By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - From A Skeptic: Where Nintendo Should Take The Wii U

zippy on 10 January 2013

RE my earlier comment about Bayonetta 2-
Regardless of how it sells ( and i think it will sell ok, not amazing ) it was a statement from Nintendo to say that they are trying to embrace games that will appeal to the PS360 crowd. This is the news that was greeted with a lot of pissing and moaning from fanboys, angry that a "hardcore " franchise will be appearing exclusive to a Nintendo platform. That was half the job done as far is im concerned as it got people talking about WiiU instantly, whether it be positive or negative.

This is where i believe Nintendo are damned if they do damned if they dont...

They release 2D Mario-
Oh Nintendo have got no new IPs, they only do kiddy games, same old franchises.

They announce Bayonetta 2-
Its a niche game that wont sell, a hack and slash,Nintendo havent had a decent hack and slash for years, boo hoo its not on my favourite system so its crap.



Around the Network
Soundwave on 10 January 2013
Osc89 said:
Mr Khan said:
Osc89 said:
Soundwave said:

3.) Create (or buy) a flagship "hardcore" character IP -- Mario paves the way for a lot of the mascot/cartoon/license based content that floods Nintendo consoles, but Nintendo really doesn't have a similar beacon for the older audience. You could always let Retro try their hand at a new IP, or go find one to publish. I suggested for risk-averse Nintendo to approach the folkes at Danjaq/EON productions, who own the James Bond license. Bond is cool, Bond is easy to market, if the rights are available, perhaps Nintendo could get them (or perhaps just rights to Bond FPS games). A Bond game with the same effort put into it as a Mario or Zelda would sell an easy 3-4 million and then other developers could look at that and say "oh, I guess there is an audience for something edgier here after all". 


What about Metroid? That's what I think of when "hardcore" Nintento is mentioned. They just need to boost Samus to mascot status (or more than she already is).

1) Welcome to the forums

2) Not really viable. They tried that with Other M (to an extent) and it just ended up pleasing nobody. Metroid works best as a third tier Nintendo franchise (as much as i hate to say that) and should be given attention only after tier 1 games (like Mario Kart, 2D Mario, Pokemon, and Wii _____) and tier 2 games (3D Mario, Kirby, and Zelda)

Thank you! As for Other M, the only complaints I've heard were regarding the characterization of Samus. This could be easily fixed by having her as a silent protagonist, more like Gordan Freeman. He's more adult and very iconic.

It would be pretty cool to see Nintendo start a new hardcore IP, but their strengths tend to lie in building up long-standing franchises. Plus I doubt they would go all in on promoting a newer riskier character, which you kind of need to do if you want them to be any kind of mascot. Microsoft managed it with Master Chief, but they went all in and didn't have much else competing for attention at the time. Anything Nintendo puts out will be quickly overshadowed by anything from tier 1 or tier 2. They have strong mascots already, and more than the competition.


I'm seriously tempted to make this my sixth point. 

F*ck Metroid. 

Pardon my french, from a marketing POV, Nintendo's strategy of having no answer to the need for a older-skewing franchise other than throwing Metroid at people over and over again has been a disaster. Metroid is not a big time franchise for core players and never will be unless the entire game play is changed dramatically. 

The mass audience does not like slow paced, solitary games for the most part. 

The 4 Metroid games (the 3 Prime + Other M) combined have sold less than GoldenEye on the N64. The two Metroid games on the Wii actually somehow managed to sell less than the two on the GameCube despite having 4x the userbase. 

Nintendo needs a GoldenEye. Not these small potatoes. 

Metroid is a fine series by its own merits. It's just not the franchise that Nintendo tries to keep positioning it as, and no doubt even they probably have gotten the message by now. Metroid has had 10+ years from Metroid Prime to make its case as a true top tier core gamer franchise and the numbers simply aren't there. No excuses, time to move on and let some other IP have a real chance. 

If Nintendo won't invest in a new character because they're too scared to take the risk, then like I said, I've suggested they go sign a deal for the Bond license which is currently free and apparently available. They have history there, it works for them, and I'd virtually gauruntee a high quality Bond game from Nintendo with a good multiplayer component would outsell any Metroid game they make. 



Mnementh on 10 January 2013
Soundwave said:

Bayonetta 2 as much as I hate to say it will likely flop.

Nintendo needs that "big dog" core game franchise that can move 3-4+ million on its own. Then smaller sellers like the Bayonettas, Metroids, and third party stuff can line up behind that.

Content wise too, it's too far removed from the core franchises people associate with Nintendo machines, which is part of Nintendo's problem. Sometimes when they get these games, they go too far to show they have violent content, and it doesn't mesh with the audience's perception.

