| happydolphin said: 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 answer your underlined question: Rule. It’s that simple.
You listed several series which are both lapsed and demanded on the internet. I wrote the rebuttal paragraph specifically to point out that each and every one of those series has died out for a reason; they’re not commercially viable anymore. The people in charge of those IPs, who are in the best position to know whether those IPs can succeed today, have made that determination, often with ample supporting evidence.
I’ve already briefly pointed out why those series you listed have died out. Now let’s try this. How many lapsed IPs in the history of gaming can you name which have been revived? Now, how many of those revivals were successful? Do you find that percentage encouraging?
I do not. I actually had difficulty naming any beyond Prince of Persia, although certainly there are a handful of others. That forms the backbone of my sentiment on this matter, with the rest of my beliefs resting on the third-party relations Nintendo has had since the SNES era. The remainder of my post was merely fleshing out those two ideas.
As an aside, you asked why I discounted marketing, and will otherwise ask why I discount technology. The answer is because both are largely irrelevant in this discussion. Leaving aside the axiom that the most effective marketing by far is word of mouth, I have noticed far too often that marketing is trotted out as an excuse for poor performance, but is rarely credited with successful performances, unless meant as an indictment of the product. For instance, I have not seen any persuasive data to indicate that marketing was responsible for the failure of any of the IPs you listed. I found it amusing when Bad Marketing was Nintendo’s excuse for the 3DS’ lackluster opening. I giggled when Miyamoto recently put the blame for the Virtual Boy on the Evil Marketing Department. And while this risks getting us further distracted from the main point, I’d like to point out that all the talk about Nintendo’s heavy marketing of Dragon Quest in the Americas has resulted in zero tangible results.
As for technology, it’s just a tool. The first product or two that uses a new technology might benefit from the novelty. After that, the product must stand on its own. Since we’re not discussing the technical feasibility of reviving these old IPs, or even Seaman in particular, I feel safe discounting this factor.
And to answer your final question, I concede now, as I did earlier, that I do not know this for a certainty. I am merely examining long historical trends, and pointing out that the odds would give a riverboat gambler some pause.
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.
Nintendo changing management is mostly true, but also irrelevant. Remember, we’re discussing whether sinking money and resources into reviving dead IPs will lead to worthwhile results. The fact that there are new faces at Nintendo, or that first-party Nintendo games combined with traditionally strong third-party franchises are doing well in Japan at this moment does not affect this discussion either way, especially since none of the 3DS games are from a revived franchise. The main point remains true: there is little to indicate that this maneuver will succeed in the long run, and much to whisper that it will fail.
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.
Forgotten Sands is only tangentially relevant. Sands of Time was a revival of a dead IP. Forgotten Sands was just the third sequel in under a decade.
As a further aside, Brain Training was made by top-tier Nintendo employees. The team consisted of the people responsible for all the internal systems of the Wii, DS, DSi, and possibly the 3DS, as well as people who worked for years at EAD and R&D1, with ample involvement from Iwata and other members of the board of directors. Any definition of shovelware which includes Brain Training is, objectively, wrong.
You’re repeating the mistake so many third-parties have done, and confusing skill and talent for laziness. For which Miyamoto called them out way back in 2007. (http://kotaku.com/248760/miyamotos-insight-no-crappy-bench-warmers) It’s not marketing that’s responsible for the success of Nintendo titles, or Wii Music and Other M would be 10-million sellers.
Now, how likely do you think it is that these revivals are going to be made by first-stringers? If the answer is more than 1%, I’d really like to hear the reason why!
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).
Nintendo going after big third-party IPs is nothing new. And they’ve never asked for spinoffs or test games. I can almost guarantee you that Nintendo wasn’t thinking of Umbrella Chronicles when it sought a new Resident Evil game. Nintendo wanted GTA IV, but it got Chinatown Wars instead. And Extraction was not what Nintendo had in mind!
You’re essentially advocating for more test games, which the hope that “if that works” third-parties will throw Nintendo a bone sometime in the indeterminate future. Except now instead of being related to games which are currently hot, they’re games which no one else has faith in. You’re actually explaining why I’m so pessimistic!
As for your second paragraph, it actually makes me sad. It boils down to thinking that it’s okay for Nintendo owners to play second fiddle when it comes to third-parties. It’s tangential to the main point, and again it risks getting us off-track, but I personally reject this line of thinking. Scraps aren’t good enough for me!
Finally, games might not have to be expensive to be good, but they do have to actually be good. All those games you listed may (MAY!) have been cheap to develop. But not a single one of them was made by the third-stringers. Which is probably all you’re going to get as part of this project.
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.
If you’re going to reinvent a series, why bother wrapping it in the shell of an old IP to begin with? Especially since, even at its height, a game like Seaman never qualified as a big IP. And who's going to do all the hard work of reinventing a series? If recent events are anything to go by, it won't be the people who are most qualified to make a good game.
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. ;)
I maintain that my two questions go straight to the heart of the matter. You’re offering a speech that’s big on hope but short on history or specifics. It ignores the reality that making hit games is a very, very difficult task. So let me ask you, why do you think these games will not be minor titles? How will they be reinvented to become big IPs? Who is going to create this miracle? What, beyond hope and desire, makes you believe that this won’t simply be a repeat of the Fool’s Gold Rush we went through on the Wii? In other words, if the third-parties have no faith in the titles, why should I?
Third-parties mistook Nintendo’s A-team efforts for quick shovelware and threw their weakest teams at the systems. But at least then they wanted to make those games. And when they did make those games, when Nintendo owners “passed the test,” the test was simply repeated, until disinterest caused the later sequels to fail. Now Nintendo proposes to induce third-parties into making games that they have no interest in making. So I ask again, what makes you think that the success of these titles will lead to your stated goal of having bigger IPs reach Nintendo’s systems?
I answer, based on recent history, that I should have no faith that third-parties will dedicate their good talent to these projects, and that they will probably fail. I answer, based on recent history, that if events conspire to make these test games a success, it will lead not to the main IPs but only to more test games. And thus I answer the ultimate question of this discussion, the question of whether this is a sound move by Nintendo, with a resounding “No.”
As for your final question, it is a very interesting one. I would like to discuss sometime in the future, but it’s not only somewhat outside the scope of this discussion, it also deserves to have more time and energy devoted to it than being the subtopic of a subtopic in a news thread. Perhaps we can start a new thread sometime later, using this discussion as the springboard?
| JGarret said: noname posts again! Last time I saw you here was shortly after last year´s E3. |
That sounds about right. I'm glad to see you bit the bullet and got an avatar!
