Shigeru Miyamoto: Nintendo Needs a "New Franchise"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Gormech:
Nintendo ... please just make Banjo and Kazooie a platformer again.

Except they can't because Banjo-Kazooie is owned by Microsoft

Sonic Doctor:

Zachary Amaranth:
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.

If anything, they should try something new, but still keep on with their other franchises as normal. I think a lot of people that ask for Nintendo to do something new with their existing franchises, just want a new game with new everything, because seriously, if they take an existing franchise and make a core game in it that is changed too drastically, then is it going to really feel like part of that franchise.

That is the thing about Nintendo that I like, when they say they are going to do something, they usually do it(in a development sense). When they say they are going to make a Mario platformer, that is what they make, and lately they do add new twists and powers and stuff, but it is still a platformer.

Unlike EA with games like Dead Space(Horror game with shooter elements), DS2(Horror shooter), DS3(Shooter).

Other than that, Nintendo also makes games that use their characters outside their normal games, and it works damn near every time. They take franchises places where if others did it, they would die, or end up on life-support.

Mario does different stuff all the time in many styles of games and Nintendo succeeds with them. Where as Sega with Sonic, he is still feeling the effects of the horrific experiments they preformed on him.

For the most part, I think many developers are just jealous of majority loyal fandom that Nintendo has. I really think system specs are a minor point on why many developers and publishers are being snobby towards Nintendo and saying they don't want to develop for the Wii U, they are trying to bring Nintendo down, because the way Nintendo carries itself is different from theirs and rather than change and share in the love that Nintendo gets, they want to eliminate them.

What I find sad and hilarious is that floundering companies that are finding it hard to get acceptance from their fans and seeing a possible looming gaming crash because of what they've done, are trying to eliminate the one company that brought the industry out of the ashes after the first crash. I'm not saying there is a crash possible in the near future, but if anybody would be to blame for a new gaming crash, it wouldn't be Nintendo that caused it.

You had me until the "they're just jealous," no 'they' aren't.
They're just not suited for the Nintendo Way which might have worked and was standard 15 years ago but moved out by the PC development way. In fact the traditional japanese software way is an impediment, in some cases, to their own development with firms that are so japanese it hurts relocating to places with more favorable IP laws and worker treatment expectations.

The typical game developer isn't the 30 year old lifer, its the college student in or out of 2-4year program that could likely get a job ANYWHERE (yeah, even in this economy as everyone and their green grocer needs an IT guy now.)
Only they need to peter principle up the codemonkey ranks. This isn't unique to Japanese corporate culture but its more severe in Nintendo with its ancient history, ossified structures, and focus on Japanese market. I imagine unless you speak Japanese this will be a major impediment to getting to head your own franchise and project in addition to the painful lack of movement that Japanese "long term" corporate culture produces (seniority trumps suitability).

Compare and contrast the Cinderella stories of Minecraft, Portal, Halo, Bioware, and others
Especially with the rise of Kickstarter. Its why Xbox making a PC-machine that plays games got them so much support from a base that seemed not to exist. Its why new and fresh IPs with tried developed ideas and implementation seem to pop out the woodwork.

A trained guy with a passion for games and programming education and training who can work anywhere but wants to be in games isn't going to find it easy or welcoming to do it for Nintendo. Again the other console makers are very VERY openly pandering to the PC coder which btw does overlap strongly with the PC gamer (as one of the first gateways to that is modding off other games or using their engines)

Wait, wait. I thought Mario #76 v1.5. Legend of Zelda 24. Metroid 17. And Donkey Kong 10. Were perfectly original.
Jokes aside, it'd be nice to see a new Nintendo franchise with power house holding like Mario, LoZ and Metroid.

How has no one posted a "You don't say?" meme yet?

Well, glad they're coming around.

Chaos Isaac:
Wait, wait. I thought Mario #76 v1.5. Legend of Zelda 24. Metroid 17. And Donkey Kong 10. Were perfectly original.
Jokes aside, it'd be nice to see a new Nintendo franchise with power house holding like Mario, LoZ and Metroid.

