Nintendo Developing New Game Genres to Revitalise 3DS

[Joelcool7]

RolStoppable said:

Joel, you tend to misinterpret my statements like no other person on this site which is why you end up with wrong conclusions so often. Lately you also have this drive to find mistakes in my posts like with that Metal Gear Solid example from another thread. Anyway...

An IP not being major doesn't equal failure. There are several levels for successful games which is why I decided to label the top dogs as major to distinct them from semi-big and minor games which would all be successful too. So I did indeed factor in the installed base of the Gamecube when I outlined which IPs I consider major. In this case, as a rough guideline, 5+m would be major, 2-4m semi-big and 1m minor. Naturally you can't apply the same standards to the Wii's software sales, because the ceiling for bestselling games is at a much higher level. Sales levels that would be considered major on the Gamecube would only be semi-big on the Wii.

As for Nintendogs, it was a major IP on the DS, no doubt about that. And yes, it only selling 1m on the 3DS makes it a failure so far, but it's going to be selling for another few years, so its lifetime total won't look as disastrous in the end.

Regarding Gamecube sequels, Super Mario 3D Land falls into this category for games that are to be released this year, Luigi's Mansion 2 and Paper Mario next year. We don't know much beyond that, but even Kid Icarus is reimagined in a Gamecube-like fashion, rather than being a straight sequel to the earlier entries in the series. It's this stuff that makes the 3DS look more like a portable Gamecube than an actual successor to the DS. Granted, SM3DL isn't as out of place, because SM64DS sold really well. Animal Crossing, a huge hit on the DS, is also coming, but it's all happening at too slow of a pace. The complete absence of a NSMB sequel is especially damning. With the Wii Nintendo got the big hitters out at a much faster rate which is why the Gamecube base moved over quickly to the Wii.

The IPs Nintendo established during the Nintendo 64 and Gamecube only look so strong, because Nintendo cares more about them. None of them moved much beyond 10m at their best times while the Wii and DS actually have games that even went beyond the 20m mark. You can easily see that Nintendo cares more about their N64/GC-like games by looking at their 3DS lineup. If Nintendo devoted the same attention to their other IPs, the N64 and GC IPs suddenly wouldn't look as strong anymore.

My memory is a bit fuzzy on the statement of mine you refer to as hypocritical, but I think I corrected it back then to mean Nintendo's original core audience which gives my arguments the consistence you demand. Why would Nintendo release games for their old core audiences, if the core changes every generation? Because of step 2 I initially mentioned in this thread; to expand their market, to gain back the gamers they lost. And you know they lost a lot with every home console until the Wii.

Nintendo remaining profitable despite a lack of success of the Gamecube is admirable, but don't kid yourself. The majority of Nintendo's profits during that era came from the GBA. The Gamecube had more third party support than the Nintendo 64. I don't have the exact numbers in my head, but total numbers of games for the GC stand at around 600 while the N64 had 400. This means that the GC was less successful than the N64 despite having better third party support. Why? Because Nintendo's GC first party titles failed to drive hardware sales as well as their N64 games. Super Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time are remembered as milestones, their GC equivalents are not.

Lastly, I didn't admit that Gamecube sequels played a major role in selling the Wii and the DS. For one, there were no GC sequels on the DS and two, the GC sequels on the Wii were only important to sell the Wii to GC owners. Beyond that, they didn't play a major role in the Wii's success, because the Wii hardware sales exceeded the Gamecube total in less than 18 months. To date, the Wii sold far more units than the Gamecube and this is owed to games that were NOT sequels to Gamecube games.

lol this drive to point out your mistakes is because you are always striving to point out mine. If you weren't always out to get me I wouldn't have a need to point out your flaws. Not to mention a lot of flaws you find in my posts and I find in yours are entirely opinion based and often not 100% factual. In the end your never going to completely agree with my posts and I won't with yours. But constantly trying to find faults in every topic I create does make me more critical of yours. I usually don't pick out all the faults of users beliefs because they are for the most part opinions. However your need to constantly pick out every single flaw that you can find is definitely going to lead to me doing likewise.

Your first statement of what makes a major IP is opinion based, yet earlier in this thread you said it was factual. My idea that 1-million copies made a title major was also largely opinion based because much smaller performing titles are still considered major. Eternal Darkness rumored to have sold only 300,000 copies globally is a major IP to Silicon Knights. Why? well the title is one of their highest performing games and important to having got them where they are. Is the franchise major? Not really because we haven't seen whether it can potentially match the success Eternal Darkness had even though to Nintendo the title may not have been major. As I mentioned Street Fighter and Tekken are both major franchises as are almost all of Sony's IP. When deciding if a title is major or not you can't base it entirely on raw sales figures.

