MrT-Tar said: NCL has announced that Iwata will have a presentation in Tokyo in a bit over 24 hours. I'm expecting an official announcement of the OP and maybe some other things (Dragon Quest VII 3D perhaps?)
It was awesome back in 2001 to talk to an onscreen character and get a response. I clearly remember my girlfriend saying, "He's in the room talking to that damn fish, again." How about nowadays? Now, I can talk to my phone and it will write down exactly what I say. I can download a free app and have a conversation with it. Would I still be as impressed by a digital fish with a salty attitutde?
Oh well. At least with the 3DS, the Seaman will be more "in your face" than ever.
d21lewis said: It was awesome back in 2001 to talk to an onscreen character and get a response. I clearly remember my girlfriend saying, "He's in the room talking to that damn fish, again." How about nowadays? Now, I can talk to my phone and it will write down exactly what I say. I can download a free app and have a conversation with it. Would I still be as impressed by a digital fish with a salty attitutde?
Oh well. At least with the 3DS, the Seaman will be more "in your face" than ever.
It'd be cool if we could exchange Seamen with our friends. And imagine how cool it'd be with the 3D effect. Friends' Seamen coming right towards your face...
zarx said:
The prominent ones would be
Dues Ex - Dues Ex: HR was a successful game bassed on a dead niche franchise
Fallout 3 - The fallout franchise was long dead when Bethesda made one of the best selling RPGs of this gen
Ninja Gaiden - there was a 10+ year gap between the NES games and the 2004 reboot
Rayman Origins - A non Rabbids Rayman game hasn't been seen for years, Origins has already turned a profit
Serious Sam 3 - you could argue the HD versions revitalised the long dead series btu what ever
Metroid Prime
Monkey Island/Sam & Max - Teltail found success with the franchises
Mortal Kombat - the franchise was still arround but doing poorly until the reboot
Street Fighter IV - same as Mortal Kombat
I'm not sure I'd count Rayman, and I'm iffy on Prime because it launched day and date with Fusion, but otherwise this is a pretty good list. Thank you. I'm sure there are probably a few more we're missing too.
I'm not sure I'd count Rayman, and I'm iffy on Prime because it launched day and date with Fusion, but otherwise this is a pretty good list. Thank you. I'm sure there are probably a few more we're missing too.
Well I guess you could say that Metroid had a double revival
There's a lot to mull over, so if you don't mind I'm going to break it down into sub-topics.
noname2200 said:
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.
The revival percentage is encouraging, despite a good quantity of failed projects:
For this, I'd like to point you to Zarx's response. I would also like to point out that my Seaman 2 on PS2 argument still stands. The audiences were different, so this invalidates your prior Seaman 2 argument.
Of course, we could construct a solid list of failures, but the ratio is acceptable, and shows there is hope when the job is done right.
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.
Marketing a boon for quality games:
Many of us on this forum agree that games like COD, Halo and Gears greatly benefitted from marketing, as well as the kinect. It has zero to do with these games being intrinsically bad, but we see them as a reason for these IPs to stand out in terms of sales.
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.
The marketing debate, fool's talk?:
Even if you had the data, it is mostly intuition. We all have that here and use it to dialogue to a certain extent of reason. Nobody knows for sure, but we try to explain the data given how much we know about the games' quality and injected marketing investments, given sales.
@bold. Of course there are cases when this is done unreasonably (Virtual Boy, it had so many flaws above and beyond marketing), but many of us here don't do that.
Technical advancements for better entertainment:
@italics. We certainly aren't discussing the technical feasibility of reviving an IP, we're discussing the technical benefits old IPs can appreciate given new technological advancements. Some are: Improved AI, a 3rd dimension, new visual effects, new graphical styles such as Cell/Toon shading, advanced 2D graphics (think DK Returns), motion controls, built in cameras, drawing screens, dual screens, touch screens, mics and more. In terms of logictics, accelerated development throughput (better team management, more powerful dev tools), increased creative throughput (better APIs, better bed of knowledge), increased intra-business communication (internet, e-mail, globalism). There are lots of venues where old IPs may have staggered.
In other words, since their last outings, there is much technological advancement that has happened which these old IPs could benefit from if they were once again brought to life.
