Wii, and always have. I also have a 360 and a PS3.

My PS3 simply does not get touched. It may be the most advanced of all 3 systems, but the few games I want for it are better on the xbox. Thats my personal opinion, and it all comes down to me not liking the Sony controller. And thats only because of the positioning of the analogue stick on the left!!!

I have to say I would love to see a Crackdown style game on the Wii, but Nintendo are never going to make that kind of game and that's fine by me! Any other developer would likely not put as much effort into it, like this article says about Nintendo themselves! And thats fine! Thats MY opnion. Just as this article is a staff memeber at IGN's opinion.

We all have our own opinions and are entitled to them. It doesn't make anyone's right. If everyone had the same opinion then we would have a Nintendo Xbox 3 right now. Wouldn't that be weird?!

Let's just be happy that at least Nintendo have provided some alternatives to what is on offer elsewhere. If the Wii was like the xbox and PS3, there would be no diversity. We now have a proper choice of direction to take our own personal gaming experiences and that should never - in my opinion - be taken away from us. "

I would also like to add to that that I believe Nintendo make the best games out there just now. There are no Sony exclusive game that really shout out to me. Never been a god of war fan. I liked Resistance Fall of Man and the second one too, but I can get a pretty similar experience elsewhere. The 360 has some killer titles in Gears of War, the aforementioned Crackdown(I prefer it to GTA, sorry!) among others, but as good as these games are, the experience of playing through a Zelda or Mario title has never been replicated for me on any other console!

Although, as I stated earlier, I do have some quibbles with some of Nintendo's decisions, I think the one that really takes the cake is their insistence on not allowing their products to go down in price. I was being random on the IGN website yesterday and read a review of Resident Evil 3 (GCN port) where they were berating Capcom for selling a 3-year-old game for $39.95. They then held up the example of Nintendo giving away their masterpiece OoT at no charge.

I know it represents a change of philosophy on the part of Iwata (if the game is worth that much money, the price shouldn't go down/ games should have different values depending on their content [WiiWare and DsiWare] rather than their age), but it just seems like a decision based ONLY on business, with no thought toward the consumer who can seldom afford games at full price.

Again, I don't see myself gaming with any other company, but it's hard to defend decisions based only on squeezing as much profit as possible from every game sold. Yes, they are a business, but the best businesses look at more than the bottom line.