ZeroAX wrote:Same with Starfox Adventures. Dinosaur Planet could have been a better game.
Adding Star Fox into Dinosaur Planet didn't make it a worse game. Dinosaur Planet was always going to turn out to be mediocre. Also I'm referring to the actual gameplay, not the story (which did suffer, no doubt).
Ehh if that game had been called dinosaur planet I probably would've still bought it like I did a few months ago. Guess I'm just weird but that game isn't half bad even if it shouldn't of been a starfox game
My gameroom My systems: NES, SNES, N64, Gamecube, Wii, original gba, gba sp(001), ds lite, 3ds, vita, psp, PSone(101 model) ps2, ps3(320gb model), ps4, retron 5, and Dreamcast.
bogusmeatfactory wrote:Ever feel like a wild gazelle in the wilderness?
WallCrusher wrote:Adding Star Fox into Dinosaur Planet didn't make it a worse game. Dinosaur Planet was always going to turn out to be mediocre. Also I'm referring to the actual gameplay, not the story (which did suffer, no doubt).
Are you sure? Making the Starfox sections (the space fights stuff) must have needed many man-hours to complete, specially since they weren't included in the original game planning so probably the engine didn't support it. That time could have been better spent refining the game.
Of course it might indeed have just come out mediocre as you say....funny, I really liked my first playthrough of the game, but I was never able to touch it again.
BoneSnapDeez wrote:The success of a console is determined by how much I enjoy it.
WallCrusher wrote:Adding Star Fox into Dinosaur Planet didn't make it a worse game. Dinosaur Planet was always going to turn out to be mediocre. Also I'm referring to the actual gameplay, not the story (which did suffer, no doubt).
Are you sure? Making the Starfox sections (the space fights stuff) must have needed many man-hours to complete, specially since they weren't included in the original game planning so probably the engine didn't support it. That time could have been better spent refining the game.
Of course it might indeed have just come out mediocre as you say....funny, I really liked my first playthrough of the game, but I was never able to touch it again.
Well, that may be true. At the very least maybe we wouldn't have gotten ripped off by that poor excuse of a "fight" with General Scales.
I just feel that the game was always going to turn out to be simply "okay". Unfortunately it ended up becoming a Star Fox game and had to be compared to the likes of SF64.
WallCrusher wrote:Well, that may be true. At the very least maybe we wouldn't have gotten ripped off by that poor excuse of a "fight" with General Scales.
Yeah that final boss fight was lame beyond comparison
BoneSnapDeez wrote:The success of a console is determined by how much I enjoy it.
BogusMeatFactory wrote:Here is the thing, people have constantly been crying out for Nintendo to bring them new IPs. They are going to get a brand new IP that is going to be fun, engaging and a great spin on a familiar genre of strategy... and it most likely will not sell well. Why? Because, when people say they want a new IP, they really mean they want an old IP done differently. They want another game re-imagined like Metroid Prime.
You're getting at something here that's bothered me for awhile.
A lot of the "come on Nintendo, where's the new IPs" stuff that we've heard for years, is just a double standard and an attempt to apply expectations of all video games to what Nintendo does. It just doesn't apply.
I think what people expect from "franchises", is a consistent update schedule from release to release. Going from God of War 1 to God of War 2 to God of War 3 ... you know what to expect.
But if you go from Super Mario World to Super Mario 64 to Super Mario Sunshine to Super Mario Galaxy ... they're just radically different. And this is Nintendo's secret sauce. They've explained it thousands of times, but I don't see people "getting it", especially inept media-people. Nintendo builds gameplay mechanics before they build a game.
It's not like, "ok, Assassin's Creed II, what should we do? Oh, I got it, two knives! Oh, and Italy!". I don't think that's a normal attitude at Nintendo.
What I think trips people up is, they see Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Star Fox, or whatever, and go "snooze, another Mario", without actually seeing what's there. They assume it's just identical, or a reskin or something like that. It's just not accurate.
Nintendo appears to come up with new fun ideas all the time, but instead of building a brand new franchise out of every single one, they usually try to find a home for these ideas with existing characters and worlds. And it would appear that, when they make those decisions, like, "Hey, we thought up this gravity mechanic, this might be fun with Mario" ... once they start going down that line, the ideas become married. Now, not only does the gravity gameplay idea impact Mario, but Mario impacts the gravity gameplay idea. As a result, it generally looks cohesive. It also means Nintendo can throw wacky shit together, and it usually feels at home.