I suppose if you find a total of 8-10 successful revivals over the course of gaming history to be encouraging, I can't argue. But I do not feel the same. That ratio helps make me pessimistic. Especially when you look at that list, and realize that those successes had one thing in common: they were developed by their publishers' top teams.
That's why I keep harping on about talent. I can not and do not think that these revivals will enjoy top-tier talent, and judging from your posts, neither do you. You think it might succeed in spite of that. I can not share your optimism. And, once again, even if these initial games do succeed, against all odds, nothing in recent history leads me to believe that it will spur third-parties to devote better talent for future big IPs.
As an aside, I still don't buy your argument about audiences and Seaman 2. If I understand it correctly, you're saying that the Sega audience flowed from the Dreamcast to the Gamecube, with Sonic Adventure's sales (half of the original sales for 1, unknown for 2) being the lynchpin. This disregards how the Xbox was the primary Sega console post-Dreamcast, and how pretty much everyone that generation flowed to the PS2, including Dreamcast fans. Take a gander at the sales of the multi-platform sales for Crazy Taxi, for instance.
And even if we accept your assertion, it does you little good, unless you want to tell me that the Dreamcast audience is the same as the 3DS/Wii U audiences.
As for marketing, I again emphatically reject that stance. If good marketing is all it took to make a successful product, there would be no flops. You're attributing the success of the products you listed primarily to marketing. I firmly believe that the intrinsic qualities of those titles is responsible, with marketing being secondary. In other words, I think products primarily stand or fall based on their own innate appeal to the market. I have seen little to dissuade me.
I'm certain that this talk of marketing is a sideshow to the issue at hand, but since you seem to think it's important, and for the sake of this discussion, let us agree on a compromise regarding marketing. Do you not agree that a product's quality is more important to its success than its marketing? And do you not agree that a talented team is more likely to create a quality product than a third-stringers?
Finally, the things you refer to under technology are the things I'm referring to when I asked my question. The things you listed are all true. They're also irrelevant, unless you think the earlier games were held back by some technical limitations. Better graphics, sound, etc. are great. But every game has access to that improved technology, so your game isn't going to stand out because of those. We are definitely going off topic now, but let me rephrase that tangential question: what technical limitation do you think was holding back the original Seaman from reaching its full potential, and what new technology will help it realize that potential?
noname2200 said: I suppose if you find a total of 8-10 successful revivals over the course of gaming history to be encouraging, I can't argue. But I do not feel the same. That ratio helps make me pessimistic. Especially when you look at that list, and realize that those successes had one thing in common: they were developed by their publishers' top teams.
Yeah, we'll have to agree on disagreement because in my view big names are hard to come by. Already 8-10 is a good number, and there are more. As an example, Nintendo's BIG 3DS game to come is Kid Icarus Uprising. Mark my words the game will go on to sell 6Mil. (You can quote me on it).
Lots of old names out there could rise from ash with proper effort and the new technology that can today be made use of (discussed below).
That's why I keep harping on about talent. I can not and do not think that these revivals will enjoy top-tier talent, and judging from your posts, neither do you. You think it might succeed in spite of that. I can not share your optimism. And, once again, even if these initial games do succeed, against all odds, nothing in recent history leads me to believe that it will spur third-parties to devote better talent for future big IPs.
You're right, I don't believe they will recieve AAA talent, but I do believe they will receive talent, as well as support and partnership of Nintendo. Take a game that came out yesterday, Dillon's Rolling Western. The game was made by a small studio (not AAA obviously, but still talented) with the help of Nintendo. The game clearly makes use of reworked wind waker Zelda art and MM mechanics. Needless to say it looks great. AAA wasn't needed. That's one example of a way Nintendo has leveraged talent to diversify the offerings on its platform. This same leverage can be achieved with pretty much any developer afai understand.
As an aside, I still don't buy your argument about audiences and Seaman 2. If I understand it correctly, you're saying that the Sega audience flowed from the Dreamcast to the Gamecube, with Sonic Adventure's sales (half of the original sales for 1, unknown for 2) being the lynchpin. This disregards how the Xbox was the primary Sega console post-Dreamcast, and how pretty much everyone that generation flowed to the PS2, including Dreamcast fans. Take a gander at the sales of the multi-platform sales for Crazy Taxi, for instance.
And even if we accept your assertion, it does you little good, unless you want to tell me that the Dreamcast audience is the same as the 3DS/Wii U audiences.
