The only reason there are "only" 15 games in the main Mario series is because of how violently they exploit Mario in 6 other sports games/mini-games/whatever a year. I can guarantee if Sony had made Golf of War and Kratos: Badminton Champ and God of Curling and 5 other random pointless games, there would be a couple less main series games.
Looks like I forgot Super Mario Land 1 and 2.
At first, it's important to know that the main series Mario games are usually made by different studios than the spin-offs, which are often sourced out to second parties, and if those games contain Mario or not would not have any influence on the amount of main series games whatsoever, as they are not made "instead" of the main series games, but additionally. There are two main reasons for using Mario in those:
1) Mario is popular and thus increases the chance of these games getting bought
2) Mario justifies the not-too-serious tone of these games and the use of items and other stuff, and believe it or not, a lot of people enjoy those games because of that, and not just because Mario is in them.
And of course you could say "but hey, they could instead create a new franchise and use that for the sports", but for that I have to say: why fix what's not broken? The Mario universe is so versatile that you can do virtually anything with it. If the current formula of the main series wouldn't sell, they could take the same world and use a different formula on it. Not many franchises can afford that luxury, and one other of that kind is Zelda.
The above by you mentioned franchises other than those do not provide this property, so let's see: Metroid has the 4 "main" series games (M1, M2, SM, MF), the Prime Series (4 games) and Other M, which makes it 9 games in 25 years, all of which belong to a story arc.
Donkey Kong has the 4 DK Country games, and the DKL games are in a way ports of the DKC games so I'm not sure if you'd want to count those but even if so, that makes 7 games. And Jungle Climber and Jungle Beat if you want, but they play so differently, they might as well be their own franchises.
As for Kirby, he has most likely less main series games than all the above mentioned entries, so your "10-50" estimate pretty much fits only into the Mario category (even Zelda hasn't much more than 10).
So in the end, Nintendo has 2 franchises that simply work, and there are people who call them out for that. If you've had enough of those, don't play them anymore, nobody stops you.
Also, the reason for there not being a "God Of War Kart/Tennis/Sports/Party" or something is because the GoW series is not suitable for games like that, and not Sony's "self respect" or whatever you want to call it. If they could, they would. And you can see that with the above of yourself mentioned Crash Bandicoot which tried its luck with e.g. a fun racer after the success of Mario Kart.
Sure, it's hit and miss with some of those sports games, but the existence of those games does not affect the amount of main series games like you claim is the case (it actually helps funding those), and sometimes a true gem comes out of it, like the Mario Kart or Mario Party series (up to a certain point for the latter).
I do not want to engage in some sort of fanboy fight or something (as we're probably both not fanboys), I enjoy the games of both parties, and I just recently got myself Ghost Of Sparta for the PSP, and I'm sure I'll enjoy it just as much as the previous ones.
Bottom line is:
If a company has something that sells, every company will try to make as much money of it as they can, and Nintendo is no exception (and neither is Sony, nor Telltale while we're at it). But people are not stupid. If a franchise like Mario or Zelda can be sold, and sold well, for over two decades, there has to be a certain quality about these games in my opinion. Seeing how similar attempts fail really badly (see: Sonic), that has to mean something.
EDIT:
I love discussions like these, but this thread is the 3DS thread after all, and tomorrow is that pre-TGS conference on the subject of the 3DS, so maybe taking such "let's compare franchises and discuss why we love or hate them" stuff to a new topic would be a good idea (and I think it has been mentioned above already, so I'm just repeating that thought).
WAIT WAIT WAIT! You shit on the DS constantly for it's touch features and are now praising the vita for it?
Not necessarily. I blame the DS for having a crappy touchscreen with poor implementation. Less than five of the system's best games utilize the touchscreen well, and less than that use the two screen idea in a way that's valuable(most either stretch the game across two screens or, more commonly, drop a menu or map on the bottom to fill space). The Vita's implementation is certainly different in a lot of key and important ways. Five-point multitouch multiplies the number of possible inputs by several orders of magnitude. The back touch screen can be manipulated without covering the screen OR changing your gaze to a secondary screen. The use of buttons is encouraged still, and traditional control schemes have been shown to be available when they make sense, rather than clinging to a touch interface when it doesn't work for the title. The implementation here is functionally different, you can't argue against this.