This benefits Nintendo usually more than it hurts, there's situations where it hurts, of course, Starfox Adventures is an example of that.
But usually, it results in refreshing new takes on existing characters and franchise. Nintendo gives us new games, in familiar packages. People love that ... and they hate that.
But the reality is, if Super Mario 3D World was called The Great Jerry Quest, and was an all about great game ... would it have sold? Would people buy a non-franchise Nintendo game? The numbers say no.
Nintendo usually has to release multiple iterations of a game before people will buy it. It's just how consumers are. They don't buy the new brand, they buy what's tried and true.
BogusMeatFactory wrote:Here is the thing, people have constantly been crying out for Nintendo to bring them new IPs. They are going to get a brand new IP that is going to be fun, engaging and a great spin on a familiar genre of strategy... and it most likely will not sell well. Why? Because, when people say they want a new IP, they really mean they want an old IP done differently. They want another game re-imagined like Metroid Prime.
You're getting at something here that's bothered me for awhile.
A lot of the "come on Nintendo, where's the new IPs" stuff that we've heard for years, is just a double standard and an attempt to apply expectations of all video games to what Nintendo does. It just doesn't apply.
I think what people expect from "franchises", is a consistent update schedule from release to release. Going from God of War 1 to God of War 2 to God of War 3 ... you know what to expect.
But if you go from Super Mario World to Super Mario 64 to Super Mario Sunshine to Super Mario Galaxy ... they're just radically different. And this is Nintendo's secret sauce. They've explained it thousands of times, but I don't see people "getting it", especially inept media-people. Nintendo builds gameplay mechanics before they build a game.
It's not like, "ok, Assassin's Creed II, what should we do? Oh, I got it, two knives! Oh, and Italy!". I don't think that's a normal attitude at Nintendo.
What I think trips people up is, they see Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Star Fox, or whatever, and go "snooze, another Mario", without actually seeing what's there. They assume it's just identical, or a reskin or something like that. It's just not accurate.
Nintendo appears to come up with new fun ideas all the time, but instead of building a brand new franchise out of every single one, they usually try to find a home for these ideas with existing characters and worlds. And it would appear that, when they make those decisions, like, "Hey, we thought up this gravity mechanic, this might be fun with Mario" ... once they start going down that line, the ideas become married. Now, not only does the gravity gameplay idea impact Mario, but Mario impacts the gravity gameplay idea. As a result, it generally looks cohesive. It also means Nintendo can throw wacky shit together, and it usually feels at home.
This benefits Nintendo usually more than it hurts, there's situations where it hurts, of course, Starfox Adventures is an example of that.
But usually, it results in refreshing new takes on existing characters and franchise. Nintendo gives us new games, in familiar packages. People love that ... and they hate that.
But the reality is, if Super Mario 3D World was called The Great Jerry Quest, and was an all about great game ... would it have sold? Would people buy a non-franchise Nintendo game? The numbers say no.
Nintendo usually has to release multiple iterations of a game before people will buy it. It's just how consumers are. They don't buy the new brand, they buy what's tried and true.
See, I know they do this but still want them to create new IPs. In that "Nintendo is Hurting" thread a while back I lamented how 21st Century Nintendo software/game design on their consoles wasn't very influential. I won't rehash all those long posts and debate here, but I think it is fair to say that at least part of their image problem is due to them not creating new, memorable franchises tied to interesting mechanics. They used to do that all the time in the 80s and 90s. Now they don't.
I'd also disagree that Super Mario 64, Sunshine, and Galaxy feel vastly different - they seem like natural iterations on a franchise that has moved to new hardware, each time bringing a few new design elements to an otherwise tried and true platforming series. It's the same with many other Nintendo franchises that made the jump from generation to generation (Metroid, StarFox, DKC, etc.) and, of course, with existing game series as a whole on any platform. I hope Splatoon and this Steam game really signal a shift in direction for Nintendo and that they begin creating a lot more games that will introduce new types of gameplay tied to new characters and worlds that will once again inspire the industry as a whole.
