Samus Aran said:
hsrob said:
Samus Aran said:
hsrob said:
There were two other paragraphs in my post, conveniently overlooked ;)
Nintendo have made sequels to games that have sold less and not made sequels to games that have sold more.
F-Zero would not be a big risk to make. They could even use the MK engine.
|
What sequels have they made to games that sold less than 650k and 160k?
When I ask people what makes F-Zero so different from Mario Kart they say the speed. Well, now you got it.
|
Fire Emblem, Sin and Punishment for example. Look through Nintendo's 2nd and 3rd tier franchises and there are plenty of franchises with entries that have sold under 600K. 160K, probably not so many, but there are some.
If you didn't even want to debate that point then you just had to say so: Setting, track design, speed, characters, vehicle damage, no weapons, story mode, number of racers, DNFs, difficulty, driving model and controls, music, custom-made vehicles.
Am I to take from this that you haven't actually played F-Zero? Funny that, thinking that a game you've never played doesn't deserve a sequel.
|
I played it at a friend's once, Mario Kart is a lot more fun.
|
So you don't know the series, that's fine, but someone who doesn't know a series is never going to advocate for a sequel and their opinion on whether a sequel is 'deserved' is missing some rather critical information. Sales-wise you can make a decent case, quality-wise you can't.
I agree Mario Kart is more fun but F-Zero is a much purer racing experience and is much more challenging, they are VERY different games. It baffles me when people liken Metroid to Halo and the like, I would contend that this comparison is equally stretched. Overall I prefer Mario Kart too but I would still love to see another F-Zero game as its been 12 long years since the last console version.
Having said all that, I strongly feel that Retro would be wasted on it.