Plus Nintendo's been doing tilt since the damn Game Boy pocket.
Comparing the Game Boy Pocket's* tilt sensor to what Stardust Delta utilizes in the Vita is like comparing hang gliders to jet planes. Yes, humans have been doing "flight machines" for some time, but one is obviously more impressive and has more practical use than the other. Since I didn't say "Hey, Sony was the very first to develop any sort of tilting sensor", we're good there. The uses for tilt sensors in Nintendo games have been largely gimmicky, and tend to emulate turning one of those handheld mazes you give to children. You know, the ones in a box with a tiny metal ball? That aren't fun?
*I'm taking your word on this. I'm not aware of a tilt sensor accessory before the Color, but sure.
And while we're at this you hate on the (3)DS' touch screen because "You have to block the screen with a stylus to play." Really? With the vita you have to use your finger on the only screen for the game.
No. While this is an option, the back touchpad for the PS Vita is also an option that does not obscure the screen for the player, and also doesn't draw your eye from the screen you're actually using to use an entirely secondary and redundant screen. Further, five-point multitouch drastically alters the number of inputs you have. It's like comparing a thumbstick which only accepts four main directions as inputs, rather than one that can not only send the input in any direction on a 2D plane, but also act as an extra button(and there's two of them). One is far less useful, even if they're the same basic idea.
Also here's a list of original titles for the 3DS that you seem to want to ignore. cubic ninja, dream trigger,Cartoon Network: Punch Time Explosion,Doctor Lautrec and the Forgotten Knights,Heroes of Ruin, The Hidden, Time Travlers,Rodea the Sky Soldier, Steel Diver,UnchainBlades ReXX,Virus Shooter XX.
These are confirmed retail games, so don't say there aren't original titles for the 3DS.
I'm sorry, but since when do obscenely minor, mediocre at best projects count? Is that what I want to buy? Games that are not only not MAJOR, but most likely average at best?
And if you want to dispute by saying these aren't major games, well, few new individual titles are ever major. Major titles are usually only sequels, spin offs, or spiritual sucessors.
1. They're not only not major, they're not GOOD.
2. I'm sorry, but I say the problem is not enough original franchises, and you bring up a Cartoon Network game? One that relies entirely on the built-in audience of its license to sell? To children? Who don't know any better?
3. If these titles are so original and great, what have they done? What's exciting about them? I certainly haven't heard from them or what they're doing that's so exiting, so enlighten me about why I should be enthusiastic about Cartoon Network: Punch Time Explosion?
4. Only on a Nintendo console, and only on Post-N64 Nintendo consoles at that, are all major titles "only" sequels or spiritual successors. Hell, until now, at the very least their handhelds were bastions of new franchises and ideas. Even the DS got a good number of new titles, in spite of the device's shit hardware design. As far as the Vita, Escape Plan is looking pretty major, for example, are Gravity Rush, Ruin, Little Deviants, Sumioni, and even Sound Shapes, which was named the best Vita game of E3 by GameSpot. Note that I don't have to dig through lists of released games to find these, they are prominently featured. Note that I didn't just pull out whatever crap isn't tied to a long-running game franchise, like Reality Fighters(which looks like a fun party game but is probably fairly weak in terms of depth), Hustle Kings, Top Darts, or Smart As.
Also you might want to look at the current confirmed list of PSV games. Like the 3DS most of them are ports, sequels, spin offs, or spiritual sucessors.
I'm looking at it right now. While many of the major titles are sequels to franchises that don't interest me(Killzone, Hot Shots Golf, and Street Fighter X Tekken), not only does the distribution seem far more fair, but the press coverage of and quality of the major new franchise titles is already looking a great deal better than on the 3DS, which itself is ALREADY OUT and has every reason to be winning in terms of upcoming game selection.
