Gaming Next-Gen System Predictions

[Goodbye, Face]

[size=1][QUOTE=James][color=#737373]But you just finished telling me that you didn't like Metroid Prime and that you haven't liked Nintendo's games since SNES. So what do you mean by "back to their own standards"?

Metroid Prime is a brilliant game and an example of one of Nintendo's better products in recent years. There are a ton of amazing Nintendo titles on GameCube and N64; these games exemplify the highest levels of quality in the industry.

It's not that the games themselves are bad, or lacking. It's just that you don't like them. As I said earlier, that's fine. I know a few people who don't like Mario even though the Mario games are often the big trailblazers. But these are still great games and the sales reflect that.

When you say you aren't talking about sales...yeah, we are talking about two different things here. These games are up to Nintendo's high standards, which the sales reflect. The sales wouldn't be high if the games were no good.

That's what I'm trying to get across. The games might be good, but that doesn't mean you like them. It's important to make the distinction.[/color][/quote]

At least since the N64, Nintendo has basically slammed Sony for demonstrating that quantity is apparently better than quality, while they're more on the quality side of the fence. The reason I didn't include the N64 in my saying that is because I have just one game, Star Wars Podracer (not bad, getting the system, four controllers, expansion pack, and a game for $20), and I've only played maybe ten others. As for Metroid Prime, I agree with you that it's a good game, the only problem I've had with it is repeating half an area from a save room 15 minutes away from a considerably hard boss. I know this is cliche of me to say, but issues like this would have upset you more if it wasn't a Metroid game, if Nostalgia didn't occur. Basically, Nintendo seems to make a game concept, then go into the vault to see what character they haven't used in a while, and try to fit them in. Would the game have selled less if it didn't have Metroid stamped all over it (Ha! There's the cliche!) Even I am willing enough to play through a game for a week going "play level, pwned by boss, play level again, pwned by boss, play level, beat boss, on to next level" until I beat it. Why? Because Samus Aran is cool, and I want to see Samus roll into a ball again, and collect power up from statues, I'm just hoping it'll be fun all over again. Did they include more frequent saves in Echoes? If they did, I'll definitely play it.



[quote][color=#737373]I don't understand though. You respect them for not pushing graphics without focusing on gameplay, but that also disappoints you?

I think basically, you simply haven't enjoyed some of Nintendo's games in recent times. That's cool. But they are [i]great[/i] games, objectively speaking. I only mention sales to demonstrate the success that many of these games have had and that Nintendo isn't going the way of Sega or something.

Personally, I think Nintendo has made some of its most brilliant games in the last ten years. Sometimes they do well, sometimes they don't. But even games that I personally don't always like...I'd be hard-pressed to say that they're "bad" games. I just acknowledge that my taste isn't always the same as everyone else's.

Mostly, I've just been trying to clarify that distinction. Your (or my) personal taste isn't necessarily reflecting an objective truth when it comes to the success of a business. Some of the stuff I've read about Revolution here just totally misunderstands the strategy behind it. So, mostly just for the purpose of putting the information out there, I've tried to clarify a little. It's all good. ~_^[/color][/QUOTE]

I mentioned graphics in refrence to change from the GBC to GBA, there was barely a difference, however, I should expect that after saying that they're just portable games. There should still be some sort of difference. I'm going to buy a DS after their first price drop, whenever it is, I see enough cool games on the horizon to want to get it. I've never called of the games bad, that would mean that they're games like "The Bombing Islands," where you stop islands from blowing up by... blowing them up. I have been saying that I personally don't like some of these games. I do perfer my PS2 over my GC, but I've been buying more GC games than PS2 games recently (the only game I've purchased for PS2 this year is Ateller Deus, or however it's spelled. Meanwhile, I just started building my 15 game library of GC games).