Dude originality is HIGHLY overrated. Arkham Asylum was Assasin's Creed with Batman skinning and performances. Amnesia was mod. And.. its a long list. The main thing is variety and fresh ideas with firm and enjoyable execution.

Nintendo have a bunch of old IP they barely use as if, use them.

As long as the games keep being fun, I'll play them whether they're established franchises or new ones.

"To say Nintendo overuse their property is like saying that a parasitic wasp overuses the body of a caterpillar it lays its eggs in."To quote a certain individual renowned for his quoteable lines.

The fact is, this has been an issue for sometime but its never been as glaring as it is now - the Wiifit trainer is the most egregious example of this. I mean Jesus.

I keep waiting for them to reveal it's a joke and they'll subsequently reveal a real character after.

I think Nintendo's terrified of trying to live up to the lofty expectations it's given its fans, but you can only put it off for so long before you have to bite the bullet.

Probably running low on characters to put in the next Smash Bros...

But in all seriousness, I haven't cared about Nintendo since the N64, but that might change if they came up with something good. Nintendo has been living in its comfort zone for waaaay to long, so I doubt this would be a bad thing.

Now as I was just talking about a few posts ago, originality comes from new ideas, and that 'new ideas' is not the same as a new IP. Still, this can be promising, but I'm honestly not expecting much. They didn't bring in a SINGLE new franchise of major worth on the Wii as far as I can remember--even the DS has a few new legends to its name like Professor Layton--and very few on the Gamecube.

UltraHammer:
Now as I was just talking about a few posts ago, originality comes from new ideas, and that 'new ideas' is not the same as a new IP. Still, this can be promising, but I'm honestly not expecting much. They didn't bring in a SINGLE new franchise of major worth on the Wii as far as I can remember--even the DS has a few new legends to its name like Professor Layton--and very few on the Gamecube.

Wii Sports and Wii Fit.

Or are you the one who decides what is major?

They brang much more, but those two were top selling franchises of the generation.

UltraHammer:
Now as I was just talking about a few posts ago, originality comes from new ideas, and that 'new ideas' is not the same as a new IP. Still, this can be promising, but I'm honestly not expecting much. They didn't bring in a SINGLE new franchise of major worth on the Wii as far as I can remember--even the DS has a few new legends to its name like Professor Layton--and very few on the Gamecube.

There goes Wii Sports of no significant value

Oh wait it wasn't hardcore so doesn't count amirite boys?

Darn Ninja'ed... oh well I will train harder to be the fastest forum ninja

zalithar:

Aiddon:
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.

The Artificially Prolonged:
Nintendo? New IP? Excuse me I just need to check the sky is not falling :P

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.

Well, I could argue you're being fairly arbitrary there. Just because these groups have their own names, doesn't make it the dividing line between being a developer in their own right, or effectively being equivalent to an internal development team within Nintendo.

I mean, you do realise that 'intelligent systems' and 'HAL laboratories' are both wholly owned subsidiaries of Nintendo, right? For that matter, Nintendo's current president, Satoru Iwata, used to work at HAL...
Intelligent systems is even more blatant - Not only are they wholly owned by Nintendo, and have contributed directly to games and hardware produced by Nintendo's R&D teams, and EAD software development teams. That goes the other way too incedentally. Early titles developed by intelligent systems contained major contributions from staff members that are officially part of nintendo's primary internal development teams.
Not only that, but 'Intelligent systems' is based out of Nintendo's Kyoto Research Center.

Is it really valid to claim that a developer that is based out of one of Nintendo's own offices, has been known to collaborate very closely with teams that are almost certainly internal Nintendo teams, and is wholly owned by Nintendo is in fact a separate entity just because they have a distinct name?
Given the evidence in a situation like that, is Intelligent systems any more independent from Nintendo than the internal EAD and various R&D teams are? (EAD is the team that Shigeru Myamoto was originally part of if you're wondering. - It's the main internal design and art team, basically.)

