| RolStoppable said: What's wrong with Pikmin is that its sales numbers provided no justification to have Nintendo's in-house teams work on game 2 and 3. It's a waste of resources to have the best developers work on a niche IP when it's key for Nintendo that their best developers work on projects that can sell hardware. |
Pikmin isn't a system seller, but it still does a solid 1 million copies with each main entry. That's enough for Nintendo to continue doing it. Not every game needs 50 million sales to be considered successful.
| If someone wonders what's wrong with the other games I mentioned, it's that Nintendo has repeatedly used an established IP to sell different ideas. This has created valleys in the sales history of various IPs because Nintendo simply didn't meet the expectations that the market had for the IPs. When you compare that to the Pokémon series which doesn't engage in any wild experiments, but rather keeps making the same overall experience again, and then see how stable sales of the IP have been, then it should be pretty obvious what the more reasonable approach is. Whenever a development team comes with a different idea, it should be turned into its own IP, because if the idea is supposedly good, then the whole thing should be able to stand on its own feet. Case in point here is Splatoon. |
I Think experimenting with both new and traditional IP are both equally important. It all depends on whether it fits with the IP or not. For example, Cappy in Super Mario Odyssey works because it's a natural extension of the Mario Power up mechanic, just without the actual power-ups. I like New IPs, but I also like expanding upon existing ones as well. That's why I also want Nintendo to start taking more risks with the Mario universe again, in addition to completely new concepts. The Mario universe has a lot of room to explore, so why not explore some of it?