Oh, and here's my analogy on why I don't like sales figures, they can be as inaccurate as an oopinion. Britney Spears is a popular artist, but she's not necessarily a good artist. Have fun with it.[/size]

[James]

[quote]As for Metroid Prime, I agree with you that it's a good game, the only problem I've had with it is repeating half an area from a save room 15 minutes away from a considerably hard boss. [/quote]

[color=#737373]Okay, the saves are too sparse and that increases the difficulty. I agree. I'm just pointing out that Metroid Prime is regarded as a masterpiece, for valid reasons.[/color]

[quote]Basically, Nintendo seems to make a game concept, then go into the vault to see what character they haven't used in a while, and try to fit them in.[/quote]

[color=#737373]That is somewhat true, but it implies that Metroid Prime is somehow not a Metroid game at heart. I disagree. I think it's a very logical (and highly successful) move into 3D for the franchise. It maintains the core gameplay and builds on that in clever and innovative ways.

I wouldn't take the save point thing and use that to cast doubt on the entire game. You've kind of backed off from that a bit, but yeah, I think it's important to have the distinction there.[/color]

[quote]I mentioned graphics in refrence to change from the GBC to GBA, there was barely a difference, however, I should expect that after saying that they're just portable games. There should still be some sort of difference. [/quote]

[color=#737373]You couldn't tell the difference? C'mon. Compare The Minish Cap to Link's Awakening DX. The two systems are both 2D, but the difference in graphics is pretty darn noticeable.

We just aren't going to agree on that point though. I think that for what it was, GBA was darn impressive. It managed to boost graphics without radically draining battery power or becoming too physically large. GBA is a good product, even if you prefer 3D graphics.[/color]

[quote]I've never called of the games bad, that would mean that they're games like "The Bombing Islands," where you stop islands from blowing up by... blowing them up. I have been saying that I personally don't like some of these games.[/quote]

[color=#737373]Bingo! That hits the nail on the head. That's what I've been trying to point out for this entire discussion. Many of these games you speak of are actually good - but they don't appeal to you because you are looking for something else. That's totally cool.[/color]

[quote]Oh, and here's my analogy on why I don't like sales figures, they can be as inaccurate as an oopinion. Britney Spears is a popular artist, but she's not necessarily a good artist. Have fun with it.[/quote]

[color=#737373]Ah, but do music magazines and web sites across the world frequently give her very high scores for her albums? Probably not.

Sales do not indicate good games necessarily, but sales [i]do[/i] indicate success. You had earlier said that Nintendo was going the way of Sega. I was pointing out that it isn't and part of that involves pointing out sales successes.

Sure, bad games can sell well. But these bad games often don't receive wide critical acclaim, unlike many of Nintendo's better products. Again, distinctions.[/color]

[Morpheus]

[QUOTE=RiflesAtRecess][size=1]

At least since the N64, Nintendo has basically slammed Sony for demonstrating that quantity is apparently better than quality, while they're more on the quality side of the fence. The reason I didn't include the N64 in my saying that is because I have just one game, Star Wars Podracer (not bad, getting the system, four controllers, expansion pack, and a game for $20), and I've only played maybe ten others[/size][/QUOTE]
There's your problem: Play more of the games. Mario 64, Starfox 64, Bomberman, Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Pilotwings 64, LOZ: OOT, LOZ: MM, Mario Kart 64, and Battletanx 1 & 2 are all worth playing. You are right on the quantity/quality: Sony had a lot of good games and Nitendo had a dozen great ones.

[Brasil]

[quote name='RiflesAtRecess][size=1']As for Metroid Prime, I agree with you that it's a good game, the only problem I've had with it is repeating half an area from a save room 15 minutes away from a considerably hard boss. I know this is cliche of me to say, but issues like this would have upset you more if it wasn't a Metroid game, if Nostalgia didn't occur. Basically, Nintendo seems to make a game concept, then go into the vault to see what character they haven't used in a while, and try to fit them in. Would the game have selled less if it didn't have Metroid stamped all over it (Ha! There's the cliche!) Even I am willing enough to play through a game for a week going "play level, pwned by boss, play level again, pwned by boss, play level, beat boss, on to next level" until I beat it. Why? Because Samus Aran is cool, and I want to see Samus roll into a ball again, and collect power up from statues, I'm just hoping it'll be fun all over again. Did they include more frequent saves in Echoes? If they did, I'll definitely play it.[/size][/quote] Do I care enough to even bother...perhaps.

