Ranking Nintendo's Franchises.

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

-How would you rank your favorite franchises from Nintendo? Me its sort of like this:

Mario, Zelda, Metroid, and Pokemon are the BIG 4 of Nintendo franchises, they are on a high pedestal for a reason, I don't see other fracnhises coming close to these 4 games level of passion and amount of care from Fans. (Note that Mario Spinoff games, including Donkey Kong, Wario, and Yoshi games, also count in this big 4)

-So now I got the big 4 out of the way, other franchise I have fun with:

F-Zero, Fire Emblem, Advanced Wars, Kirby, Pikmin, Punch-Out.

-Franchises I am either not a huge fan of, or never got into at all:

Animal Crossing, Star Fox, Mother series, Golden Sun, Kid Icarus.

So that's my overall opinion on each franchise. What are yours?

 

[Hawki]

Boiling this entirely down to personal preference:

14) Pikmin

13) 1080 Snowboarding

12) F-Zero

11) Donkey Kong

10) Pokemon

9) Mario

8) Super Smash Brothers

7) Star Fox

6) Metroid

5) Advance Wars

4) Xenoblade

3) Fire Emblem

2) Golden Sun

1) The Legend of Zelda

Edit: Per the OP, I'll specify that I see Donkey Kong as a separate franchise from Mario, but would group the likes of Yoshi, Wario, etc. under his banner.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Edit: Per the OP, I'll specify that I see Donkey Kong as a separate franchise from Mario, but would group the likes of Yoshi, Wario, etc. under his banner.

Eh I still see Donkey Kong and Diddy Kong in other Mario games regardless so I still count his games as part of the Mario universe.

And there's factoring the Mario vs Donkey Kong games.

 

[dscross]

1. Metroid - Some of my fav games ever

2. Mario Kart - some of my fav multiplayer games ever

3. Zelda - obviously brilliant

4. Golden Sun - underrated

5. Mother/Earthbound - funny and unique

6. Donkey Kong - These are ok. Not as keen as some people. I'm in the minority

7. Mario (normal) - they all feel too similar to me. I enjoy them at the time, but never really want to replay them, with the exception of Super Mario Bros 3, which is awesome

8. Kirby - too easy

9. Animal Crossing - not my thing at all - too much upkeep

These are the only ones I've played so can't comment on the others. If i lump mario kart, donkey kong and mario together it would confuse my rankings.

 

[Hawki]

Edit: Per the OP, I'll specify that I see Donkey Kong as a separate franchise from Mario, but would group the likes of Yoshi, Wario, etc. under his banner.

Eh I still see Donkey Kong and Diddy Kong in other Mario games regardless so I still count his games as part of the Mario universe.

And there's factoring the Mario vs Donkey Kong games.

Sonic and Mario have crossed over - does that mean they're in the same universe as well?

I'd say no - same multiverse, sure. But applying that to DK, while they could share the same universe/multiverse, or still both take place in the Mushroom World, I'm hesitant to call DK part of the Mario series. Every other Mario spinoff (Wario, Toad, Yoshi, etc.), has kept the Mario aesthetic and recognisable motifs, if not villains. DK has its own aesthetic, motifs (banannas vs. coins for example), and has a feel that's distinct from Mario. So while they could share the same setting, I'd still regard them as different series.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

Not in the habit of actually ranking franchises, but whatever, I'll bite.

1. Metroid - I'm a sucker for metroidvania

2. Mario - Still a solid and polished platformer series

3. Xenoblade - My favorite among the new Ninty franchises

4. F-Zero - My second overall favorite racing franchise (after WipeOut)

5. Mario Kart - My third overall favorite racing franchise

6. Zelda - I like 2D Zelda fine, but 3D never clicked with me

And then there's Donkey Kong, Kirby and Golden Sun. Only ever played one of those, and I don't feel that's enough to justify a ranking.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

1) I'd say Mario and Zelda have the best average. Maybe Mario over Zelda, for its versatility.
2) Followed by Donkey Kong for the original game and the DKC trilogy.
3) Pokemon, even though it's the same game over and over, just little tweaks and upheavals here and there.
4) Metroid's good outside Other M but the franchise is virtually nonexistent nowadays.
5) Yoshi and Kirby were fun on the SNES but currently exist as easy, cutesy gimmicks for Nintendo's handheld division.

 

[Hawki]

4) Metroid's good outside Other M but the franchise is virtually nonexistent nowadays.

We had Federation Force in 2016, Samus Returns in 2017, and are getting Prime 4 in the near future. However you feel about those individual titles, I don't think the franchise could be called "virtually nonexistent."

Also, as flawed as Other M might be, Hunters is the real turd of the franchise.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

Also, as flawed as Other M might be, Hunters is the real turd of the franchise.

Yup. My hands started cramping up just from the mere mention of that PoS. I don't like Other M, but at least it wasn't physically uncomfortable to play for me.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

4) Metroid's good outside Other M but the franchise is virtually nonexistent nowadays.

