News

New Unannounced Nintendo Game is "Shocking"

| 22 Oct 2009 20:18
image

A poster who appears to be an employee of gaming site IGN has said that Nintendo is working on an A-class new title that will be rather unexpected: it "shocked the hell out of me."

Let's file this under "mild curiosity" for the moment: Last week, Nintendo Everything reported that some gaming journalists had been flown out to the Big N to take a look at a mystery product that was still under wraps. In a thread about the unannounced game on the IGN forums (appropriately titled "All Aboard the hype train!!!") apparent IGN poster GodisSatan entered the discussion, saying he hadn't seen the game coming at all:

"I can state with absolute certainty that it is NOT that Pokemon game. It is something that came out of nowhere and shocked the hell out of me. That's not to say that it's a Megaton-level announcement, just that I certainly didn't expect it."

Further responses in the thread indicate that the title is not a new IP (certainly not shocking), and that it... may not be all that worth getting hyped over:

I'd have to say that my hype level is somewhat low for the title, despite the fact that I'm certain it'll be a really stellar game.... I don't think anyone will be able to guess what this game is. I never would have expected this title to be in the works. I was actually excited about it when I first heard what it was, but after more details made it my way, it no longer seemed nearly as appealing. It's still a cool idea, just not one that anyone asked for or expected.

All right. So, it's a title in an established IP that might not be all that appealing, but will still come as a shock to people and catch them off guard.

Is it a new Pokemon Snap? Because that would be actually pretty awesome. It could also be: A new Star Fox (that doesn't suck), a Zelda game where you actually play as Zelda, or a Donkey Kong crossover with Wii Music. None of which I would be expecting, to be fair.

The trick is, now: Do we care?

(Nintendo D-Pad)

RELATED CONTENT
Comments on