As far as I can tell, the lines between Nintendo and some of it's biggest subsidiaries are pretty blurry. They seem to share staff. They help develop eachother's games (As in, actual technical and artistic resources are contributed by one party to the other in quite a few cases), They're owned by the same people...

Kind of odd that people insist they aren't the same thing when a lot of the evidence would suggest they come pretty close to it...

BUY MEGAMAN!!!! Don't make a new one, just buy the one everyone knows about and remembers! Buy it! Do it! Capcom will probably sell it dirt cheapz,

Capitano Segnaposto:

josemlopes:
īBout time.

They know how to make games, thats a fact (okay, an opinion, bu you know what I mean), so it really bugged me that whatever games they made were all about the same core experiences that were created 10 years ago (with some exceptions, although still conected to the original concept in some way).

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.

Sure, they have flops like any other company (Metroid: Other M and New Super Mario Bros 2 for example) but they know how to make a fun, nearly bug free, game. Which is something I absolutely love from them.

I don't think anyone has a problem with Nintendo continuing it's classic franchises, but the company begins to stagnate if they rely on the same handful of fans to purchase the same handful of titles. For a long time Nintendo was the company of innovation, and could do no wrong. They're still good, but I haven't played a single Nintendo game that honestly seemed better than their classic N64 line up. I want to see Nintendo succeed, but I also know one of the main reasons I prefer the PlayStation is because they consistently deliver new and classic titles. Typicly I buy Sony consoles, and then, a few years later, I may purchase a Nintendo system. I've always avoided Xbox like the plague. New blood can keep the company alive, and I want to see the company COMPETE. Show the market how it's done Nintendo.

I'm excited for this. Nintendo are one of the only triple A developers who actually show their passion for game design. They don't just release titles driven by story or character or "atmosphere", they release titles with simple yet deep game theory/design.

When Nintendo give RPGs a shot, we get Zelda, Earthbound and Super Mario RPG.
When they give driving games a shot, we get Mario Kart and F-Zero.
When they give strategy games a shot, we get Fire Emblem.
Shooters? Metroid.
Rail shooters? Starfox.
Fighters? Hell, lets just reinvent the genre, Smash Bros.
And of course, Nintendo's ace in the hole and the medium for which a developer can truly show off their design finesse, platformers: Mario and Donkey Kong Country.

So when we hear wind of a new IP? We hear wind of a game that is going to last forever.

Nintendo just know how to make simple but deep games; they remember the core idea of video games, the actual game side of things. You take away the graphics and story of Nintendo games and you're still left with something fun. I'd like to see how a game like Uncharted holds up without those crutches.

While games are an 'experience', sometimes it's nice to actually play a game for the merit of challenge and fun.

Hectix777:
BUY MEGAMAN!!!! Don't make a new one, just buy the one everyone knows about and remembers! Buy it! Do it! Capcom will probably sell it dirt cheapz,

Yes. A million times yes. Oh my god oh my god yes.

CrystalShadow:

zalithar:

Aiddon:
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.

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.

Well, I could argue you're being fairly arbitrary there. Just because these groups have their own names, doesn't make it the dividing line between being a developer in their own right, or effectively being equivalent to an internal development team within Nintendo.

I mean, you do realise that 'intelligent systems' and 'HAL laboratories' are both wholly owned subsidiaries of Nintendo, right? For that matter, Nintendo's current president, Satoru Iwata, used to work at HAL...
Intelligent systems is even more blatant - Not only are they wholly owned by Nintendo, and have contributed directly to games and hardware produced by Nintendo's R&D teams, and EAD software development teams. That goes the other way too incedentally. Early titles developed by intelligent systems contained major contributions from staff members that are officially part of nintendo's primary internal development teams.
Not only that, but 'Intelligent systems' is based out of Nintendo's Kyoto Research Center.