You need something in between Mario/Animal Crossing and Bayonetta/Ninja Gaiden that isn't Zelda.

Something maybe like Zelda but a few shades darker and a bit more story driven would probably do the trick.


*chough* Darksider 2 *cough*

But I agree.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Osc89 on 11 January 2013
Soundwave said:

I'm seriously tempted to make this my sixth point. 

F*ck Metroid. 

Pardon my french, from a marketing POV, Nintendo's strategy of having no answer to the need for a older-skewing franchise other than throwing Metroid at people over and over again has been a disaster. Metroid is not a big time franchise for core players and never will be unless the entire game play is changed dramatically. 

The mass audience does not like slow paced, solitary games for the most part. 

The 4 Metroid games (the 3 Prime + Other M) combined have sold less than GoldenEye on the N64. The two Metroid games on the Wii actually somehow managed to sell less than the two on the GameCube despite having 4x the userbase. 

Nintendo needs a GoldenEye. Not these small potatoes. 

Metroid is a fine series by its own merits. It's just not the franchise that Nintendo tries to keep positioning it as, and no doubt even they probably have gotten the message by now. Metroid has had 10+ years from Metroid Prime to make its case as a true top tier core gamer franchise and the numbers simply aren't there. No excuses, time to move on and let some other IP have a real chance. 

If Nintendo won't invest in a new character because they're too scared to take the risk, then like I said, I've suggested they go sign a deal for the Bond license which is currently free and apparently available. They have history there, it works for them, and I'd virtually gauruntee a high quality Bond game from Nintendo with a good multiplayer component would outsell any Metroid game they make. 

Wouldn't there be some issues with a license? It seems like most of the Bond games have been direct promotions of films, meaning they may have had to comply with the tone of the Bond series at the time. It would work better if Nintendo were given more freedom, like with Rocksteady and the Batman series. It wouldn't work if the film series takes a lighter turn, and Nintendo then has to make a lighter game.



PSN: Osc89

NNID: Oscar89

Soundwave on 11 January 2013
Osc89 said:
Soundwave said:

I'm seriously tempted to make this my sixth point. 

F*ck Metroid. 

Pardon my french, from a marketing POV, Nintendo's strategy of having no answer to the need for a older-skewing franchise other than throwing Metroid at people over and over again has been a disaster. Metroid is not a big time franchise for core players and never will be unless the entire game play is changed dramatically. 

The mass audience does not like slow paced, solitary games for the most part. 

The 4 Metroid games (the 3 Prime + Other M) combined have sold less than GoldenEye on the N64. The two Metroid games on the Wii actually somehow managed to sell less than the two on the GameCube despite having 4x the userbase. 

Nintendo needs a GoldenEye. Not these small potatoes. 

Metroid is a fine series by its own merits. It's just not the franchise that Nintendo tries to keep positioning it as, and no doubt even they probably have gotten the message by now. Metroid has had 10+ years from Metroid Prime to make its case as a true top tier core gamer franchise and the numbers simply aren't there. No excuses, time to move on and let some other IP have a real chance. 

If Nintendo won't invest in a new character because they're too scared to take the risk, then like I said, I've suggested they go sign a deal for the Bond license which is currently free and apparently available. They have history there, it works for them, and I'd virtually gauruntee a high quality Bond game from Nintendo with a good multiplayer component would outsell any Metroid game they make. 

Wouldn't there be some issues with a license? It seems like most of the Bond games have been direct promotions of films, meaning they may have had to comply with the tone of the Bond series at the time. It would work better if Nintendo were given more freedom, like with Rocksteady and the Batman series. It wouldn't work if the film series takes a lighter turn, and Nintendo then has to make a lighter game.


I do recall EA had free reign to be able to do things like made Bond games based on the Connery era (From Russia With Love) and even make up their own Bond "movies" in effect (Everything or Nothing), so I imagine whoever gets the license next would have a good deal of flexibility. 

I think the main restriction might be that Nintendo has to make a certain number of games starring whoever is the current Bond, but they probably would want to for relevancy sake anyway. 



Around the Network
Osc89 on 11 January 2013
Soundwave said:
Osc89 said:
Soundwave said:

I'm seriously tempted to make this my sixth point. 

F*ck Metroid. 

Pardon my french, from a marketing POV, Nintendo's strategy of having no answer to the need for a older-skewing franchise other than throwing Metroid at people over and over again has been a disaster. Metroid is not a big time franchise for core players and never will be unless the entire game play is changed dramatically. 

The mass audience does not like slow paced, solitary games for the most part. 

The 4 Metroid games (the 3 Prime + Other M) combined have sold less than GoldenEye on the N64. The two Metroid games on the Wii actually somehow managed to sell less than the two on the GameCube despite having 4x the userbase. 

