3 Game Pitches Nintendo Doesn't Have The Guts To Make
- Thread starter Fanghawk
- Start date
I don't think Nintendo will do anything that will compromise their ability to churn out endless clone-sequels.
So is Super Mario Origins the one where they take Wario, gut him, and give him all the abilities of numerous critters, forcing Mario and Bowser to team up in an epic punchup that makes no sense and is kind of cool if you ignore the fact that they have literally and figuratively gutted a character you really wanted to see work?
It's a crossover game, and IIRC, focuses more on the NA characters.canadamus_prime said:
It's still pretty much what's described though. At least in terms of gameplay anyway.Something Amyss said:
This article just confuses me!
3 game pitches nintendo will never make, so I assume you are about to make 3 new IP pitches. Which is then backed up by "Nintendo has a reputation for producing the same games over and over again" which is very much does! 20+ years of Mario, pokemon, metroid and zelda and smatterings of other games. Even further backed up with "But once Nintendo strikes gold with an idea, it will replicate that formula for eternity. That's why Super Mario, The Legend of Zelda, and Pokemon sequels feel so similar despite any technological advancements."
Then we get "So what could Nintendo do to branch out and make its franchises feel new?" what so the title and initial paragraph lead up to 3 new things but then the article goes on to list 3 of their biggest franchises and ways to make more of them.
I'd rather nintendo spread their wings! Imagine Sony still cranking Crash Bandicoot (even if Crash came out a few years later) but they only had half the amount of other games. From an outside perspective, it seems nintendo are in a perpetual cycle of Mario development ... they ship one game out and immediately start on the next Mario game "we have just shipped a 2D platformer, time for a kart and then a 3D platformer, then a sports".
3 game pitches nintendo will never make, so I assume you are about to make 3 new IP pitches. Which is then backed up by "Nintendo has a reputation for producing the same games over and over again" which is very much does! 20+ years of Mario, pokemon, metroid and zelda and smatterings of other games. Even further backed up with "But once Nintendo strikes gold with an idea, it will replicate that formula for eternity. That's why Super Mario, The Legend of Zelda, and Pokemon sequels feel so similar despite any technological advancements."
Then we get "So what could Nintendo do to branch out and make its franchises feel new?" what so the title and initial paragraph lead up to 3 new things but then the article goes on to list 3 of their biggest franchises and ways to make more of them.
I'd rather nintendo spread their wings! Imagine Sony still cranking Crash Bandicoot (even if Crash came out a few years later) but they only had half the amount of other games. From an outside perspective, it seems nintendo are in a perpetual cycle of Mario development ... they ship one game out and immediately start on the next Mario game "we have just shipped a 2D platformer, time for a kart and then a 3D platformer, then a sports".
In terms of gameplay, perhaps, but since that was only part of what was mentioned, that doesn't seem to meet the spirit of the game idea. Or the letter, once we get past the loosest sense.canadamus_prime said:
Why? It says nothing about new franchises (which I'm assuming you mean, since every new game is a new IP).omega 616 said:
I explained why.Something Amyss said:
"3 game pitches nintendo will never make", which to me doesn't sound like 3 games they make all the time with a slight twist. If Sony, for example, said "we heard this new pitch for a game, it's uncharted with Nathan Drake with RPG mechanics". That's not a new pitch to me.
To put it into a different medium, if I hear a pitch for a film, I don't think of another transformers, I think new people, new lore, new characters etc.
Maybe I'm wrong but I think the word pitch should be changed to sequel. "3 game sequels that Nintendo will never make"
I see someone read Yahtzee's article on reverse leveling.
In this particular form, this strikes me as a terrible idea. So you basically go around being awesome and then in random cutscenes you are forced to be an idiot that gives up stuff that, had you a choice, you would never give up? That's not going to go over well. The players would hate Link for being spineless.
