Hyrule Warriors illustrates what I love about Nintendo

[DrOswald]

Nintendo breaks new ground with Fanservice the Game? I think Square kinda beat them to the punch on that one.

I suppose this illustrates why Nintendo fans and non-fans but heads constantly -- The former love the same characters getting used in each consecutive game, which is precisely what the latter hates. But then I'm sure even fans are desperate for something new from ol' Ninty, what with everyone losing their shit over the new Link maybe, possibly being a girl.

Thing is, this is a fairly common thing. The only thing that makes it uncommon with Nintendo is just how fanatical the fans can get in defending their franchises.

And I get where they're coming from: there's nothing wrong with more of the same if you enjoy it. From books to movies to music to food, we all want enjoyable repeat experiences. We want familiar experiences. We may or may not also want something new.

What seems to make Nintendo fans different is how quick they are to insist something is new and innovative whether it is or not. Not only have other licensed franchises been involved in doing Warriors games, but a couple of them have been significantly more out of left field. Instead, it's "look at how new and innovative this is because it's from Nintendo who make new and innovative things so it must be new and innovative!"

Imagine if, rather than mocking Riley, CoD fans took to the internet proclaiming adding a controllable dog was new and innovative ground for the series. And yeah, I get that there's a pushback between CoD fans and non-CoD fans, but has there ever been such a reliance on insisting things are new and different?

Novelty is a part of Nintendo's marketing and PR on a level rivaled by few tech companies, let alone gaming companies.

While I will agree that Nintendo fans are often too quick to defend something like Hyrule Warriors as innovative, I also think people in general far too often claim Nintendo does nothing new ever. Take the Mario franchise. Nintendo has been breaking ground in level design for the entire history of the Mario franchise. The innovation in a Mario game is not in the mechanics, or at least not primarily. There is only so much you can do with jump and move right to shake up the mechanics. But there is almost an infinite amount of things to do with the level design. And so we have Nintendo innovating like crazy in terms of level design. Think about the difference between a game like Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario 3D world. At the most basic levels these games share the same mechanics but the ultimate realization and utilization of those mechanics is radically different.

In the last 8 years the entire FPS genre has seen less innovation in mechanics and level design than the Mario franchise alone has managed in the same time frame. Every 5 years Mario turns the platformer genre on it's head and rewrites the rules from scratch. And all anyone can say about Mario is how stagnant the IP is. It is ridiculous.

 

[Something Amyss]

To be honest though, the only big Nintendo fans I know are from this site. And with them it's typically how Nintendo is the Moon on a silver platter and everyone else is dogshit. I'm sure there are plenty of fans that like Nintendo and Sony and Microsoft. Like Two Best Friends. Though I will admit, when I hear them going gaga over two new old Nintendo characters being added to the roster in Smash they sound like weird space aliens.

They're everywhere. I'm not sure I've ever been to a gaming site not full of them. I have been to many a gaming site without people resorting to apologetics-level defenses of Call of Duty, because the fans just don't seem to have the same attachment to the idea of innovation.

Speaking of Smash Brothers, it strikes me as telling that one of the big things that got everyone squeeing was their decision to make a GC style controller so that people could play it just like they used to. On top of the addition of characters for nostalgia's sake.

I mean, I'm fine with "more of the same." I have every Dynasty Warriors game since 2, except 4. I have Samurai Warriors 1 and 2 and will be getting 4 when it launches in October. I have Warriors Oorchis 1 and 2 and will be picking up Ultimate in September. I even bought DW Gundam. Part of what draws me to Hyrule Warriors is that it's familiar territory. On two fronts, really, because it's Koei/Omega Force+Zelda. I am pro "more of the same." I won't buy it if I don't like it, but hey, people like repetition and iteration. I get that. But one group, or several closely related groups drawn together in related interests are very hung up on defending "more of the same" from their franchises in a very specific way. And I won't pretend this doesn't exist elsewhere at all (I've seen a couple of people even insist that each new Warriors title is a totes new game), it is certainly most prevalent here.

While I will agree that Nintendo fans are often too quick to defend something like Hyrule Warriors as innovative, I also think people in general far too often claim Nintendo does nothing new ever. Take the Mario franchise. Nintendo has been breaking ground in level design for the entire history of the Mario franchise. The innovation in a Mario game is not in the mechanics, or at least not primarily. There is only so much you can do with jump and move right to shake up the mechanics. But there is almost an infinite amount of things to do with the level design. And so we have Nintendo innovating like crazy in terms of level design. Think about the difference between a game like Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario 3D world. At the most basic levels these games share the same mechanics but the ultimate realization and utilization of those mechanics is radically different.

In the last 8 years the entire FPS genre has seen less innovation in mechanics and level design than the Mario franchise alone has managed in the same time frame. Every 5 years Mario turns the platformer genre on it's head and rewrites the rules from scratch. And all anyone can say about Mario is how stagnant the IP is. It is ridiculous.

I don't argue with your premise, but I would argue on the specifics. Mario used to be hugely innovative, yes. But what are the specific innovations that have turned platformers on their head in the last five years? Ten? Preferably from core games, since they're the ones most complained about. I'm not sure I can name anything that they've done that truly shook the bedrock of the genre, possibly since Mario 64. And I'm not trying to be contrary or anything. Maybe I've missed something, but I have trouble seeing anything other than fairly standard-for-the-industry expansions.

Which is also fine. I enjoyed NSMB and Mario Galaxy. I'm just not sure they're groundbreaking or genre redefining. Even within the field of "level design."