With all this said and done there's 3 games I want on the Vita. 2 of which are ports 1 of which is an original game that actually hasn't won me over. I simply want it because I know there's nothing else for the Vita. I was atleast able to count upto 10 games I wanted for the 3DS before I purchased it. Andyes I've looked extensively into the Vita. It'll more then likely be like the PSP for me. Every damn game I want for the console is JP exclusive.
I don't know how there are 10 quality games for the 3DS. I simply don't. Nothing on that system is exciting or fresh in a real, perceivable way. I can't even count one game that makes me feel even the least bit anxious about never owning the thing at all.
Yeah I count cellphone adaptions. If they make them part of the main story, then they count.
Even though only 200 people in the world ever play them because they only work on one certain obscure model of phone? I could maybe see an Android or iOS game release counting, but some ancient horrible Java based game released for only a handful of relatively unpopular phones?
I don't know how there are 10 quality games for the 3DS. I simply don't. Nothing on that system is exciting or fresh in a real, perceivable way. I can't even count one game that makes me feel even the least bit anxious about never owning the thing at all.
I can name 9 games on the 3DS that I will definitely buy: Super Mario 3D Land, Kid Icarus Uprising, Mario Kart 7, Luigi's Mansion 2, Professor Layton, Ocarina of Time 3D, Starfox 64 3D, Paper Mario 3DS, Smash Bros. 3DS (which are 9 so far) and there's bound to be a new Zelda game on this, and tomorrow we might get some more interesting games announced that I'd love to get, among which might be a new Yoshi's Island game according to rumors.
I'm awaiting your "but those are all sequels" "but those aren't the games that I call quality games" "but those are all first party" "but those aren't all out yet" and similar "reasoning" for why those don't count, and all I've got to say is: They do count.
@Shodan: Yes, the cellphone GoW game is terrible and sucks, I wouldn't really count that either, lol.
I can name 9 games on the 3DS that I will definitely buy: Super Mario 3D Land, Kid Icarus Uprising, Mario Kart 7, Luigi's Mansion 2, Professor Layton, Ocarina of Time 3D, Starfox 64 3D, Paper Mario 3DS, Smash Bros. 3DS (which are 9 so far) and there's bound to be a new Zelda game on this, and tomorrow we might get some more interesting games announced that I'd love to get, among which might be a new Yoshi's Island game according to rumors.
I'm awaiting your "but those are all sequels" "but those aren't the games that I call quality games" "but those are all first party" "but those aren't all out yet" and similar "reasoning" for why those don't count, and all I've got to say is: They do count.
Most of those games I would never buy at full price, which means I will not be playing most of them until 5 years from now when Nintendo decides they are done milking the full price. The only reason I bought OoT 3D at full price was because it came with the ultra rare soundtrack.
Most of those games I would never buy at full price, which means I will not be playing most of them until 5 years from now when Nintendo decides they are done milking the full price. The only reason I bought OoT 3D at full price was because it came with the ultra rare soundtrack.
Yeah and the same applies for me vice versa for the games I want on the Sony consoles, so in the end, it's all a matter of taste, really.
I'm awaiting your "but those are all sequels" "but those aren't the games that I call quality games" "but those are all first party" "but those aren't all out yet" and similar "reasoning" for why those don't count, and all I've got to say is: They do count.
The "but" comes in the form of the games not being strongly differentiated from their predecessors, sure. But sure, I have a small number of franchises I enjoy. Too much differentiation can hurt the core values of a franchise or whatever. The main problem with these games, even if they're great, is that they are parts of larger franchises and they're the only major titles on the system. Sequels and remakes aren't just a VERY STRONG presence on the handheld, they're literally the ONLY GAMES ANYONE THINKS ARE WORTHWHILE. There's also a stunning lack of developer diversity in that list. However you slice it, that list comes out looking pretty damn homogenous, even compared with the output of previous generations from this same developer. And with so many of these so far out in the future, and with a company that is known for blowing its first retail model completely out of the water with a completely new redesign, why not wait until a good number of those are actually available?