How about, as an alternative, you have to give up your gear to seal away these evil dungeons once you've beaten your way to the bottom of them. Like, there could be some kind of Ice Palace and you break your firewand to finally destroy the icy core at it's heart?
And then this could translate into political problems. The nobility judge you by the quantity of the equipment you haul around and think less of you for losing it. Less stuff means less of a hero, right?
I think the fundamental problem with all 3 of those ideas is the premise that they'd feel different from existing games. While it's true that the mario franchise hasn't done so well in recent iterations, most games that nintendo has developed over the decades has at least attempted significant innovation on the gameplay level. Only the stories have been similar, and only because they take the back seat. As such, suggesting a change starting from the story side doesn't guarantee much difference in feel.
To be clear, pokemon's gameplay innovations are pretty weak compared to mario and zelda, but it's also not a franchise developed by nintendo. Regardless, I would argue the same thing applies.
As for the pitches themselves:
Your zelda idea fails at the start by assuming a princess who has been asleep for generations while locked behind a magic door would still be in the memory of the nobles, as well as assuming that a kingdom recently ruled by the evil ganon would have a nobility left at all. Knowing the people of Hyrule, they might have assumed Link would become king for having succeeded in a coup already, or equally likely assumed Link would just be a close friend to the royal family like the hero of legend has always been. (seriously, when is it ever implied that Link and Zelda get together in any zelda game? Marin/Malon and the zora girl are far more likely)
On a gameplay level, that idea also has the issue of not fitting well with the learning system that has been inherent in nearly every zelda game -- mastering one item at a time. I'm also not sure how it would fit with the central concept of the whole series, which is exploration (look up the origin of the first game).
Your pokemon idea is a bit better, but it has the problem of how to balance so many pokemon in a tactical setting. Also, Fire Emblem is another old on-going franchise from nintendo. I'm not sure how your idea would significantly differ aside from having bs strengths and weaknesses that the player has to take into account (most likey by guess-work).
Your mario idea is called Super Mario World, I believe. Perhaps the text and graphics would be different, but that could be accomplished by a rom hack (not suggesting it, just stating it would be possible to demonstrate a point).
Lastly, I think the idea that nintendo wouldn't want to make a game about war unless it portrays war as bad flies in the face of the advance wars series. They quite enjoyed war in the first 3 games.
To be clear, pokemon's gameplay innovations are pretty weak compared to mario and zelda, but it's also not a franchise developed by nintendo. Regardless, I would argue the same thing applies.
As for the pitches themselves:
Your zelda idea fails at the start by assuming a princess who has been asleep for generations while locked behind a magic door would still be in the memory of the nobles, as well as assuming that a kingdom recently ruled by the evil ganon would have a nobility left at all. Knowing the people of Hyrule, they might have assumed Link would become king for having succeeded in a coup already, or equally likely assumed Link would just be a close friend to the royal family like the hero of legend has always been. (seriously, when is it ever implied that Link and Zelda get together in any zelda game? Marin/Malon and the zora girl are far more likely)
On a gameplay level, that idea also has the issue of not fitting well with the learning system that has been inherent in nearly every zelda game -- mastering one item at a time. I'm also not sure how it would fit with the central concept of the whole series, which is exploration (look up the origin of the first game).
Your pokemon idea is a bit better, but it has the problem of how to balance so many pokemon in a tactical setting. Also, Fire Emblem is another old on-going franchise from nintendo. I'm not sure how your idea would significantly differ aside from having bs strengths and weaknesses that the player has to take into account (most likey by guess-work).
Your mario idea is called Super Mario World, I believe. Perhaps the text and graphics would be different, but that could be accomplished by a rom hack (not suggesting it, just stating it would be possible to demonstrate a point).
Lastly, I think the idea that nintendo wouldn't want to make a game about war unless it portrays war as bad flies in the face of the advance wars series. They quite enjoyed war in the first 3 games.
