Shigeru Miyamoto: Nintendo Needs a "New Franchise"

[EvilRoy]

Usually the complaint is that Nintendo itself, as in Nintendo the developer, doesn't do much new. Listing a bunch of games that are only in some way associated with them doesn't really disprove that. If anything it gives the impression that Nintendo is fairly bad at coming up with new ideas, but is really good at paying other groups to do it for them.

But here's a fun question: what's wrong with that?

I don't see a lot of folks up in arms that Sony pays outside companies like Naughty Dogs to produce things like Uncharted or The Last Of Us. In fact, Sony barely produces any games of its own, it pays other people to make them too. Ditto MS. Yet Nintendo is seemingly the only one of the Big Three who deserves flak for having the smarts to pay not only their own people, but also other studios' people to make games.

If you're paying other talented folks to create good exclusive IPs, how is that in any possible way a BAD thing? I'm confused as to what's seemingly wrong with Nintendo paying talented people to make good games when that's exactly the same thing the other two consoles do.

As it was said earlier: when you hold everyone to the same ridiculous standards that people hold Nintendo to, NOBODY looks good.

Its not a bad thing, I'm trying to say is that it isn't what is being complained about. People complain that nintendo makes apparently no effort to expand their flagship franchises, beyond the scheduled sequels. That is the lack of creativity being referred to. This action relieves that particular lack of creativity.

It doesn't even really make sense in general to compare nintendo to either sony or microsoft, because nintendo is first and foremost a game company, whereas sony and microsoft are very large corporations that simply have game divisions. But people do anyway, so there you go.

 

[zalithar]

thing is EVERY company needs new franchises, but no one is commenting on that. Furthermore, has a LOT of new IPs....but of course a LOT of people handwave them as not counting because they're on the eShop, or they're on handhelds, or they look colorful or some other B.S. excuse. Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what they've cooked up.

Nintendo? New IP? Excuse me I just need to check the sky is not falling

Seriously this good news in my book. A new face from Nintendo would be a bit of fresh air and mix up the new Zelda, Mario, Metroid cycle.

Because when Nintendo makes a new franchise you'll more than likely get something legitimately different as opposed to just a reskin of another franchise. People milk that tired, flawed, and easy-to-dismantle excuse of "Nintendo has no new franchises!", blissfully ignorant that A) Yes, Nintendo DOES make new franchises quite frequently such as Xenoblade, or Dillon's Rolling Western, or Pushmo, or Sakura Samurai, it's just that most people try to ignore those for arbitrary reasons. Like Miyamoto said, GAMEPLAY makes a new series, not characters or a name. A new franchise has to be LEGITIMATELY new, not just a reskin.

Maybe because quite a few of them are not well known? Or not a franchise yet? Or not directly made by Nintendo?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nintendo_franchises
They make new games through other developers, and those developers do often make squeals, but that does not make it a Nintendo franchise. That would mean Nintendo owns the copyright but does not make the game. Xenoblade would be a Monolith Soft franchise, Pushmo is by intelligent systems, Sakura Samurai is by grounding inc. technically Smash Bros was a HAL laboratory franchise.

 

[Gatx]

I want to take a crack at listing Nintendo franchises as well:

-Mario
-Zelda
-Donkey Kong
-Metroid
-Star Fox
-Fire Emblem
-Pikmin
-Custom Robo
-Pokemon
-Kid Icarus
-Kirby
-Advance Wars

That's it, that's all I got, but it's not a bad variety honestly. We don't need constant new IPs that run their course after 3-4 games, it's not a bad thing that Nintendo has a table of franchises that they update and add too, especially since each one plays pretty differently from one another.

And also what do Sony and Microsoft have? Sony couldn't even scrape together a roster for their fighting game without turning to third parties, and Microsoft just has Halo, which they didn't even create.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

Maybe because quite a few of them are not well known? Or not a franchise yet? Or not directly made by Nintendo?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nintendo_franchises
They make new games through other developers, and those developers do often make squeals, but that does not make it a Nintendo franchise. That would mean Nintendo owns the copyright but does not make the game. Xenoblade would be a Monolith Soft franchise, Pushmo is by intelligent systems, Sakura Samurai is by grounding inc. technically Smash Bros was a HAL laboratory franchise.

As the debate above shows, most companies don't actually have their major titles developed in-house such as Uncharted, The Last of Us, Ratchet and Clank, etc. And if Nintendo owns the copyright, ITS THEIR GAME. No buts. You can't put asterisks on something and try to say it doesn't count in order to try and perpetuate a sloppy argument that can be dismantled in seconds. Nintendo makes and publishes a TON of new ideas. So stop trying to pretend they don't.

 

[IshimaruHayato]

I bet they'll buy the rights to Croc, an IP that very few people know of. But I'll freak out if Im right

 

[Atmos Duality]

They have a lot of good and varied franchises. They just choose to not do anything new with a good number of them.

Star Fox*? F-Zero? Pikmin? Advance Wars? Custom Robo? Earthbound ('Mother' series)?
Nahh. Best to let those rot, so they can focus on shitting out another batch of "New" Mario, Pokemon, and Zelda games.

