Th3PANO said:
Daisuke72 said:
Th3PANO said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Daisuke72 said:
What did they do Risky? They made new IP's every generation, leaving behind their old critically acclaimed and mass selling IP's, crash bandicoot has sold over 25M copies and they left behind for Jak which also sold pretty well and went with Uncharted. That's pretty much unheard of, dropping a franchise that was as popular as Crash in place of a new IP, that's a pretty huge financial risk, one that you don't see from other studios, who simply milk their franchises and bring sequels across generations until they eventually die out.
Retro took a well known IP and added their own twist to it, and did the same with DK. While these games are amazing, they aren't really taking risks, for instance Crash Bandicoot wrath of the cortex was TRASH compared to Naughty Dog's Crash games, and yet it sold almost 6 Million copies alone, which is more than the Metroid Prime sales, this simply goes to show that by taking a popular IP alone grants sales, so I don't know where the risk was in remaking Metroid and DK games.
Also consider that while Uncharted has its similarities to Tomb Raider, that upon release the Tomb aider games weren't selling very well and they're also all kinds of different, and The Last Of Us isn't like any zombie game we've seen so far. While I agree both are top-notch studios it's simply absurd to say that Naughty Dog hasn't taken bigger risks than Metro.
|
Exactly. Nintendo takes the low risk high reward route with their games to keep profits high. Keep the development low in cost and keep things profitable and not risk new IP's. Focus less on pushing power and obviously all you would have to work on is pretty much gameplay. Nintendo has a commercially formulaic way of doing things.
If western companies would stop focusing on creating lush graphics intensive worlds games like crash would be created ten fold. Personally I think crash had the more interesting power of spinning than Sonic who ran and mario who jumped. Blowing people up with TNT was always fun. Naughty Dog did a lot of trend setting things, Nintendo fans will always discount anything just because it seems simple when it really wasn't, it was painstakingly made. If Naughty Dog games were all on a three year to four year cycle, Nintendo gamers would not be able to question to depth of ND games.
Imagine they took the Last of Us a game created practically in Uncharteds image and created a sci-fi survival/triller title with it. Changing up the gameplay to survival and thinking about how much ammo, and things you have in your inventory opposed to going in guns blazing in a post apocalyptic world. They still complain.
|
LOL totally not biased. Kinda expected something like this from you. You seriously think a 3rd Mario is a low budget game? Laughable. You act like Nintendo Games are just made out of gameplay. And nothing else. Mario galaxy looked superb for a Wii Game rivaling 360 games back then.
BTW. Creating the best selling Metroid (Metroid Primme) with elements not usual for the franchise and also on the lowest sold console from Nintendo besides Virtual Boy isn't really easy. And saying crash bandicoot spinning is superior then Super Mario 64 3D free jumping and running and combining the different moves in actual 3D levels is.....not gonna say anthing here. Or I will get banned. Which trends did Naughty Dog create?
|
Yes, but the brand "Metroid" alone being slapped on the title made it less risky, than a brand new IP, did it not? With the Metroid IP alone the game was going to sale a decent amount of units, no question.
What's riskier, abandoning a franchise that sold 25M in one generation, or innovating a pre-existing popular IP?
|
I never talked about which one is riskier. I talked about that Retro wasn't just pulling the sequel = instant success route. Metroid isn't known for the best selling Nintendo Franchise. It's actually risky to do something entirely new with excisting franchises. Other M showed this.
|
No, I'm not saying that innovating a pre-existing franchise isn't risky, it's just isn't as nearly as risky than what ND has done each gen, which was my entire reason for posting in this thread because I find it hard to believe people actually think that. Also, with that being said Other M's sales were comparable to the trilogy even though it was different.