Is it really valid to claim that a developer that is based out of one of Nintendo's own offices, has been known to collaborate very closely with teams that are almost certainly internal Nintendo teams, and is wholly owned by Nintendo is in fact a separate entity just because they have a distinct name?
Given the evidence in a situation like that, is Intelligent systems any more independent from Nintendo than the internal EAD and various R&D teams are? (EAD is the team that Shigeru Myamoto was originally part of if you're wondering. - It's the main internal design and art team, basically.)

As far as I can tell, the lines between Nintendo and some of it's biggest subsidiaries are pretty blurry. They seem to share staff. They help develop eachother's games (As in, actual technical and artistic resources are contributed by one party to the other in quite a few cases), They're owned by the same people...

Kind of odd that people insist they aren't the same thing when a lot of the evidence would suggest they come pretty close to it...

That would be kind of like the US claiming ownership of a decision made by the UN because the US is a major part of the UN and helped with the decision. Though only if the basics of the decision was created by a separate entity within the UN. Or you could look at the list of Nintendo franchises on Wikipedia and see that it is quite limited. A lot of franchises exclusive to Nintendo consoles are not Nintendo franchises. This really does not make much of a difference beyond the way in which the games are described.

zalithar:

CrystalShadow:

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.

Well, I could argue you're being fairly arbitrary there. Just because these groups have their own names, doesn't make it the dividing line between being a developer in their own right, or effectively being equivalent to an internal development team within Nintendo.

I mean, you do realise that 'intelligent systems' and 'HAL laboratories' are both wholly owned subsidiaries of Nintendo, right? For that matter, Nintendo's current president, Satoru Iwata, used to work at HAL...
Intelligent systems is even more blatant - Not only are they wholly owned by Nintendo, and have contributed directly to games and hardware produced by Nintendo's R&D teams, and EAD software development teams. That goes the other way too incedentally. Early titles developed by intelligent systems contained major contributions from staff members that are officially part of nintendo's primary internal development teams.
Not only that, but 'Intelligent systems' is based out of Nintendo's Kyoto Research Center.

Is it really valid to claim that a developer that is based out of one of Nintendo's own offices, has been known to collaborate very closely with teams that are almost certainly internal Nintendo teams, and is wholly owned by Nintendo is in fact a separate entity just because they have a distinct name?
Given the evidence in a situation like that, is Intelligent systems any more independent from Nintendo than the internal EAD and various R&D teams are? (EAD is the team that Shigeru Myamoto was originally part of if you're wondering. - It's the main internal design and art team, basically.)

As far as I can tell, the lines between Nintendo and some of it's biggest subsidiaries are pretty blurry. They seem to share staff. They help develop eachother's games (As in, actual technical and artistic resources are contributed by one party to the other in quite a few cases), They're owned by the same people...

Kind of odd that people insist they aren't the same thing when a lot of the evidence would suggest they come pretty close to it...

That would be kind of like the US claiming ownership of a decision made by the UN because the US is a major part of the UN and helped with the decision. Though only if the basics of the decision was created by a separate entity within the UN. Or you could look at the list of Nintendo franchises on Wikipedia and see that it is quite limited. A lot of franchises exclusive to Nintendo consoles are not Nintendo franchises. This really does not make much of a difference beyond the way in which the games are described.

...yeah, not even close. HAL, Monolith. IS etc. are COMPONENTS of Nintendo, Nintendo is not a component of them.

To use your own analogy, it'd be like claiming someone is not American because he's a citizen of the state of Connecticut.

McMarbles:
snip

The UN being equated to the industry at large. Nintendo is a portion of the industry, and take the rest of it for what you will. The US is trying pretty damn hard to at least get financial control, at least the 'people' (we know them as corporations) are.

zalithar:

CrystalShadow:

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.

Well, I could argue you're being fairly arbitrary there. Just because these groups have their own names, doesn't make it the dividing line between being a developer in their own right, or effectively being equivalent to an internal development team within Nintendo.