(*Re-releasing Starfox 64 verbatim doesn't really count as doing anything new.)

Still, I'm curious to see if this new franchise is going to be an actual game or just more dross like Nintendogs.

 

[Nazulu]

I actually reckon they should make a fuckin' Zelda or Metroid right to get them out of the money sink they're stuck in at the moment. Then revive old franchises like Lylat Wars (No Fucking Landing!) and then bring in some new ones.

 

[ShogunGino]

They have a lot of good and varied franchises. They just choose to not do anything new with a good number of them.

Pikmin? Earthbound ('Mother' series)?

Just wanted to point out that Pikmin 3 was announced quite a while ago and the creator of Mother said that he was very much done with the series, with the third one intended to be the end. Doesn't excuse the lack of an international release, but the reason there aren't any more Mother games is that the creative team feels that they are done.

For my money, I would love a new Star Fox game, and I would have thought the Wii would have had some interesting play schemes for an on-rails space shooter, but oh well.

 

[Snotnarok]

Pretty funny since they seem to fight original franchises at every turn.
A fighting game with new characters? Naw let's just drop a few characters into it with a limited budget.
Hey a Yarn prince trying to save his kingdom? Naw let's put Kirby in it.
A planet with dinosaurs and a pair of fox aliens saving the day? Naw let's put Star Fox in it.

I'm sure there's more, but they've HAD chances to do something with a new character and instead slapped another mascot over it.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Just wanted to point out that Pikmin 3 was announced quite a while ago and the creator of Mother said that he was very much done with the series, with the third one intended to be the end. Doesn't excuse the lack of an international release, but the reason there aren't any more Mother games is that the creative team feels that they are done.

For my money, I would love a new Star Fox game, and I would have thought the Wii would have had some interesting play schemes for an on-rails space shooter, but oh well.

Pikmin 3 has an official announcement? How the hell did I miss that...

 

[Atmos Duality]

There is a new Pikmin game coming out this very month.

You've already been ninja'd here.

As for Advance Wars, that is simply a GBA-specific entry in the larger Nintendo Wars franchise, which has seen games released on everything up to and including the Wii with Battalion Wars. The Nintendo Wars franchise has been going for years before Advance Wars, and will no doubt continue for years after it as well.

I know, I've played the Super Famicom version well over a decade ago.
I'm using the common English localized name for the sake of recognition and simplicity.

Right now, I am doubting if it will continue in the near future, given how Japan basically rejected Dark Conflict/Days of Ruin. (I'm guessing it was "too western" for their tastes. The gameplay was fantastic.)

Or Metroid for that matter, after Other M.

And Shigato Itoi has said that he has no desire to make a new Mother game. The series is his baby. If he's done, he's done.

Also ninja'd.

 

[Something Amyss]

C'mon, guys, old franchises are what have kept you going! In fact, if anything, most of your new ideas have been what have harmed you. Why wreck a good thing?

Just give us Mario with a new gimmick and pretend it's innovation. It's worked before.

 

[zalithar]

Maybe because quite a few of them are not well known? Or not a franchise yet? Or not directly made by Nintendo?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nintendo_franchises
They make new games through other developers, and those developers do often make squeals, but that does not make it a Nintendo franchise. That would mean Nintendo owns the copyright but does not make the game. Xenoblade would be a Monolith Soft franchise, Pushmo is by intelligent systems, Sakura Samurai is by grounding inc. technically Smash Bros was a HAL laboratory franchise.

As the debate above shows, most companies don't actually have their major titles developed in-house such as Uncharted, The Last of Us, Ratchet and Clank, etc. And if Nintendo owns the copyright, ITS THEIR GAME. No buts. You can't put asterisks on something and try to say it doesn't count in order to try and perpetuate a sloppy argument that can be dismantled in seconds. Nintendo makes and publishes a TON of new ideas. So stop trying to pretend they don't.

Those aren't "Sony" franchises they're exclusive to Sony. difference. Uncharted, The Last of Us, Jak and Daxter, and Crash Bandicoot are all Naughty Dog games.

Halo is not an Xbox franchise, it's a 343 franchise (now, was Bungie).

dismantled in seconds? yeah...right. Have fun with the lolipop guild, and the queen of hearts because your in a land of make belief. When did they do any of the damn work (besides the few overseers, kinda like the pyramids)?

And those developers are all owned and financed by Nintendo. Monolith, Intelligent and HAL are all names given to Nintendo studios. They may have once been independent, but they are now completely owned and directed by Nintendo. Not only that, but it's a well known fact that Nintendo often sends its own developers to oversee production of games at those studios, as happened with Retro, in order to make sure those games meet their quality standard.

You're basically arguing semantics. Monolith, Intelligent and HAL are all Nintendo in the same way Bioware are now EA.

If their not Nintendo their not Nintendo. Is Mass Effect an EA franchise? No it is a Bioware franchise.
It is nice to see Nintendo themselves take on a full new IP (I should have mentioned that I do like Nintendo, they're just in a rut). Sony and Microsoft should take on their own IP at some point, it's been a while. The last one I know of from Sony is the Legend of Dragoon (about 2000), and that wasn't a franchise.