The IP's started on N64/GameCube do not just look so strong because they are supported more by Nintendo. They look so strong because they have managed to hold up and maintain sales despite generation to generation shifts. You said yourself that the core gamer population changes with each generation. If that is the case a franchise that can sell a couple million copies every generation regardless of change in the gamers is a great franchise. What other IP's are you suggesting would out perform GCN/N64 games? the Wii series? BrainAge? Nintendogs? I seem to recall BrainAge bombing on home consoles.

Also if VGChartz data on Super Nintendo is factual. Then many of the GameCube/N64 games actually out sold the classic titles found on Super Nintendo despite having fewer hardware units. As I said if you look at hardware quantities and factor that in as you say you did then the GameCube/N64 IP are considered major if not bigger and more important than many of Nintendo's classic IP.

Nintendo also lost a lot of gamers from Nintendo64 to GameCube. Also why did Nintendo lose all those gamers? Was it really the lack of 2D classics? I mean PSOne didn't have all that many 2D classics either.

No GameCube sequels on DS? You really want to suggest that? Animal Crossing was one of the most successful titles on DS and it was a direct sequel to Animal Crossing on GCN. Unless you say Animal Forests release on N64 makes the franchise not a GameCube franchise. However note in my earlier comments I took issue with your statements about N64/GameCube and not just GameCube. I am a staunch supporter of GameCube and N64 and in fact all of Nintendo's past consoles. But I found that GameCube had the most amazing games on a console since NES. Not that I devalue NES but GameCube's software was simply amazing and it did sell extremely well considering the hardwares market share.

In fact you mention the 20+ million copy games as being so important. Yet bundled titles SuperMarioBros and DuckHunt were the only two games that beat the twenty million mark. On a console with over 60-million gamers the fourth most successful game sold under 10-million units. On SNES we see only two titles break the ten million mark and N64 had only one, however many other franchises out performed SNES. later GameCube franchises also performed very well especially considering the hardware sales.

As for GameCube's importance to Nintendo's survival. GBA sold a shit load and was definitely more influential in saving Nintendo then GameCube. However GBA was not successful enough on its own to lead Nintendo to higher profits then Sony. GameCube software and hardware sales wracked in a shit load for Nintendo. The console is a big reason Nintendo survived especially the home front, many suggested Nintendo abandon home consoles but GameCube kept the home console alive.

You belittle N64 and GameCube all the time, but they are and were extremely important to Nintendo's survival. Also you mention lost consumers but we do know many GameCube consumers left Nintendo at launch of Wii. I can't state facts but just looking at sales of some of the GCN sequels it is apparent that some did indeed leave.

Face it the reason Nintendo focuses so heavily on the N64 and GCN franchises and titles is because those are the titles that saved their asses. They performed almost as well as the classics did if you go by attach rates. If you don't go by attach rates many of the N64 and GameCube titles still held up to a ton of the leading NES/SNES games as I point out above. Its obvious that N64/GCN played a massive role in Nintendo's survival and a massive role in the success of not only Wii but DS as well.

P.S- Super Mario 3D Land is in no way a Sunshine sequel. In fact it isn't a Galaxy sequel or a 64 sequel. If you had actually played it like I have you'd note it is a mixture of all of the past Mario games. Their are gameplay assets from NES to Wii, rather then Nintendo focusing entirely on 2D side scrolling like NSMB or 3D platforming like MarioGalaxy they mixed all the gameplay together. Their hope was that classic and current gamers would all enjoy the new title. Don't mock it till you play, no it isn't NSMB but it isn't 64/Sunshine either. I'd say the closest it would come is to a mix between Galaxy and SuperMarioBros(NES).Also you mention Paper Mario as a GameCube franchise when in fact it was a 64 franchise and if you want to trace the RPG Mario to its past your left with SNES.

Also another reason they are likely caring so much about the GameCube franchises is because they know the gamers that bought the N64/GameCube franchises were the same ones that kept those consoles alive. In 3DS's case the console needs software that Nintendo knows will solidify the base. They need to know they have a customer base that will buy their software regardless of genre etc...etc..

Also lastly the Luigi's Mansion thing, this has nothing to do with Nintendo's love of GameCube. It is solely because the 3D concept was born with Luigi's Mansion but the technology didn't exist for Nintendo to make the product they wanted. So now that the technology exists Nintendo is going back to produce the game they always intended to make. You'll note if you listen to Iwata and Miyamoto's statements that both believe in pursuing a franchise till it reaches your original vision. Miyamoto has stated Mario still hasn't reached what he originally envisioned and he will continue to pursue his original hopes and dreams till the franchise satisfies him!

Nintendo isn't a company that produces games solely for sales either. They create games that they want to create and they hope consumers will purchase those games. That's why Nintendo hasn't heavily invested in an FPS yet, I mean they know GoldenEye was huge on N64 yet on GameCube they only published Giest and they really didn't put the money or talent behind the game to make it great. Nintendo cares more about making quality software then making high selling software. Which is to an extent wrong business wise however it has worked out well for them. Consumers want a high quality new gaming experience, even if they aren't the majority their is more then enough of them to keep Nintendo's consoles afloat!