Yeah andr me vice versa for the games I want on the Sony consoles, so in the end, it's all a matter of taste, really.
It doesn't apply, though, because the games on Sony consoles aren't price fixed for five years. I can pick up LittleBigPlanet 2, which came out THIS YEAR, for $30. By contrast, the first Super Mario Galaxy has only JUST NOW gotten a price cut, four years after release.
My thoughts on the Nintendo whoring thing. I feel that the only franchise they REALLY whore out is Zelda. Every game since Ocarina of Time is basically the same. Even down to the "Three of this and your done. Oh no wait, I lied! Grab some more orbs" thing. Everything else, like Mario for instance changes quite a bit. The likes of Galaxy is definately different from sunshine, which in turn is different from 64, which is different from the 2D franchise. Each iteration of the 3D mario games (except Galaxy 2, which i've heard is great in it's own right, but haven't played, so won't pass judgement) contains enough knew features and creativity to be considered stand-alone new IPs. All that is really stopping them is the fact they have the same visual style as each other, the same character and genre. The same visual style doesn't bother me. Neither does the same character. Condemning it because it's the same genre still is the same genre is just daft. Almost as daft as condemning any 2D fighter as a street fighter clone. And using him for sports/party titles? I don't see a huge issue with that. If you want realistic versions, EA does that. If you want cartoony, fun based ones, you want characters you recognise, which is where Mario comes in.
Metroid takes quite a dramatic change of direction every three games or so (first person 3D, story-driven 3D/2D). Sure you could say it's the same as every other metroid game because you collect weapon upgrades and fight aliens, but beyond that, they're different games. Where it matters.
This post is long. Have a walrus to break it up a bit.
Which brings me to Zelda. Zelda is the one franchise that everyone seems to cry out as feeling tired. And I'm inclined to agree. I think Skyward sword has a chance of fixing that with motion-plus, but I haven't looked much into it. I'd love to see a move towards being more Okami-like (i.e. dungeons and field merging together). I'd like to point out that if this game isn't better than OoT, shigsy has said he will drop out of making Zelda's, so this may either be the last of it's kind, or the first of a new kind.
Plus, it's gotten to a point now, that the consoles aren't considered fully complete until they have their respective Mario,Zelda,Mario Kart, metroid and Smash bros. games.
Those are just my opinions on the franchises, and you guys are entitled to yours. I'm not moaning at anyone (if my post seems that way, I apologise).
The only Zelda I thought felt tired was Tilight Princess, hich I still enjoyed. I absolutely loved Wind Waker.
As did I. But you have to remember, there was only 3 3D zelda games back then. And Majora's mask was very unique. Twilight princess was definately still enjoyable, but it felt too much like an OoT sequel. It didn't do much to stand on its own. The wolf feature was basically the only thing to set it apart from other Zelda games, and it didn't add much.
So here is what I want to be shown at the conference
"Hello Nintendo fans of the world! We got Fire Emblem, Pikmin, Mario Kart 7 news, youtube 3ds, Rare is back with us they be making Banjo Kazooie, and the second thumpad is free if you register it to club nintendo"
What it will most likely be
"Second thumpad, $50. Fire Emblem is here, that is all we out."
But that is still good because that mean Fire Emblem is on its way, and I am NOT buying a thumpad UNLESS it comes with a game I was already going to buy, so I guess Im good.
And to the handheld wars, can we agree that we each have our personal tastes on which handheld is better, and say both are great to have(dont even comment on that last comment, the 3ds is a great thing to own if you like the games on it) and agree to disagree?
I know at some point I am getting a Vita, maybe not a launch, but I will, and Im sure most of you 3ds people are too, so lets please not flame here.
Do you know why SMG price just dropped? It finally stopped selling at that price. LBP stopped selling rather quickly.