Edit: put a sentence from something else in there.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

Those aren't "Sony" franchises they're exclusive to Sony.

Halo is not an Xbox franchise, it's a 343 franchise (now, was Bungie).

dismantled in seconds? yeah...right. Have fun with the lolipop guild, and the queen of hearts because your in a land of make belief. When did they do any of the damn work (besides the few overseers, kinda like the pyramids)?

....No, I didn't need to dismantle that in seconds because YOU dismantled it with the above quotes. Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank, and The Last of Us ARE Sony franchises. They could get anyone else to make entries in those and their creators couldn't do anything. Kinda like how MS is allowed to have 343 make Halo 4; because THEY owned Halo, not Bungie or 343. This isn't hard, you can just go to the Wikipedia pages and confirm this.

 

[rob_simple]

Well, why change something that doesn't need to be changed? I greatly enjoyed the Nintendo Titles of the past few years. Animal Crossing New Leaf many would complain is the same old thing, but they changed many aspects of the core game that most people won't see instantly. Same with Skyward Sword and to a much lesser extent: New Super Mario Bros U.

Because some of us aren't content with playing in the same worlds again and again, no matter how well they're made.

I love Nintendo games because they put fun before everything else, but I want to see them put that skill into new IP's instead of ones I've already experienced numerous times before. No matter what they add to a Zelda game, it will always be a Zelda game, same with Mario and the rest of the old faithfuls.

My favourite Nintendo game of the last fifteen years is Luigi's Mansion because, short of the titular Luigi, it was a complete departure from anything Nintendo had ever done before and it was so much fun; and I'm pretty sure the only reason Luigi got the starring role was because it was a launch title and they couldn't put Mario in it because people would expect the next Mario 64.

 

[EvilRoy]

I can only respond to the statement as it was phrased. If you want to change to focus, you can, but I probably won't be along for the ride. Besides, other companies might lack creativity, but no other company is as proud of or defended for such a lack of creativity as nintendo.

Lack of creativity? This is the company who, alongside Sega with Jet Set Radio, popularised the entire cel-shading aesthetic in gaming. The company who managed to follow the likes of Super Mario World and Mario 64 with arguably the two greatest platformers ever made with Super Mario Galaxy. The company who decided to give motion controls a bash, and ended up with the Metroid Prime Trilogy and Skyward Sword.

Nintendo adds more gameplay innovations and creative mechanics between successive iterations of a series than most developers manage in the entire lifespan of a franchise. Mario started off as a 2D platformer, then pretty much invented three-dimensional movement with 64, then added gravity-free planetoid platforming on top of that in Galaxy. How is that not creative?

It should have been obvious, excruciatingly obvious, in context, but I was referring specifically to franchises rather than game mechanics. Moreover, although one might laud these innovations, taking a look at a timeline and the sheer number of wholly unimpressive games released between them and it appears more that nintento simply practices the fine art of throwing out random ideas until one sticks.

 

[Kittyhawk]

@ CriticKitty

Beg to differ, friend. For a start the games you've listed have appeared on Nintendo consoles but are not new Nintendo IP , and thus aren't in context of the news post. What most of them are is second/third party publisher titles.

Wii Fit was created with casuals in mind, but doesn't appeal to the kind of gamers Nintendo need to buy into Wii U. Don't forget that casuals won't stay long with games or spend as much money over time. I totally agree that Nintendo need something new, because plugging the same usual IP year after year isn't too healthy.

Overall, I doubt its enough to save Wii U now.

 

[zalithar]

Those aren't "Sony" franchises they're exclusive to Sony.

Halo is not an Xbox franchise, it's a 343 franchise (now, was Bungie).

dismantled in seconds? yeah...right. Have fun with the lolipop guild, and the queen of hearts because your in a land of make belief. When did they do any of the damn work (besides the few overseers, kinda like the pyramids)?

....No, I didn't need to dismantle that in seconds because YOU dismantled it with the above quotes. Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank, and The Last of Us ARE Sony franchises. They could get anyone else to make entries in those and their creators couldn't do anything. Kinda like how MS is allowed to have 343 make Halo 4; because THEY owned Halo, not Bungie or 343. This isn't hard, you can just go to the Wikipedia pages and confirm this. You just proved yourself wrong with no(<-did you have more to say here?)

Do you realize the bias your exuding by continuing to argue fervently? They own the copyright that is all. They made it illegal to for the original creators to use their own ideas. I wouldn't call that ownership, I'd call it theft at worst, and insurance for a signed contract at best (With Nintendo, most likely the later). Every game I named for Naughty Dog franchises were made by Naughty Dog, Though ICO, Shadow of the Colossus, Mod Nation Racers and other such titles were actively developed by Sony Computer Entertainment (Team ICO is a division of SCE Japan Studio). Also Halo got listed under 343 Industries, under Microsoft Studios. Notice that? I thought you might be right on Halo and that I had typed faster than I thought, but no. Halo is under 343 while Microsoft holds copyright.

Not to mention that I put forward a counter argument, and you referenced your original argument to refute the counter to that argument. Do you see why you can't do that? just to make it quicker; because than my counter argument still applies to your argument.