noname2200 said:
A well thought out reply! I don't agree with all of it, though. |
Thanks :)
|
And while Seaman did okay, we should take a look at how its sequel compared. Don't worry if you're surprised to learn a sequel existed. It's a secret to most people! |
The quote from wikipedia mentioned it, and when I looked up the sales to Seaman, in the 900K I included the sequel.
Seaman 2 not interesting, rule or exception?:
I faintly remember it, but you're trying to say it's faint in memory exactly because it wasn't interesting anymore. The difficulty I have with this argument is threefold:
1) Take Sonic. Okay, I know that Sonic Adventure did very well on the cube, but that was the cube. Take the HD Sonic. It performed below expectations. Shenmue, Sonic, these kinds of games don't do super well on Non-Nintendo/Sega consoles. So if seaman 2 did half the sales of Seaman on PS2, it's not really a surprise. But even if they did manage sales like those of Crazy Taxi on PS2, how is the failure of one game like Seaman be the seed for a rule? Can't it be an exception? How can one be so certain this game idea has absolutely no appeal for the new generation of 3DS owners?
2) Marketing: I made this argument in my first post but it wasn't considered, I'm not entirely sure why. If Nintendo funds the creative studio behind the effort, funded marketing should also propel it.
3) Technology: The 3DS comes with a built-in microphone. A game like Seaman is a good fit for the system.
|
To begin with, having lived through the N64 and Gamecube eras in particular, I promise you that the means do in fact matter. Nintendo has been trying for over a decade to re-attract third-party support, so the goal is nothing new. I don't believe that this new method will bear fruit. By funding games that have fallen to the wayside, Nintendo is essentially putting itself in a quandry. They're attempting to bank on IPs which the owners no longer believe are commercially viable. How likely then is the IP publisher to devote their top-tier developers to these projects? Without that talent, this gamble is unlikely to be successful, as numerous C-and-D-team Wii games have amply demonstrated. Nintendo is investing its money and energy into getting another Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. I suspect its going to end up with a series of NiGHTS: Journey of Dreams. |
New generation, new leadership:
I'd like you to know that I've also lived them very deeply, as an avid and dedicated Nintendo fan (as of the NES), and the peak of my fandom was during the 2nd half of the N64 gen, and all through the Gamecube gen (even more than now).
When Nintendo tried to attract third parties back then, it was a different management, a very very different approach (you should know this). Even if the goal is the same, the drive is entirely different. The proof? The results are already different. Have you seen the Japan preview for this week? The 3DS dominated the top 10. Granted it is a preview but I can't remember the last time I've seen this kind of thing happen when Yamauchi was in charge.
Games falling to the wayside, who's to blame?:
The games have fallen to the wayside for a plethora of factors, none of which neither you nor I can pinpoint. The audiences that decided on their rejection have changed, and the new target Nintendo is aiming could have a completely different reaction, especially given an efficient marketing push by Nintendo and a dedicated drive to creativity and entertainment by the studios at hand, given Nintendo's funding. Put it this way, do you think The Last Story is a POS? Why would these be any different? C? D? So, ... what?
Crappy games:
If you're going to discuss PoP, why not bring up Forgotten Sands it's a much better example. The key here is that the game needs to be great, and the marketing needs to match it. Do you think Big Brain was made by an A team? Nintendo delegated these dud projects to their weakest teams. But look at how much those games sold! In other words, the factors that make a game succeed are very complex, but one thing is certain is that even if it's a small studio, even if it were a C/D team, they can still rake in the gold. It will all depend on what the development costs of the game is and how much they can leverage the investment through marketing and appeal (kinda like NSMB, cheap to make, rakes in the GOLD).