That has nothing to do with it. Nintendo does not drop prices for 3-5 years, for any first party game, regardless of sales. Every single first party DS game is still $34.99 new, no exceptions. Until this selects promotion, every single first party Wii game was still $49.99.
If that were the case, every exclusive "killer app" would never drop in price on any other platform. The entire point of a price drop is to increase demand, Nintendo simply doesn't care if their games sell or not beyond initial sales, so they just leave it at an outrageous price to milk people, when in reality they'd make more money by intelligently dropping the price in relation to consumer demand.
That has nothing to do with it. Nintendo does not drop prices for 3-5 years, for any first party game, regardless of sales. Every single first party DS game is still $34.99 new, no exceptions. Until this selects promotion, every single first party Wii game was still $49.99.
NoI meant they don't drop the price untill it stops selling. Like Sin and Punishment by the second mosnth it dropped in price. However SMG was still pushing massive ammounts of copies, same with TP, which was why they didn't drop the price. They finally drop the price because it finally stopped selling the ammount they'd like.
A few first party Nintendo games reached $20-30 quickly because of lacking in sales. Hell Zelda's Choo-Choo adventure was in the bargin bins in Japan pretty quickly.
NoI meant they don't drop the price untill it stops selling. Like Sin and Punishment by the second mosnth it dropped in price. However SMG was still pushing massive ammounts of copies, same with TP, which was why they didn't drop the price. They finally drop the price because it finally stopped selling the ammount they'd like.
A few first party Nintendo games reached $20-30 quickly because of lacking in sales. Hell Zelda's Choo-Choo adventure was in the bargin bins in Japan pretty quickly.
That's Japan. I'm talking about NA. Nothing featuring Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Kirby, or Donkey Kong has ever seen a price cut here outside of a "greatest hits" style of release. (Wii Selects etc.)
Like I said. Sin and Punishment quickly dropped to $20 because it sold poorly. Now it's doing better. SMG and TP were both doing good untill shortly before their price cuts. People felt their value was $50 for a good portion.
This all relates to the US.
Like I said. Sin and Punishment quickly dropped to $20 because it sold poorly. Now it's doing better. SMG and TP were both doing good untill shortly before their price cuts. People felt their value was $50 for a good portion.
This all relates to the US.
Does that game feature any of Nintendo's main characters? No. Was that game even developed by Nintendo? No.
If that were the case, every exclusive "killer app" would never drop in price on any other platform. The entire point of a price drop is to increase demand, Nintendo simply doesn't care if their games sell or not beyond initial sales, so they just leave it at an outrageous price to milk people, when in reality they'd make more money by intelligently dropping the price in relation to consumer demand.
Maybe you should apply at NoA for a marketing job... I'm sure wisdom like this is completely new to the company, so they'll take you with open arms.
I was actually pretty happy with that press confrence. I know it'll never happen but I want that damn Miku game in America.
Same goes for the new Square game.
And not a single sign of the ugly second analog. That just makes all of the doom and gloom it caused even more hilarious.
If you're implying that the device isn't real, it has been confirmed by Nintendo of Japan. There's even a list of games that will use it, a price point of ¥1500, and a clarification that the device will need a AAA battery to work.
No, what I mean is that some people were making such a huge deal about it, and yet, Nintendo deems it unimportant enough to not bother showing it at their conference. A conference that was specifically for the 3DS at that.
I find it astounding that after a successful presentation showing where the 3DS is going, Nintendo's investors are still backing off, saying Nintendo should get into the mobile market. I don't want Zelda on a G-D iPhone, I want it on a Nintendo console.
Also find it humorous that they led off a 3DS conference with a Wii game.
That has nothing to do with it. Nintendo does not drop prices for 3-5 years, for any first party game, regardless of sales. Every single first party DS game is still $34.99 new, no exceptions. Until this selects promotion, every single first party Wii game was still $49.99.