I don't see how anyone can say (or imply) that Metroid Prime is simply a run-of-the-mill, tired, and overdone FPS-type game that is only made original by including Samus. It's almost as if you're saying that because it features Samus, it's not really a Metroid game at its core? Where's the logic in that?

Metroid Prime from the ground up is a total Metroid game, even down to the control scheme itself...you can look at how the side-scrolling games control, particularly Super Metroid and Fusion, and map them almost directly into the GC controller, with at most changing the physical location of one or two buttons. Other than the obvious controller casing differences, the control schemes in Prime and its predecessors are identical...how is Prime not a Metroid game?

I mean, it's not as if Nintendo/Retro Studioes simply took Dinosaur Planet and slapped in Star Fox characters. ~_^

[quote][size=1]Basically, Nintendo seems to make a game concept, then go into the vault to see what character they haven't used in a while, and try to fit them in.[/size][/quote] So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're basically saying a Legend of Zelda game isn't really Zelda...it's just Ratchet and Clank + Link? That's absurd. lol Wind Waker was a Zelda game. Ocarina of Time was a Zelda game. Metroid Prime was Metroid through and through. Fusion felt odd at times, but that's because the plot was odd to begin with...but Fusion is still classic Metroid at its core.

And about the save points, well, that's kind of the idea, isn't it? I mean, historically, Metroid games have always had save points sprinkled throughout (except the NES original), so there was always a fair amount of backtracking/travel to and from boss lairs and so forth. You go into a Metroid game expecting that to an extent. Granted, the difficulty in Prime was a bit harsh sometimes, but I never found it to be more difficult than Super Metroid, NES Metroid, or even Fusion at points, and Fusion was much easier than most games in the series.

And...I don't see how you can criticize Metroid Prime for being so-called "uninspired franchise whoring" and then place Halo above it. Not to start any war here or anything, but if you want to talk about uninspired franchises...on the criterion of formulaic game design...Halo trumps just about everything known to man. lol

[Goodbye, Face]

James, I've played Minnish Cap (for about five minutes), I don't remember GBA starting out looking like that.

And me talking about Metroid like that, I wasn't quite saying that game isn't a Metroid game, I was talking in general. I see this more in games like Luigi's Mansion (I haven't played it).

To Siren, I had some difficulties with the original Metroid as well, I used Game Genie to beat it in one sitting. I didn't die enough in Super Metroid (my favorite Metroid game) for saving to be an issue. I basically went back to a save room only because I was leaving for a while. Metroid Fusion was the one where you fight an alien version of yourself, right? I think I played it for like two hours on a car trip with a friend. I think I died once and felt lucky because I only fought two easy bosses and died by the hand of monsters a few screens away from a save room. In any case, I did not call Metroid Prime an "uninspired franchise whoring," that's a little much. I'm saying that Nintendo doesn't create new characters because they won't sell like a Metroid or a Zelda would sell. Think about FF, why keep the name in every unrealted game? It won't sell, it'll be like Shadow Hearts, which sold... what? Two copies? Why didn't Prince of Persia: Sands of Time not sell, even with Splinter Cell bundled with it? Mario wouldn't sell half as well without Mario being in it, what if it was Croc in the game? We all forgot him right? Croc Sunshine, people would see that and puke on the spot. Just a thought.

[James]

[color=#737373]The thing is, Nintendo can't win in that situation. If Nintendo totally avoided its old characters, many fans (including me) would be disappointed. These characters are successful for a reason; it's like asking Disney to stop making anything to do with Mickey Mouse.

In regard to something like Luigi's Mansion, what you say is true. But Nintendo incorporates existing characters into these new franchises for a reason: familiarity. It is possible to introduce a new concept to gamers with a familiar face. That's largely what Nintendo tries to do.

I think the benefits of that could be argued forever. Sometimes I agree with it, sometimes I don't. But I don't really think that Nintendo sells its characters short - Luigi's Mansion, for what it was, was a pretty good game. It could have been a bit more expansive, but it was an experience that was made all the better by including Luigi and the various Mario-mythology, for lack of a better term.

