Andrespetmonkey said: Jay520 said: What are these mature 'themes' that will supposedly help you enjoy the game so much more? Realistic characters? Foul language? Blood? I don't think, and I'm just assuming here, that these shallow elements will help you enjoy a game more. So what specifically are these mature elements that you speak of? Because all the mature 'themes' I can think of are shallow and have little affect on gameplay. A few of my favourite games are Portal 2, Heavy Rain, Uncharted 2, Resistance. So here we have dark humor, advanced puzzling, a plethora of mature themes in HR, cinematic and realistic action and drama, alternate history, horror... So no, I'm not just interested in "fucks" and headshots. They may have little affect on the quality of the gameplay, but they have tremendous affect on my motivation to play the game and interest in the fiction.

All of those elements can be implemented in a none-hardcore games except for horror. Nintendo can implement all but one of those elements in a new experience, but the game wouldn't have to be mature. Would you be satisfied with that?

Kresnik said: Jay520 said: The thing is maturity is really a tiny factor in gameplay quality. It's really only the superficial layering of the game. Why do you want them to go for maturity so badly if maturity wouldn't change much. What would you want? For them to add blood in the game? Make the characters look realistic? How would this help gameplay? Would it make you enjoy the game more? No, its just being mature for the sake of being mature. There are still infinitely many gameplay ideas for developers and you don't need to be mature to implement them. The mature element of a game is really just aesthetics. Not being mature doesn't prevent them from trying any new gameplay experiences. I remember around the time PS2 coming out, hearing that Insomniac had dropped the Spyro licence and were making something new.  I was distraught, and I remember reading a quote from Ted Price which said something like "Spyro was limiting us, we'd reached the end of what we could do with him, I mean he didn't even have hands so he couldn't hold a gun!" [something like that, I can't remember the exact quote] Along came Ratchet and Clank which I was all poised to hate and - to my surprise, this was Spyro.  It was Spyro 2.0.  It had all the collecting that I'd come to love, the platforming, the wacky characters, the colourful worlds and on top of all that it just had some really silly and enjoyable shooting sections. This isn't the most drastic example of maturing gameplay because obviously, it's Ratchet, it's still a cartoony platformer.  But can you imagine Nintendo moving away from the Mario franchise for a year to make a platformer with guns, just because it would add another gameplay element to the ones they already have? I'm not saying Nintendo should be mature for the sake of being mature.  But I don't think they should ignore it altogether either, it has a place in the forumla but it doesn't have to be the main focus. Their strategy is working, obviously.  People aren't tired of rescuing Peach from Bowser for the umpteenth time with little more motivation than that.  But for every 3 fans they gain for sticking to it, there's a person like me who grows a little weary of it.  Obviously, I'm the minority so I matter less and am probably not going to get catered to, but that doesn't mean I can't wish - and hope - for something to change.

I asked you for some suggestions of some mature elements and you gave Mario guns as an example. Simply adding guns really wouldn't make the game mature. Like you said, a game like Ratchet & clank is built around guns but I wouldn't call it mature in the slightest.

You say you're tired of Mario saving Peach over and over. I can understand that. I can understand why you want change. But that doesn't mean that change should be for more mature. Maybe change the story so that Peach acts like she is caught, but is working together to lure Mario into a trap. There are so many new things that Nintendo can do, and they really aren't limited by lack of maturity. They could keep their style and make entirely new IPs with new experiences. They just choose not to.

Jay520 said: I asked you for some suggestions of some mature elements and you gave Mario guns as an example. Simply adding guns really wouldn't make the game mature. Like you said, a game like Ratchet & clank is built around guns but I wouldn't call it mature in the slightest. You say you're tired of Mario saving Peach over and over. I can understand that. I can understand why you want change. But that doesn't mean that change should be for more mature. Maybe change the story so that Peach acts like she is caught, but is working together to lure Mario into a trap. There are so many new things that Nintendo can do, and they really aren't limited by lack of maturity. They could keep their style and make entirely new IPs with new experiences. They just choose not to.

I think we're just going to have to disagree.  I'm not expecting Mario to change, because Mario is Mario - it sells, people like that it's always very similar but slightly different.  But Nintendo have multiple Mario esque platformers and - what I was getting at with the Ratchet comment - wouldn't hurt for them to try something a little more grown up, something a little different.  I'd have described Ratchet as a teenagey platformer while Mario is more a 'for anyone' kind of game, but yeah, never mind.