I guess this is a typo then? Nintendo games sell in a different way to console games. A large portion of the audience aren't the sorts of people who buy games the instant they come out (hardcore gamers if you forgive the crude term), whereas other consoles have those sorts of audiences making up the majority. Nintendo was one of the most successful companies in the world in business last generation. They knew just how to price their products. Allthough, apparently not the 3DS.
I'm sure a lot of it has to do with percieved brand value as well. They don't want Zelda, Mario et al seeming like anything less than premium franchises that carry premium price tags.
Comments
At first, it's important to know that the main series Mario games are usually made by different studios than the spin-offs, which are often sourced out to second parties, and if those games contain Mario or not would not have any influence on the amount of main series games whatsoever, as they are not made "instead" of the main series games, but additionally. There are two main reasons for using Mario in those:
1) Mario is popular and thus increases the chance of these games getting bought
2) Mario justifies the not-too-serious tone of these games and the use of items and other stuff, and believe it or not, a lot of people enjoy those games because of that, and not just because Mario is in them.
And of course you could say "but hey, they could instead create a new franchise and use that for the sports", but for that I have to say: why fix what's not broken? The Mario universe is so versatile that you can do virtually anything with it. If the current formula of the main series wouldn't sell, they could take the same world and use a different formula on it. Not many franchises can afford that luxury, and one other of that kind is Zelda.
The above by you mentioned franchises other than those do not provide this property, so let's see: Metroid has the 4 "main" series games (M1, M2, SM, MF), the Prime Series (4 games) and Other M, which makes it 9 games in 25 years, all of which belong to a story arc.
Donkey Kong has the 4 DK Country games, and the DKL games are in a way ports of the DKC games so I'm not sure if you'd want to count those but even if so, that makes 7 games. And Jungle Climber and Jungle Beat if you want, but they play so differently, they might as well be their own franchises.
As for Kirby, he has most likely less main series games than all the above mentioned entries, so your "10-50" estimate pretty much fits only into the Mario category (even Zelda hasn't much more than 10).
So in the end, Nintendo has 2 franchises that simply work, and there are people who call them out for that. If you've had enough of those, don't play them anymore, nobody stops you.
Also, the reason for there not being a "God Of War Kart/Tennis/Sports/Party" or something is because the GoW series is not suitable for games like that, and not Sony's "self respect" or whatever you want to call it. If they could, they would. And you can see that with the above of yourself mentioned Crash Bandicoot which tried its luck with e.g. a fun racer after the success of Mario Kart.
Sure, it's hit and miss with some of those sports games, but the existence of those games does not affect the amount of main series games like you claim is the case (it actually helps funding those), and sometimes a true gem comes out of it, like the Mario Kart or Mario Party series (up to a certain point for the latter).
I do not want to engage in some sort of fanboy fight or something (as we're probably both not fanboys), I enjoy the games of both parties, and I just recently got myself Ghost Of Sparta for the PSP, and I'm sure I'll enjoy it just as much as the previous ones.
Bottom line is:
If a company has something that sells, every company will try to make as much money of it as they can, and Nintendo is no exception (and neither is Sony, nor Telltale while we're at it). But people are not stupid. If a franchise like Mario or Zelda can be sold, and sold well, for over two decades, there has to be a certain quality about these games in my opinion. Seeing how similar attempts fail really badly (see: Sonic), that has to mean something.
EDIT:
I love discussions like these, but this thread is the 3DS thread after all, and tomorrow is that pre-TGS conference on the subject of the 3DS, so maybe taking such "let's compare franchises and discuss why we love or hate them" stuff to a new topic would be a good idea (and I think it has been mentioned above already, so I'm just repeating that thought).
Comparing the Game Boy Pocket's* tilt sensor to what Stardust Delta utilizes in the Vita is like comparing hang gliders to jet planes. Yes, humans have been doing "flight machines" for some time, but one is obviously more impressive and has more practical use than the other. Since I didn't say "Hey, Sony was the very first to develop any sort of tilting sensor", we're good there. The uses for tilt sensors in Nintendo games have been largely gimmicky, and tend to emulate turning one of those handheld mazes you give to children. You know, the ones in a box with a tiny metal ball? That aren't fun?