Your whole argument seems to be a bit contradictory though. I mean, you brought up the example of Final Fantasy...a game which I think you mentioned you like earlier. So Square is doing just what Nintendo are doing, in that instance. These companies use existing names and characters because yes, they do sell. But also, the Final Fantasy games aren't totally unrelated - you'll definitely find common threads throughout all of them. They're all designed to appeal to a particular audience. There's a reason that Final Fantasy isn't Star Ocean, for instance.

You basically implied that Nintendo had plugged Samus into an unrelated game, with Metroid Prime. But as has been pointed out, Metroid Prime is a pure Metroid game, any way you look at it. So I don't think that example is the same as, say, Luigi's Mansion.

As for GBA...I think you just need to play more games. There were and are plenty of great looking games on that system. But nevertheless, it is a 2D system. If you're looking for flashy 3D graphics, you obviously won't find 'em there.[/color]

[Brasil]

[quote name='RiflesAtRecess']And me talking about Metroid like that, I wasn't quite saying that game isn't a Metroid game, I was talking in general. I see this more in games like Luigi's Mansion (I haven't played it).[/quote] Well, when you say that Metroid is "stamped all over it," I, like others here, find it difficult to believe that you meant anything other than the game wasn't really a Metroid game.

[quote]To Siren, I had some difficulties with the original Metroid as well, I used Game Genie to beat it in one sitting. I didn't die enough in Super Metroid (my favorite Metroid game) for saving to be an issue. I basically went back to a save room only because I was leaving for a while. Metroid Fusion was the one where you fight an alien version of yourself, right? I think I played it for like two hours on a car trip with a friend. I think I died once and felt lucky because I only fought two easy bosses and died by the hand of monsters a few screens away from a save room.[/quote] And because of all of that, you went into Metroid Prime expecting a cakewalk, from how it sounds...but that's an unreasonable expectaction, because Prime's gameplay is classic Metroid.

[quote]In any case, I did not call Metroid Prime an "uninspired franchise whoring," that's a little much.[/quote] I exaggerated to make a point, my point being that using your evaluation criteria, every game and game franchise in the history of mankind would be considered uninspired franchise whoring.

While there are some games (Halo, for example) that are totally cookie-cutter games whose plot, design approach, etc., wouldn't change worth a damn if you slapped a different hero in for the lead (see Halo 2 for an example of this; the Arbiter and MC are the same character), Metroid Prime is not one of them, because it was a game [i]built[/i] for Samus, built for Samus' world, built for Samus' character, built for Samus' game.

You were arguing that Metroid Prime was essentially worthless because Samus, a Nintendo stock character, was the main character, and were implying that because Samus was in Metroid Prime, that meant it wasn't really a Metroid game, because to you, it just looked like some average FPS with Metroid "stamped all over it."

[quote]I'm saying that Nintendo doesn't create new characters because they won't sell like a Metroid or a Zelda would sell. Think about FF, why keep the name in every unrealted game? It won't sell, it'll be like Shadow Hearts, which sold... what? Two copies? Why didn't Prince of Persia: Sands of Time not sell, even with Splinter Cell bundled with it? Mario wouldn't sell half as well without Mario being in it, what if it was Croc in the game? We all forgot him right? Croc Sunshine, people would see that and puke on the spot. Just a thought.[/QUOTE] How is Croc a legitimate example here? The game didn't do well (and Croc long forgotten about by the majority of the gaming and developer populace) because one, the "hero" of the game was an idiot, and a poor replacement for the multitude of tired 3rd person action/adventure Crash Bandicoot-ish derivatives; two, the game suffered from lousy jump mechanics and tired, formulaic platformer levels with uninspired level design; three, the game sucked in general.

Croc was easily forgotten because it was easily forgettable, because the game sucked big-time. lol

I don't really know if talking about Final Fantasy is worthwhile here, either, because apart from a bad joke about the lack of "final-ness" in the 11 or so titles throughout the series, there's really nothing that can be said.

You seem to want to criticize the Final Fantasy series simply on the basis of using "Final Fantasy" in the title for each game, or including recurring character names, but again, you'd have to condemn the entire gaming industry/sequel machine--and there are far worse violators going by your evaluation criterion there (like Halo, lol).