That's another one I found baffling, too.JCAll said:
If they really wanted an excuse for Samus to have to turn off vital suit functions it wouldn't have been that hard. Make up some mumbo-jumbo that the station is interfering with her suit due to Chozo reasons and these tech guys are trying to disentangle the two so that stuff doesn't blow up. That way, when she has navigate the inexplicable fiery rock bowels of the place with her air conditioning turned off, it's because of inscrutable sciencey jargon and not because anybody is stupid or awful.
Then when it turns out that the distress call and subsequent massive environmental inconvenience turns out to be a diabolical trap set by a villain, the player finally gets a focus to let out all their pent-up frustration on. They can say (and maybe Samus can say too), "You! You're the one who made me freeze my ass off in the icicle mines without a heater! Die!!!"
And them Samus comes across as a trooper for putting up with all this crap and what's-his-face comes across as at least helpful for his figuring out the tech stuff and we actually like the people we're supposed to like. I would think that would be a positive.
I think Nintendo wrote themselves into a corner with the sleeping princess deal. ("There's two Princess Zelda's now?" "Yeah, buddy. For now.") That might be one reason why every game is either a prequel, or in an alternate timeline from the NES titles. They don't know what to do after Zelda II. It seems like they never had a good plan for the franchise until A Link to the Past set up the recursive prequel formula, and now they're obsessed with it.
Instead of really getting politic heavy with royal lineages and successions, I'd rather see a game where Link falls to some sort of mind control spell (before getting the Triforce of Courage to protect him from such a spell) and becoming the villain's right hand. Zelda herself then has to take over as the hero, free Link, and both of them play major roles as the heros in the final stages of the game. Unfortunately, that seems less likely than a game set after Zelda II. It is especially unlikely with the lingering memory of the Unholy Triforce (the CD-i games) and Zelda's active role in the later two of those possibly shooting down any suggestions for Zelda being the main character for once.
A look into the "Pokemon War" would be a nice change of pace. Maybe making the organized crime syndicate of the day slighty more threatening would be a good compromise to something Nintendo won't ever talk about. (Disclaimer: Haven't played past Gen 2, so my knowledge of how violent/serious the other evil groups are is limited.)
I don't think Mario needs a reboot or prequel for the sake of storytelling. The series has always been very disconnected. The story of each game is usually very self contained. They just need to do something to make the main platformers feel fresh, which hasn't been done since the first Super Mario Galaxy.
Slightly back to OT: While on the subject of Metroid, where's the sequel to Fusion that addresses some serious issues that popped up at the end of Fusion? I'm not asking for Other M levels of story (dear God no). I just want one that has opening text crawls/cutscenes that give us the backdrop, scans (in a 3D game) or some sort of hidden clues (maybe extra cutscenes/text in a 2D game) throughout the game that piece together the plot details, and an ending that concludes what happened while Samus was blasting nasty beasts and how the scan logs/clues fit in. Sadly with it being 14 years since Fusion, this could be considered the #4 entry in this list.
Instead of really getting politic heavy with royal lineages and successions, I'd rather see a game where Link falls to some sort of mind control spell (before getting the Triforce of Courage to protect him from such a spell) and becoming the villain's right hand. Zelda herself then has to take over as the hero, free Link, and both of them play major roles as the heros in the final stages of the game. Unfortunately, that seems less likely than a game set after Zelda II. It is especially unlikely with the lingering memory of the Unholy Triforce (the CD-i games) and Zelda's active role in the later two of those possibly shooting down any suggestions for Zelda being the main character for once.
A look into the "Pokemon War" would be a nice change of pace. Maybe making the organized crime syndicate of the day slighty more threatening would be a good compromise to something Nintendo won't ever talk about. (Disclaimer: Haven't played past Gen 2, so my knowledge of how violent/serious the other evil groups are is limited.)
I don't think Mario needs a reboot or prequel for the sake of storytelling. The series has always been very disconnected. The story of each game is usually very self contained. They just need to do something to make the main platformers feel fresh, which hasn't been done since the first Super Mario Galaxy.