Even The Last Story follows this logic, since the team may be good, but how many resources worked on the project? From what I understood it was a relatively small team.
|
But let us assume that the C-team goes out there and hits a homerun. It does not logically follow that mass third-party support will flow in through the backdoor. Recall the myriad of "test games" we saw on the Wii. Successes did not breed Big IPs on the Wii. They bred more spinoffs and test games. Occasionally, they'd breed ports and sequels for the other systems. But failure rarely if ever failed to cut off further support. Recent history shows that trying to get big support by entering the backdoor creates nothing but hollow victories and utter defeats. |
Test games, spinoffs, or full-fledged games?:
The difference here is that Nintendo, in this strategy, would be going after the main series of a Big IP, only that the Big IP was rejected by a prior audience. These are not spin-off, not even test games, but fully-fledged pilots and business experiments. Since 3rd parties would in theory allow Nintendo to have this Big IP and try something out, if that works, what's to stop Nintendo from getting a Big IP of the new generation. They're both big IPs the way I see it. One may think these will be half-assed efforts, but there is no certainty (see paragraph above).
How much effort are 3rd parties willing to offer?
Also, why did Capcom work on RE:R? If Capcom is begining to offer a decent amount of support, I see other companies also ready to offer a decent amount of support, so long as Nintendo does not touch their sacred new IPs. Fair, go for it, give us your support on your old IPs and let's see how this goes. How many people will they dedicate to it? It all depends on the estimated costs of the game. Do all games need to be ultra-expensive to be good. NSMB says no, and so do many system sellers for the Wii such as Wii Sports and Mario Kart (I'm sorry but this is not an ultra-high investment game, it's at most a mid-ranged development price).
|
Furthermore, I believe you're overestimating the likelihood of these projects' success. You asked me to consider Megaman. I have. It is part of my pessimissm. Legends 3 only "existed" because its creator was passionate about the project. It no longer exists because its owner does not think it is commercially viable. They assigned it no resources, and repeatedly tried to kill it. Some people on the internet are confused by this desire to terminate it. They want to play it! There are other people on the internet that want to play it! And in 2000, when Legends 2 released in Japan, it was the 138th best-selling game for that year. Worldwide, it went on to sell half of what its predecessor had. The PSP release in 2005 was a financial disaster. It's a series that suffers from Snake-On-A-Plane syndrome: the internet loves it, the public doesn't buy it. |
Snakes on a plane? Try catering to your market:
So, the concepts of these big IPs would of course need to be reinvented so as to fit the tastes of today's gaming audience. It is not enough to please the niche, these games need to emancipate themselves, and I believe that is also part of Nintendo's vision.
|
And that holds true of all the dead series. Shenmue gets a lot of love online, but the original's sales don't approach the internet hype and the sequel sold like crap, even after Microsoft pushed for an Xbox port. Crazy Taxi's an awesome game. Its multiple sequels argue that the world has moved on. Jet Grind Radio? Future's fate says everything we need to know. As for Killer Instinct, it's been a long time since a revived Rareware title has done anything worth noticing. I admit that I can not say for certain that this strategy won't work. Stranger things have happened, after all. But I have two main questions for everyone who likes this news. What part of the Wii's library makes you believe that the success of minor titles will inspire third-parties to bring their big guns to the system? And if the games' owners have no faith in these titles, why should you? |
Minor titles, or Major endeavors?:
The two questions miss the mark. So, first of all these will not be minor titles, they will be major titles which need to be reinvented so as to fit today's market. They will be Big once again, only the companies in question lacked the motivation to reinvent them as they should due to business risk and simply lack of interest.
So, of course there's business risk, but it's a risk Nintendo seems to be willing to take. And if sales of these games at some point are any indicator, then these franchises have potential. I agree with Nintendo seeing potential in these IPs. Look at Ninja Gaiden. Reinvented, it is now a major IP once more. Metroid prime. It did good after not seing a sequel for 8 years.
A business strategy that cannot be half-assed. Money better spent on what? Is failure an option?:
I do see the potential in this approach, but I agree with you in that it needs to be done carefully and properly otherwise it's wasted effort. The last question is this. If they don't waste it on this, what to invest on? They need core products, lest they oversaturate the casual and alienate the core. In other words, this mission is critical. ;)