*I'm taking your word on this. I'm not aware of a tilt sensor accessory before the Color, but sure.
No. While this is an option, the back touchpad for the PS Vita is also an option that does not obscure the screen for the player, and also doesn't draw your eye from the screen you're actually using to use an entirely secondary and redundant screen. Further, five-point multitouch drastically alters the number of inputs you have. It's like comparing a thumbstick which only accepts four main directions as inputs, rather than one that can not only send the input in any direction on a 2D plane, but also act as an extra button(and there's two of them). One is far less useful, even if they're the same basic idea.
I'm sorry, but since when do obscenely minor, mediocre at best projects count? Is that what I want to buy? Games that are not only not MAJOR, but most likely average at best?
1. They're not only not major, they're not GOOD.
2. I'm sorry, but I say the problem is not enough original franchises, and you bring up a Cartoon Network game? One that relies entirely on the built-in audience of its license to sell? To children? Who don't know any better?
3. If these titles are so original and great, what have they done? What's exciting about them? I certainly haven't heard from them or what they're doing that's so exiting, so enlighten me about why I should be enthusiastic about Cartoon Network: Punch Time Explosion?
4. Only on a Nintendo console, and only on Post-N64 Nintendo consoles at that, are all major titles "only" sequels or spiritual successors. Hell, until now, at the very least their handhelds were bastions of new franchises and ideas. Even the DS got a good number of new titles, in spite of the device's shit hardware design. As far as the Vita, Escape Plan is looking pretty major, for example, are Gravity Rush, Ruin, Little Deviants, Sumioni, and even Sound Shapes, which was named the best Vita game of E3 by GameSpot. Note that I don't have to dig through lists of released games to find these, they are prominently featured. Note that I didn't just pull out whatever crap isn't tied to a long-running game franchise, like Reality Fighters(which looks like a fun party game but is probably fairly weak in terms of depth), Hustle Kings, Top Darts, or Smart As.
I'm looking at it right now. While many of the major titles are sequels to franchises that don't interest me(Killzone, Hot Shots Golf, and Street Fighter X Tekken), not only does the distribution seem far more fair, but the press coverage of and quality of the major new franchise titles is already looking a great deal better than on the 3DS, which itself is ALREADY OUT and has every reason to be winning in terms of upcoming game selection.
I don't know how there are 10 quality games for the 3DS. I simply don't. Nothing on that system is exciting or fresh in a real, perceivable way. I can't even count one game that makes me feel even the least bit anxious about never owning the thing at all.
Correct. It starts at 11 PM EST/ 8 PM PST and the Japanese stream can be found here.
Even though only 200 people in the world ever play them because they only work on one certain obscure model of phone? I could maybe see an Android or iOS game release counting, but some ancient horrible Java based game released for only a handful of relatively unpopular phones?
I'm awaiting your "but those are all sequels" "but those aren't the games that I call quality games" "but those are all first party" "but those aren't all out yet" and similar "reasoning" for why those don't count, and all I've got to say is: They do count.
@Shodan: Yes, the cellphone GoW game is terrible and sucks, I wouldn't really count that either, lol.
Most of those games I would never buy at full price, which means I will not be playing most of them until 5 years from now when Nintendo decides they are done milking the full price. The only reason I bought OoT 3D at full price was because it came with the ultra rare soundtrack.
Yeah and the same applies for me vice versa for the games I want on the Sony consoles, so in the end, it's all a matter of taste, really.
It doesn't apply, though, because the games on Sony consoles aren't price fixed for five years. I can pick up LittleBigPlanet 2, which came out THIS YEAR, for $30. By contrast, the first Super Mario Galaxy has only JUST NOW gotten a price cut, four years after release.
Metroid takes quite a dramatic change of direction every three games or so (first person 3D, story-driven 3D/2D). Sure you could say it's the same as every other metroid game because you collect weapon upgrades and fight aliens, but beyond that, they're different games. Where it matters.