I applaud you for putting more thought into that than anyone (with creative authority) at Nintendo did around 2008/9. Nintendo chose to go with a reason for Samus' limitations that was hard to pull off storywise, and they failed horribly. If a Metroid came out with your explanation for why much of the gear Samus brought with her won't function, and it was implemented well, I could accept that excuse.Veylon said:
Slightly back to OT: While on the subject of Metroid, where's the sequel to Fusion that addresses some serious issues that popped up at the end of Fusion? I'm not asking for Other M levels of story (dear God no). I just want one that has opening text crawls/cutscenes that give us the backdrop, scans (in a 3D game) or some sort of hidden clues (maybe extra cutscenes/text in a 2D game) throughout the game that piece together the plot details, and an ending that concludes what happened while Samus was blasting nasty beasts and how the scan logs/clues fit in. Sadly with it being 14 years since Fusion, this could be considered the #4 entry in this list.
I would love a game where you end up fighting the federation, but I can see it easily becoming a case of the people running that space station were actually corrupt or on the side of the space pirates. Metroid has always been the forgotten series at Nintendo so I still have hope.Hairless Mammoth said:
More like "3 Game Pitches that Nintendo realizes would be AWFUL in Practice" because they would be. Furthermore, we already HAD a tactical Pokemon game in Pokemon Conquest (which really needs a followup at some point). It's also sad how every time someone thinks they have a way to "fix" or "innovate" a Nintendo property it boils down to "be more like X!" which is neither creative nor helpful and it grossly misses the point of the franchises mentioned. The worst instance is suggesting a "reboot" of Mario. That is impossible. There is no Mario timeline which is why it's never gotten itself into a corner. As it stands, best to leave Nintendo to their own devices as they have a far higher batting average than we do.
Of course I'm of the rare few who enjoyed Zelda II so I always feel like somehow my perspectives are skewed but I'd enjoy a sequel to that storyline.
One thing I have to note: Zelda 3 exists, it's "A Link to the Past", it just doesn't menion the 3 in its title. But the next, "Link's Awakening" has a 4 in it.
And instead of making it Game of Thrones, I rather have a good dose of Sci-Fi for Zelda. Throw Link into a world (parallel, far country or just Hyrule again), where some MINOR technological items are more common - e.g. electricity for light sources, but not much at first. Then, in the dungeons, we get more and more futuristic equipment where as the dungeons also resemble laboratories, factories and the like instead. The Mastersword would be the only remaining magical item which can be a plot point, e.g. Link accidentally stumbles upon the fact that magic was once part of the world and makes it his personal quest to restore the magic which disappeared due the technological advancement or something.
Or, a lot more simpler: Make a Zelda game without Link at all and instead make the newest incarnation of Ganon a good guy and Zelda the playable protagonist and the plot is about prevent this Ganon to become like all previous ones.
And instead of making it Game of Thrones, I rather have a good dose of Sci-Fi for Zelda. Throw Link into a world (parallel, far country or just Hyrule again), where some MINOR technological items are more common - e.g. electricity for light sources, but not much at first. Then, in the dungeons, we get more and more futuristic equipment where as the dungeons also resemble laboratories, factories and the like instead. The Mastersword would be the only remaining magical item which can be a plot point, e.g. Link accidentally stumbles upon the fact that magic was once part of the world and makes it his personal quest to restore the magic which disappeared due the technological advancement or something.
Or, a lot more simpler: Make a Zelda game without Link at all and instead make the newest incarnation of Ganon a good guy and Zelda the playable protagonist and the plot is about prevent this Ganon to become like all previous ones.
And WHY won't Disney make a cartoon where Mickey Mouse, jealous of his popularity in South America, murders Donald Duck, skins him, and wears his skull as a crown while taking control of the Colombian drug trade? It would revitalize the franchise in exciting new ways!