Nintendo needs a GoldenEye. Not these small potatoes. 

Metroid is a fine series by its own merits. It's just not the franchise that Nintendo tries to keep positioning it as, and no doubt even they probably have gotten the message by now. Metroid has had 10+ years from Metroid Prime to make its case as a true top tier core gamer franchise and the numbers simply aren't there. No excuses, time to move on and let some other IP have a real chance. 

If Nintendo won't invest in a new character because they're too scared to take the risk, then like I said, I've suggested they go sign a deal for the Bond license which is currently free and apparently available. They have history there, it works for them, and I'd virtually gauruntee a high quality Bond game from Nintendo with a good multiplayer component would outsell any Metroid game they make. 

Wouldn't there be some issues with a license? It seems like most of the Bond games have been direct promotions of films, meaning they may have had to comply with the tone of the Bond series at the time. It would work better if Nintendo were given more freedom, like with Rocksteady and the Batman series. It wouldn't work if the film series takes a lighter turn, and Nintendo then has to make a lighter game.


I do recall EA had free reign to be able to do things like made Bond games based on the Connery era (From Russia With Love) and even make up their own Bond "movies" in effect (Everything or Nothing), so I imagine whoever gets the license next would have a good deal of flexibility. 

I think the main restriction might be that Nintendo has to make a certain number of games starring whoever is the current Bond, but they probably would want to for relevancy sake anyway. 


In that case, I reckon they could do well and make some pretty great games. But they are then tied to the film franchise, and any fade in popularity of the films will probably reflect on the games.

Also, I'm not sure how licensing works, but with the films on a current high does it cost them more? It would be annoying for them to spend a lot now only for the Bond films to decline.



PSN: Osc89

NNID: Oscar89

Mr Khan on 11 January 2013
Osc89 said:
Soundwave said:
Osc89 said:
Soundwave said:

I'm seriously tempted to make this my sixth point. 

F*ck Metroid. 

Pardon my french, from a marketing POV, Nintendo's strategy of having no answer to the need for a older-skewing franchise other than throwing Metroid at people over and over again has been a disaster. Metroid is not a big time franchise for core players and never will be unless the entire game play is changed dramatically. 

The mass audience does not like slow paced, solitary games for the most part. 

The 4 Metroid games (the 3 Prime + Other M) combined have sold less than GoldenEye on the N64. The two Metroid games on the Wii actually somehow managed to sell less than the two on the GameCube despite having 4x the userbase. 

Nintendo needs a GoldenEye. Not these small potatoes. 

Metroid is a fine series by its own merits. It's just not the franchise that Nintendo tries to keep positioning it as, and no doubt even they probably have gotten the message by now. Metroid has had 10+ years from Metroid Prime to make its case as a true top tier core gamer franchise and the numbers simply aren't there. No excuses, time to move on and let some other IP have a real chance. 

If Nintendo won't invest in a new character because they're too scared to take the risk, then like I said, I've suggested they go sign a deal for the Bond license which is currently free and apparently available. They have history there, it works for them, and I'd virtually gauruntee a high quality Bond game from Nintendo with a good multiplayer component would outsell any Metroid game they make. 

Wouldn't there be some issues with a license? It seems like most of the Bond games have been direct promotions of films, meaning they may have had to comply with the tone of the Bond series at the time. It would work better if Nintendo were given more freedom, like with Rocksteady and the Batman series. It wouldn't work if the film series takes a lighter turn, and Nintendo then has to make a lighter game.


I do recall EA had free reign to be able to do things like made Bond games based on the Connery era (From Russia With Love) and even make up their own Bond "movies" in effect (Everything or Nothing), so I imagine whoever gets the license next would have a good deal of flexibility. 

I think the main restriction might be that Nintendo has to make a certain number of games starring whoever is the current Bond, but they probably would want to for relevancy sake anyway. 


In that case, I reckon they could do well and make some pretty great games. But they are then tied to the film franchise, and any fade in popularity of the films will probably reflect on the games.

Also, I'm not sure how licensing works, but with the films on a current high does it cost them more? It would be annoying for them to spend a lot now only for the Bond films to decline.

Supposedly the Bond license is up right now, that Activision seems to have gotten sick of it after 007 Legends. Nintendo could pounce if they so wanted.

But the point is that Nintendo needs something *like* that, something to appeal to the fratcore.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

JGarret on 11 January 2013

The concept behind the Wii U is harder to explain than the Wii by default, and the marketing has done a bad job explaining it´s a new system with a new controller.

And as cool as asymetric gameplay is (I played Ghost Mansion and Mario Chase with 5 people, pretty fun), I don´t think it´ll ever be as successful as Wii remote with WiiSports was back in 2006/2007, even if/when they get their marketing right.