I mean, you do realise that 'intelligent systems' and 'HAL laboratories' are both wholly owned subsidiaries of Nintendo, right? For that matter, Nintendo's current president, Satoru Iwata, used to work at HAL...
Intelligent systems is even more blatant - Not only are they wholly owned by Nintendo, and have contributed directly to games and hardware produced by Nintendo's R&D teams, and EAD software development teams. That goes the other way too incedentally. Early titles developed by intelligent systems contained major contributions from staff members that are officially part of nintendo's primary internal development teams.
Not only that, but 'Intelligent systems' is based out of Nintendo's Kyoto Research Center.

Is it really valid to claim that a developer that is based out of one of Nintendo's own offices, has been known to collaborate very closely with teams that are almost certainly internal Nintendo teams, and is wholly owned by Nintendo is in fact a separate entity just because they have a distinct name?
Given the evidence in a situation like that, is Intelligent systems any more independent from Nintendo than the internal EAD and various R&D teams are? (EAD is the team that Shigeru Myamoto was originally part of if you're wondering. - It's the main internal design and art team, basically.)

As far as I can tell, the lines between Nintendo and some of it's biggest subsidiaries are pretty blurry. They seem to share staff. They help develop eachother's games (As in, actual technical and artistic resources are contributed by one party to the other in quite a few cases), They're owned by the same people...

Kind of odd that people insist they aren't the same thing when a lot of the evidence would suggest they come pretty close to it...

That would be kind of like the US claiming ownership of a decision made by the UN because the US is a major part of the UN and helped with the decision. Though only if the basics of the decision was created by a separate entity within the UN. Or you could look at the list of Nintendo franchises on Wikipedia and see that it is quite limited. A lot of franchises exclusive to Nintendo consoles are not Nintendo franchises. This really does not make much of a difference beyond the way in which the games are described.

So... A team that's based out of Nintendo's offices, is funded largely by Nintendo, works closely with groups that most certainly ARE a part of Nintendo... Frequently works with IP owned by Nintendo, and worked on internal Nintendo projects at some point in the past is comparable to the US membership of the UN?

Edit: And in actual fact it has more in common with the UN claiming that the work of one of it's members (Say, Italy, to take a random example) is actually the work of the UN.
Because... Your statement implies that Nintendo is somehow claiming ownership of the work of another member of a group they are a common part of... Yet structurally, Nintendo IS the group, not merely a member.

Now, how would you describe Nintendo EAD, by your logic. You know, the internal development team. Most of what I just said applies to them as well, so by a quirk of name they ARE a part of Nintendo, but a group such as 'intelligent systems' is not purely by virtue of the name?

I do think following Anouma's recent (though likely corporate fed) mewlings of new protagonist or not-Zelda-project wouldn't hurt. Shelve their big boys for a bit, expand out. I LOVE Zelda BUUUUUUUUT once upon a time it was the only 3D action adventure game intown.

Now not so much.
I mean look at spielberg he varies his stuff up immensely even with his propensity for smaltzy blockbusters with grand special effects and cute kids. he'll go without SOME of those elements or in an entirely different direction for emotional resound.

I think mostly this is partially at the feet of some Nintendo fans like myself who wouldn't LET Nintendo deviate and enjoy expansive others stuff in clinging to our nostalgia a bit.

At the least new ostenible packaging *might* attract more looks. and I have to admit. Even though even I sneered "tech demo" or "minigame collection" at Mario Party its done alright. and the Wii sports even better..

Any studio that was not actually founded by Nintendo, and the games thereof (Monolith, HAL, Rare, Retro, Game Freak etc.) are by default not 1st party. Nintendo only earns a share of their profits and/or owns them through contracts. Nintendo can't be credited for games that they only published, but were actually the idea's and creations of another studio any more than Disney can be credited with the creations of Marvel or Lucas Film by simply owning them.

Why is it always franchises? Why can't they think in terms of "original game"?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here