Plus, unless you're Star Wars, people don't really expect a radically different title for Part II, III, etc. Do we criticize Madden 05 for having virtually the same [i]title[/i] year after year? No. We criticize Madden like we criticize most sports games: they're the same game year after year, because there's very little room for innovation and gameplay growth. It's a limited game to begin with.

This is not the case with Nintendo's line-up, because Nintendo has consistently attempted to push gaming forward by testing new concepts and characters. A perfect example of Nintendo developing entirely new characters is the Pikmin franchise. Pikmin 1 became a Player's Choice almost overnight because gamers ate it up--and rightly so, because the game rocked.

Yes, you can turn around and say "Well, Olimar was clearly an anagram for Mario, and his look was similar," but then you'd be nitpicking to a degree that's almost inhuman, and focusing on a detail that was an easter egg instead of a crucial design choice or feature.

And similarly, Mario Kart Double Dash!! sold well because while the franchise [i]name[/i] itself garnered interest, the game [i]quality[/i] itself is what drove people to buy it--and people did buy it, to the point of Double Dash being a Player's Choice, I believe, or very close to it, and to the point of Double Dash still selling for full MRP.

Mario Tennis for N64 and GC sold well and was well-received not because of the Mario in the title, and not because of a Mario cast...those games did well because they were good games, just like Paper Mario, just like Super Smash Bros, which are all examples of Nintendo not resting on its laurels when it comes to developing fun, exciting, and engaging titles, using familiar characters but at the same time, not mass-marketing to the point of those characters becoming figureheads (as is the case with Disney lately).

[satan665]

Its not that its necessarily a bad thing, but Nintendo really does overuse the Mario characters. Its a great marketing tactic, but I'm not a big fan of it. I rented Mario tennis and it was fun, but not as good as virtua tennis. They have a good tennis game buried beneath cheesy characters. I bet if it weren't mario-based it wouldn't have sold as well. Anyway, they'll keep plugging mario in to sell games and I'll continue to not buy them.

As far as the big systems go, i think Nintendo might just be the smartest. While Sony is now pushing the limits of technology, they are hurting themselves by having such expensive systems. The PSP is an amazing peice of gaming machine, but its got mad sticker shock. Of course DS is going to outsell it, its much cheaper. DS also happens to look better than anything before it, which isn't unimpressive. PSP will do better if it manages to put out a bunch of must have games.

PS3 is going to be interesting. I'm looking forward to it more than any of the others, but I'm scared by the potential price. And if they release it too much cheaper than it costs, they'll never make any money. I can't imagine not owning it, but also can't imagine paying $400+

[Brasil]

Well, satan665, my point is that while the franchise name (like Mario, for example) definitely gets players interested, gamers aren't going to eat up every single Mario game, for various reasons, the biggest reason being the quality of the game. I'd use the Mortal Kombat series as an example.

There's no denying that MKI was something of a gaming wonder. It introduced a visually interesting style, using digitized actors instead of Street Fighter's character sprites; it injected a level of gore previously unseen in the fighting genre; MKI also had a very dark sense of humor: "GET OVER HERE!!!", "FINISH HIM!", the absurd and outlandish twistedness of the settings...all things you never really got in the Street Fighter series.

That's not to say Street Fighter didn't have its fair share of absurdity, though, because well, Blanka. haha

But even though its gameplay was incredibly simple (it was basically a suped-up Karate Champ), Mortal Kombat I was incredibly fun, because it was so in-your-face.

Mortal Kombat II improved upon MKI in just about every way. The combat was improved; the character animations looked much better; the graphical presentation itself was much more polished. And the game was a commercial and critical success.

But then what happened? Mortal Kombat 3, while it's fun, certainly, felt sloppy and unfinished. It had some neat ideas (the Run feature, the combo system, etc), but its technical flaws and overall shoddy construction marred the gamers' response.

When Ultimate MK3 was released, I know many gamers who just shrugged it off because the biggest additions were four new characters, with no real improvements to the game, no growth, and in some instances, the game ending up playing worse than its predecessors. That may have been the engine simply showing its age, but even then, the game was still becoming tired.