 

[DrOswald]

While I will agree that Nintendo fans are often too quick to defend something like Hyrule Warriors as innovative, I also think people in general far too often claim Nintendo does nothing new ever. Take the Mario franchise. Nintendo has been breaking ground in level design for the entire history of the Mario franchise. The innovation in a Mario game is not in the mechanics, or at least not primarily. There is only so much you can do with jump and move right to shake up the mechanics. But there is almost an infinite amount of things to do with the level design. And so we have Nintendo innovating like crazy in terms of level design. Think about the difference between a game like Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario 3D world. At the most basic levels these games share the same mechanics but the ultimate realization and utilization of those mechanics is radically different.

In the last 8 years the entire FPS genre has seen less innovation in mechanics and level design than the Mario franchise alone has managed in the same time frame. Every 5 years Mario turns the platformer genre on it's head and rewrites the rules from scratch. And all anyone can say about Mario is how stagnant the IP is. It is ridiculous.

I don't argue with your premise, but I would argue on the specifics. Mario used to be hugely innovative, yes. But what are the specific innovations that have turned platformers on their head in the last five years? Ten? Preferably from core games, since they're the ones most complained about. I'm not sure I can name anything that they've done that truly shook the bedrock of the genre, possibly since Mario 64. And I'm not trying to be contrary or anything. Maybe I've missed something, but I have trouble seeing anything other than fairly standard-for-the-industry expansions.

Which is also fine. I enjoyed NSMB and Mario Galaxy. I'm just not sure they're groundbreaking or genre redefining. Even within the field of "level design."

Lets look at some of the mainline Mario games:

Super Mario Bros: Simple platformer featuring innovative state change mechanics when powerups are collected with level design based around the ideas of that state change. Pioneered the 1980's style platformer and core level deisgn.
Super Mario Bros 3: Introduced flight mechanics (and level design based on those flight mechanics,) the auto scroller, the interactive world map.
Mario 64: Completely ditched the obstacle course style level of previous Mario games for large area's to explore.
Mario Sunshine: A game based on environmental interaction and modification through the use of the fludd.
Mario Galaxy: Thorough exploration of gravity manipulation as a design principle, completely redefining the core mechanic of platformer design.
Mario 3D world/land: The first real exploration of the possibilities of obstacle course style level design in a 3D environment, completely abandoning the standard set by Mario 64 of large open area's containing collectibles. Short form level design based on 3D spacial awareness.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

Nintendo.

The only company that is doing everything we wanted and then more, only to be kicked into the ground because they come out with nothing new. ignoring Splatoon, Xenoblade, and the Wonderful 101 (because they're not Mario Zelda or (insert childhood games series here)). yet we still buy "muscle-bound shooter game 15 (now with side boob)" from Exploiting-Ass Studios.

Yea good for Nintendo for making Splatoon, though I don't know if I'd be singing it's praises considering the game is still like a year out...
And yea praise Nintendo for making Xenoblade and the Wonderful 101...even though Monolith and Platinum Games developed them.

I'm just going to butt in on that W101 and Xenoblade point. Whilst they weren't made by Nintendo, barely any of Sony's or Microsoft's games are made in-house. W101 and Xenoblade are like Halo and Uncharted really.

 

[Matthew Jabour]

Nintendo.

Xenoblade

You have a funny way of spelling "Monolith Software".

Oh right - they were the PUBLISHER.

Except they were the very publisher that held that game back from the West because they had no faith in it. Even in the face of Project Rainfall... Then, seeing how retarded Nintendo was being with this obvious winner, Gamestop swooped in and offered cash in return for exclusive rights in NA. Now used copies are rare as fuck and $90 to boot.

Nintendo does not get credit here. If anything this was a huge error in judgement.

And while I do like Xenoblade - it plays VERY similar to FFXII in a lot of ways. Just a little less complex than FFXII. If anything, the lesser known Pandora's Tower is a little more unique.

Of course they both pale in comparison to Sony's best third party exclusive of the last gen IMO: Demon's Souls. See also: Valkyria Chronicles.

OP: So releasing a cash-in clone of a tired genre is somehow "ground breaking"? Ok then....
[sub]*quietly backs away from the OP and runs out the door.[/sub]

If you wish to hear a defense of the Dynasty Warriors franchise, ask a Mr. James Sterling. I've never played it before. It seems fun.

My point was not that Hyrule Warriors was innovative or new, it was that it illustrates how Nintendo is willing to use its intellectual property in different, interesting ways, and that other companies are far stingier in that aspect.

Now get back through that door and debate my actual points.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

No. That's a false analogy.

Mario and Zelda are like Halo and Uncharted as they are first party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment

W101 and Xenoblade are third party exclusives. They are more like Dead Rising (Capcom) and Demon's Souls (From Software).

Halo is made by 343 and Uncharted is made by Naughty Dog and both are published by Sony and Microsoft respectively, the same way both Xenoblade and W101 are published by Nintendo.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

No. That's a false analogy.

Mario and Zelda are like Halo and Uncharted as they are first party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment

W101 and Xenoblade are third party exclusives. They are more like Dead Rising (Capcom) and Demon's Souls (From Software).

Halo is made by 343 and Uncharted is made by Naughty Dog and both are published by Sony and Microsoft respectively, the same way both Xenoblade and W101 are published by Nintendo.

And Monolith Soft at least is a Nintendo-owned studio. So anything made by Monolith is first party