We had Federation Force in 2016, Samus Returns in 2017, and are getting Prime 4 in the near future. However you feel about those individual titles, I don't think the franchise could be called "virtually nonexistent."

Also, as flawed as Other M might be, Hunters is the real turd of the franchise.

Federation Force is a Metroid game in name only, a gimmicky co-op shooter that doesn't do Metroidvania, barely features Samus and is only tangentially connected to the overall plot of the series. It's the Link's Crossbow Training of the series - the Wii U needed another party game and they stamped "Metroid" on some shitty shovelware. Samus Returns is just an HD remake of a 30 year old game. As for Prime 4, if and when it does come out it won't be in the "nowadays" I speak of.

I call it "virtually nonexistent" when compared to the steady release of quality mainstream AAA titles that Nintendo used to put out. Metroid is a legacy franchise at this point and survives in name only.

 

[Yoshi178]

4) Metroid's good outside Other M but the franchise is virtually nonexistent nowadays.

We had Federation Force in 2016, Samus Returns in 2017, and are getting Prime 4 in the near future. However you feel about those individual titles, I don't think the franchise could be called "virtually nonexistent."

Also, as flawed as Other M might be, Hunters is the real turd of the franchise.

Federation Force is a Metroid game in name only, a gimmicky co-op shooter that doesn't do Metroidvania

It's almost as if Federation Force is a spin-off of the main Metroid series.

Crazy i know right?

 

[Yoshi178]

Also, as flawed as Other M might be, Hunters is the real turd of the franchise.

Wow you're the first person i've ever come across that i share this exact same opinion with.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Also, as flawed as Other M might be, Hunters is the real turd of the franchise.

Wow you're the first person i've ever come across that i share this exact same opinion with.

I actually beat Metroid Prime Hunters, and for what its worth it was fine.

If it had a more traditional control scheme it would have been fine.

Also Yoshi, what is your ranking of Nintendo's franchises.

 

[American Tanker]

[ol][li]F-Zero[/li][li]Wave Race[/li][li]1080[/li][/ol]The rest I really couldn't give a shit less about.

 

[Souplex]

The objectively correct list in descending order of quality: Smash Bros, Metroid, (Other M and Federation Force never happened, and therefore don't count) Pre-Shadow Dragon Fire Emblem, Mario, Zelda, Kirby,Pre-Ware-era Wario, Donkey Kong, Golden Sun, Star Fox, F-Zero, Pikmin, Animal Crossing, Squidron, something else, Modern Wario Ware, Fire Emblem the memes that sprang out of CDI "Nintendo", Pookeymanns.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

I would say Smash Bros. almost makes it in turning my Big 4 into a Big 5, but the reason not is mostly due to the fact that its for all intents and purpose a Crossover game.

If anything because of that its above the big 4 Nintendo Games.

 

[Hawki]

Federation Force is a Metroid game in name only, a gimmicky co-op shooter that doesn't do Metroidvania, barely features Samus and is only tangentially connected to the overall plot of the series. It's the Link's Crossbow Training of the series

Obviously Federation Force differs from the Metroidvania formula, but I don't buy this idea that a game should be ostracized because its mechanics differ from the core franchise. I mean, is Halo Wars less a Halo game because it isn't an FPS? Is Command & Conquer: Renegade less a CnC game because it isn't an RTS? Is WoW less a Warcraft game because it's an MMORPG? Now if Federation Force is a bad game on its own terms, that's another matter, but I've never really subscribed to the idea of "it's different, and now it sucks."

I call it "virtually nonexistent" when compared to the steady release of quality mainstream AAA titles that Nintendo used to put out. Metroid is a legacy franchise at this point and survives in name only.

Metroid's only ever had one "steady stream" of AAA titles, and that was the Metroid Prime trilogy era. Apart from that, the releases of Metroid have always been pretty sporadic. Heck, it skipped the N64 era and Wii U eras entirely.

But I disagree that Metroid is a "legacy franchise" at this point. Even if one doesn't like Federation Force or Samus Returns, they're still examples of the series being actively developed for. If you want examples of actual Nintendo "legacy franchises," we can look at stuff like F-Zero, Golden Sun, Advance Wars, Earthbound, Wave Race, 1080, etc.

I actually beat Metroid Prime Hunters, and for what its worth it was fine.

If it had a more traditional control scheme it would have been fine.

No, not really. Even if the game wasn't physically painful to play, it wouldn't have solved the vapid gameplay, with vapid hunters, vapid bosses, a vapid plot, and a vapid protagonist. Hunters is just plain lacklustre in all its areas. Even Other M had 'moments of cool,' so to speak.

[ol][li]F-Zero[/li][li]Wave Race[/li][li]1080[/li][/ol]The rest I really couldn't give a shit less about.

Look on the bright side, you reminded me that 1080 actually existed.

Gone in my list now.

I would say Smash Bros. almost makes it in turning my Big 4 into a Big 5, but the reason not is mostly due to the fact that its for all intents and purpose a Crossover game.

If anything because of that its above the big 4 Nintendo Games.