Mortal Kombat 4 is released a few years later...and tanks miserably. Most reviews I read were more negative than positive, and in general, regardless of reviews, MK4 was total crap. Touted as the first MK game in full 3D, with new weapons-based combat, a brand new plot, new characters, etc., it failed to deliver on every single point, because we ended up with 2D/3D, in that we could hop around in the stage, sure, but we still ended up on a single plane.

The weapons combat was horrid. It became more comical than serious, and didn't serve to "deepen" the combat at all.

And then around the same time--actually inspired by MK4--you had the little sidegames like Mythologies, which were absolutely atrocious. The Sub-Zero game was nearly unplayable and consisted entirely of trial-and-error of the worst kind I've ever played.

Special Forces bombed horribly, too, so that's another genre (Special Forces was basically Fighting Force+Jax) that Mortal Kombat just utterly failed in.

So there, in the span of only four or five years, you had MK3/UMK3, which was marred by glitchy AI, graphical hiccups, sloppy gameplay, but otherwise a good game. You had MK4, which most people don't even remember, I think (myself included there--I have to force myself to remember it, else I forget it ever existed). You had Mythologies and Special Forces.

In the span of four or five years, you had four atrocious Mortal Kombat-based games that most people were initially interested in because of the Mortal Kombat title, but ultimately, when they experienced the game for themselves, said "Screw that."

At that point in time, Mortal Kombat looked dead in the eyes of many gamers.

Then Deadly Alliance hit us and flipped that entire perception on its head. Deadly Alliance was the series' redemption; it reinvigorated the series, garnered a huge surge of interest again, and it renewed many MK vets, and even those simply disappointed by MK3/4/etc.

And Deadly Alliance sold incredibly well, and was met with lavish critical praise. The gamers bought Deadly Alliance not because of Mortal Kombat, but because of the game itself. Here was a game where a Scorpion vs Sub-Zero fight became playable again. ^_^

Then you consider what MK: Deception did, bringing us a whole slew of nifty mini-games (like Puzzle Kombat, Chess Kombat) and how successful it was...quality does sell. And here in Deception, you had Puzzle Kombat and Chess, which are based on two very common game-types (Super Puzzle Fighter, for instance) but enough variation and dynamics were introduced to warrant playing them--and some buying the game simply for those mini-games. ~_^

I think Chess Kombat is probably the best example there. If asked how to convert MK into Chess a few years ago, during MK3, we might not have been able to answer. But with Deception, it's so obvious, and it works. Beautifully.

Popular characters don't necessarily sell a game; quality sells a game moreso than any attractive, buxom blonde. lol

EA's Bond franchise, another perfect example. You mention "EA Bond FPS," people will go "meh." You mention "EA Bond Everything or Nothing," people will smile. That's because EoN was a good game, while Nightfire was utter ****.

Same thing goes with Nintendo as it does with MK. You create a high quality game, it will sell for the most part. We just can't remember too many Mario games that haven't sold incredibly well because there haven't been too many that have been lousy.

The Mario Party series is probably the closest to having quality issues, and we've seen excitement about that series dwindle; just watch the Nintendo press conference at E3, heh. The crowd reaction to MP...6, 7 is noticeably subdued, then roars again when the next product is mentioned.

While you may not like having Mario Tennis, Mario Kart, Mario Golf, Mario Paint, Mario Party, Mario Taliban Regime Change, etc...they're still exceptional games and sell because of it.

I'd actually be interested to see what Mario Taliban Regime Change would be like. Perhaps Mario a la John Rambo...yum.

[satan665]

I agree (Siren) that they are normally good games that are tagged with the mario license, and you bring up a good point about popular franchises that don't always continue to sell well. There really are a lot of examples like Tomb Raider which apparently hasn't been very good since the first one and are flopping.

For me, personally its just getting a little bit old to have Mario in every sports game and strewn across every genre. I'm waiting for the first mario FPS game Mario: Cap Dat Koopa.

I guess the strategy is working so far, but it helps to make Gamecube etc. not as viable as the only console you own. I guess they could make as many games as they wanted with Mario in them if they just had a few more options from third party developers.

I think we should pitch more Mario related games on this post too :)

Luigi's surgical ward

Goomba's keep flooding into the hospital and only Luigi can pick up the slack. Skull fractures from getting squished by Mario, Lava burns, bites from those pesky pipe plants....