The Dreamcast audience is not a uniform thing. Some flocked to the Cube (mostly Sonic fans), others flocked to PS2/Xbox (Soul Calibur, Crazy Taxi, Shenmue, Virtua Fighter) fans. That's because Sega distributed their games on platforms depending on where they thought they would best reach their new audiences, and that is where Sega fans migrated (and many went multi-plat). Having said that, I think my argument holds. Moreover, Seaman 2 was already a quirky game. It needs to be handled very carefully in order to sell (a bit like Brain Age). This is what I mean by marketing (below).
As for marketing, I again emphatically reject that stance. If good marketing is all it took to make a successful product, there would be no flops. You're attributing the success of the products you listed primarily to marketing. I firmly believe that the intrinsic qualities of those titles is responsible, with marketing being secondary. In other words, I think products primarily stand or fall based on their own innate appeal to the market. I have seen little to dissuade me.
I'm certain that this talk of marketing is a sideshow to the issue at hand, but since you seem to think it's important, and for the sake of this discussion, let us agree on a compromise regarding marketing. A) Do you not agree that a product's quality is more important to its success than its marketing? B) And do you not agree that a talented team is more likely to create a quality product than a third-stringers?
I know this might be much to ask, but if you took the time to read my posts in the Sony thread I linked to, alot of your doubts as to my POV on marketing would be cast away and you would realize we see eye to eye on this topic. For now, to demonstrate, I'll answer your questions.
A) Quality is fundamental. If a game is of high quality, it may sell by its own merits, marketing unrequired. However, in many cases, very good games get missed due to lack of mediatic exposure and advertising. Having said that, some games of low quality, if marketed properly, may end up selling more than they deserve intrinsically. However, my view on this is that these sales are not sustainable on the long run. Customers will realize what they are being fed and will abandon the IP/content/studio what have you ;).
B) Yes, the greater the talent, the more likely the quality. However, two factors come into play. 1) Management. 2) Creative injection and skill leveraging. These I talked about earlier with the example of Dillon's Rolling Western. There are many more examples. Camelot, Monolith, Mystwalker, Browni Brown, and so on.
Am I right to say we mostly see eye to eye, especially on qtn A?
Finally, the things you refer to under technology are the things I'm referring to when I asked my question. The things you listed are all true. They're also irrelevant, unless you think the earlier games were held back by some technical limitations. Better graphics, sound, etc. are great. But every game has access to that improved technology, so your game isn't going to stand out because of those. We are definitely going off topic now, but let me rephrase that tangential question: what technical limitation do you think was holding back the original Seaman from reaching its full potential, and what new technology will help it realize that potential?
Prince of Persia benefitted from 3D modeling, martial coreography (cross-over of VGs with other art forms), voice acting and narration, advanced physics, visual effects (for time reversal). So much just on one game. None of that was possible (except prince's advanced 2D body animation at the time) back when it was 2D.
Oh, and I'm not sure you knew, but PoP had a remake before the Ubi one and it flopped! A poor job made the game fail, they didn't re-invent anything and the old themes didn't appeal to barely anybody. The game was called Prince of Persia 3D and was developed by RedOrb.
With a better studio, advanced technology and creative direction (able to reinvent the game), we finally got The Sands of Time (an incredible game by the way).
To answer your question: "what technical limitation do you think was holding back the original Seaman from reaching its full potential, and what new technology will help it realize that potential?"
My best guess would be reduced development throughput due to slower development. With today's rapid development, much of what the game was focused on can be done very quickly. For instance, graphics can be greatly enhanced without spending too many resources on it. Still on a technical point of view, the 3DS has a built-in microphone, cameras, a touch screen. For a game in which you need to interact with the AI character, from a HW user interface level Seaman as an IP now has alot to work with out of the box. No need to pay extra for cluttering accessories. The game now stands on its own (from a marketing/distribution perspective).
From an evolved VG dev team management point of view, the game's interactivity can now become the focus (since other implementation burdens are now lifted). With the evolved domain knowledge of user to NPC interactivity games, a game like Seaman could greatly benefit from modern creative development in terms of an expanded and fresh user experience.
With Nintendo involved, the leverage spoken of earlier would inject that domain and creative knowledge into a lacking team.