Getting into semantics, but I can't really call a crossover part of the "big" stuff of anything. By its nature it has to be subservient to the games it's taking from, at least as far as IP relevance goes.

Part of the reason why I could say Blizzard has a "big 4" (StarCraft, Warcraft, Overwatch, Diablo), but not a "big 5" (Heroes of the Storm). Even if HotS has its own lore, characters, and story (however brief), it cribbling from the "big 4" can't afford it the same relevance as the others.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

That's why I was trying to be fair to Hunters because all of its Vapidity stems from the fact it was on the DS.

I mean think about it, this game was ahead of its time really, a 3D first person shooter/adventure on a handheld that is actually playable (at least it was for me at the time)

I am amazed there was a variety of enviornments at all.

Then again Super Mario 64 was also on the DS and had 3 brand new levels.

 

[Souplex]

Federation Force is a Metroid game in name only, a gimmicky co-op shooter that doesn't do Metroidvania, barely features Samus and is only tangentially connected to the overall plot of the series. It's the Link's Crossbow Training of the series

Obviously Federation Force differs from the Metroidvania formula, but I don't buy this idea that a game should be ostracized because its mechanics differ from the core franchise. I mean, is Halo Wars less a Halo game because it isn't an FPS? Is Command & Conquer: Renegade less a CnC game because it isn't an RTS? Is WoW less a Warcraft game because it's an MMORPG? Now if Federation Force is a bad game on its own terms, that's another matter, but I've never really subscribed to the idea of "it's different, and now it sucks."

I call it "virtually nonexistent" when compared to the steady release of quality mainstream AAA titles that Nintendo used to put out. Metroid is a legacy franchise at this point and survives in name only.

Metroid's only ever had one "steady stream" of AAA titles, and that was the Metroid Prime trilogy era. Apart from that, the releases of Metroid have always been pretty sporadic. Heck, it skipped the N64 era and Wii U eras entirely.

But I disagree that Metroid is a "legacy franchise" at this point. Even if one doesn't like Federation Force or Samus Returns, they're still examples of the series being actively developed for. If you want examples of actual Nintendo "legacy franchises," we can look at stuff like F-Zero, Golden Sun, Advance Wars, Earthbound, Wave Race, 1080, etc.

I actually beat Metroid Prime Hunters, and for what its worth it was fine.

If it had a more traditional control scheme it would have been fine.

No, not really. Even if the game wasn't physically painful to play, it wouldn't have solved the vapid gameplay, with vapid hunters, vapid bosses, a vapid plot, and a vapid protagonist. Hunters is just plain lacklustre in all its areas. Even Other M had 'moments of cool,' so to speak.

[ol][li]F-Zero[/li][li]Wave Race[/li][li]1080[/li][/ol]The rest I really couldn't give a shit less about.

Look on the bright side, you reminded me that 1080 actually existed.

Gone in my list now.

I would say Smash Bros. almost makes it in turning my Big 4 into a Big 5, but the reason not is mostly due to the fact that its for all intents and purpose a Crossover game.

If anything because of that its above the big 4 Nintendo Games.

Getting into semantics, but I can't really call a crossover part of the "big" stuff of anything. By its nature it has to be subservient to the games it's taking from, at least as far as IP relevance goes.

Part of the reason why I could say Blizzard has a "big 4" (StarCraft, Warcraft, Overwatch, Diablo), but not a "big 5" (Heroes of the Storm). Even if HotS has its own lore, characters, and story (however brief), it cribbling from the "big 4" can't afford it the same relevance as the others.

Hunters happened.
Other M did not happen.
Also, there were alternate control schemes with hunters. I played entirely without the touch screen. I was pretty good too.
The multiplayer was damn solid.

 

[Hawki]

That's why I was trying to be fair to Hunters because all of its Vapidity stems from the fact it was on the DS.

Really...

-Would it solve how uninteresting the environments are?

-Would it solve how uninteresting the lore is?

-Would it solve how the game only has two types of bosses (plus Gorrea), and keeps recycling them?

-Would it solve the tedium of the Hunters constantly showing up, even after you're maxed up, making fighting them a formality?

-Would it solve that the Hunters have no personality whatsoever, and no interesting features whatsoever?

-Would it solve that Samus likewise has no personality again, even less than what previous games have provided?

-Would it solve that the plot basically requires Samus to hold the idiot ball (yes Samus, keep unlocking the giant space cannon the lore is telling you to NOT reactivate)?

-Would it solve the tedium of the escape sequences that make no sense in the context (it's clearly not a self-destruct, so what exactly is killing Samus)?

I am amazed there was a variety of enviornments at all.

Space station, lava planet, ice planet, ruins planet...

Great variety.

Then again Super Mario 64 was also on the DS and had 3 brand new levels.[/quote]

Hunters happened.
Other M did not happen.

No, they both happened. My hands still haven't forgiven me for Hunters.

Also, there were alternate control schemes with hunters. I played entirely without the touch screen.

I tried. It was even less controllable.