This post is long. Have a walrus to break it up a bit.
Which brings me to Zelda. Zelda is the one franchise that everyone seems to cry out as feeling tired. And I'm inclined to agree. I think Skyward sword has a chance of fixing that with motion-plus, but I haven't looked much into it. I'd love to see a move towards being more Okami-like (i.e. dungeons and field merging together). I'd like to point out that if this game isn't better than OoT, shigsy has said he will drop out of making Zelda's, so this may either be the last of it's kind, or the first of a new kind.
Plus, it's gotten to a point now, that the consoles aren't considered fully complete until they have their respective Mario,Zelda,Mario Kart, metroid and Smash bros. games.
Those are just my opinions on the franchises, and you guys are entitled to yours. I'm not moaning at anyone (if my post seems that way, I apologise).
As did I. But you have to remember, there was only 3 3D zelda games back then. And Majora's mask was very unique. Twilight princess was definately still enjoyable, but it felt too much like an OoT sequel. It didn't do much to stand on its own. The wolf feature was basically the only thing to set it apart from other Zelda games, and it didn't add much.
"Hello Nintendo fans of the world! We got Fire Emblem, Pikmin, Mario Kart 7 news, youtube 3ds, Rare is back with us they be making Banjo Kazooie, and the second thumpad is free if you register it to club nintendo"
What it will most likely be
"Second thumpad, $50. Fire Emblem is here, that is all we out."
But that is still good because that mean Fire Emblem is on its way, and I am NOT buying a thumpad UNLESS it comes with a game I was already going to buy, so I guess Im good.
And to the handheld wars, can we agree that we each have our personal tastes on which handheld is better, and say both are great to have(dont even comment on that last comment, the 3ds is a great thing to own if you like the games on it) and agree to disagree?
I know at some point I am getting a Vita, maybe not a launch, but I will, and Im sure most of you 3ds people are too, so lets please not flame here.
That has nothing to do with it. Nintendo does not drop prices for 3-5 years, for any first party game, regardless of sales. Every single first party DS game is still $34.99 new, no exceptions. Until this selects promotion, every single first party Wii game was still $49.99.
If that were the case, every exclusive "killer app" would never drop in price on any other platform. The entire point of a price drop is to increase demand, Nintendo simply doesn't care if their games sell or not beyond initial sales, so they just leave it at an outrageous price to milk people, when in reality they'd make more money by intelligently dropping the price in relation to consumer demand.
NoI meant they don't drop the price untill it stops selling. Like Sin and Punishment by the second mosnth it dropped in price. However SMG was still pushing massive ammounts of copies, same with TP, which was why they didn't drop the price. They finally drop the price because it finally stopped selling the ammount they'd like.
A few first party Nintendo games reached $20-30 quickly because of lacking in sales. Hell Zelda's Choo-Choo adventure was in the bargin bins in Japan pretty quickly.
That's Japan. I'm talking about NA. Nothing featuring Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Kirby, or Donkey Kong has ever seen a price cut here outside of a "greatest hits" style of release. (Wii Selects etc.)
This all relates to the US.
Does that game feature any of Nintendo's main characters? No. Was that game even developed by Nintendo? No.
MONSTER HUNTER.
WE HAVE MONSTER HUNTER.
Same goes for the new Square game.
I'm extremely disappointed Luigi's Mansion 2 isn't on this list.
Also find it humorous that they led off a 3DS conference with a Wii game.
I guess this is a typo then? Nintendo games sell in a different way to console games. A large portion of the audience aren't the sorts of people who buy games the instant they come out (hardcore gamers if you forgive the crude term), whereas other consoles have those sorts of audiences making up the majority. Nintendo was one of the most successful companies in the world in business last generation. They knew just how to price their products. Allthough, apparently not the 3DS.
Oh and Fire Emblem. And considering my friend is a huge fanboy, he will be jelly of me as I get the game and not him:D