Besides, we've wandered wildly off topic.  Although the title (slightly misleadingly) suggests that Nintendo won't be making Call of Duty like games, the text suggests that they were referring to online multi-player centric games rather than games with more mature themes.  The hardcore games from Nintendo debate is clearly something you feel strongly about but I suppose it would be best to have it somewhere other than here.

Actually, I liked the transition from Spyro to Rachet & Clank. By comparison, it would be the same as Nintendo creating a new IP and adding a FP aspect to it. FP is an area where Nintendo hasn't really done quite a lot, only game I can think of is Metroid, but there's a lot that can be done with FP aside from shooters. Portal proved that at least. If anything, if Nintendo does decide to create some mature IP later down the road, it would have to be something only they can do, and would take their experience in platformers/RPGs/etc into account.

I would rather not see Nintendo make a game that's Uncharted or Call of Duty, because imitations usually don't go over that well. Look at the 90s mascot era.

Seriously nintendo, you need to really embrace online.

Think about how fun mario would be if you could play it online co-op with matchmaking. The game would have so much more replay value.

Good to hear. Nintendo need to be Nintendo, nothing more, nothing less.

UltimateUnknown said: Seriously nintendo, you need to really embrace online. Think about how fun mario would be if you could play it online co-op with matchmaking. The game would have so much more replay value.

From what i saw of Miiverse, it looks like a big embrace of online.

Andrespetmonkey said: Jay520 said: Andrespetmonkey said: Jay520 said: Andrespetmonkey said: If that means not making military first person shooters and arming Link with an AK-47 then I think that's great, if that means not exploring mature themes then that's not so great.  Why? If Nintendo's plan works, then 3rd parties will bring the mature themes. Nintendo is structured around games accessible to children. Because Nintendo have some of the best development teams in the world and I'd love to see them experiment with new themes and franchises, including mature ones. I'm speaking solely as a consumer of course. If I was the CEO of Nintendo then of course I'd continue the current strategy. What makes you think their skill would transition well to mature gameplay? Nintendo themselves aaid they won't try hardcore gameplay because they aren't skilled at it. I've seen this transition go well for other developers. Naughty Dog going from the cartoony, all-ages Crash and J&D to Uncharted and TLOU is the best example.  I'm sure there are many, many ideas floating around the minds of Nintendo's game designers, many of which are bound to explore mature themes. Maybe they don't have the experience with these kind of games, but that's a risk I'd love them to take.

See, it works the other way. I tend to view the Naughty Dog thing as a tragedy, because they remain a very skilled developer who is too wrapped up in the idea of what kinds of games are "cool." I still remember when someone from Naughty Dog said, regarding Jak II's darker direction, that "no one wants cutesy games anymore" or something to that regard. They used to be a paragon of how it doesn't take Nintendo to do all-ages games well, but now they're near the top of a much more crowded pyramid, making objectively great games, sure, but games of the type that everyone is making.

Mr Khan said: Andrespetmonkey said: I've seen this transition go well for other developers. Naughty Dog going from the cartoony, all-ages Crash and J&D to Uncharted and TLOU is the best example.  I'm sure there are many, many ideas floating around the minds of Nintendo's game designers, many of which are bound to explore mature themes. Maybe they don't have the experience with these kind of games, but that's a risk I'd love them to take.  See, it works the other way. I tend to view the Naughty Dog thing as a tragedy, because they remain a very skilled developer who is too wrapped up in the idea of what kinds of games are "cool." I still remember when someone from Naughty Dog said, regarding Jak II's darker direction, that "no one wants cutesy games anymore" or something to that regard. They used to be a paragon of how it doesn't take Nintendo to do all-ages games well, but now they're near the top of a much more crowded pyramid, making objectively great games, sure, but games of the type that everyone is making.

I don't think that's completely true, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune was one of a kind in many ways. Was this gameplay original? No, the combat and platforming were basic, and although it's come a long way in UC2 and UC3 it's still not doing anything new, but when Drake's Fortune, cinematic storytelling and these huge "hollywood" set pieces didn't really take off yet, hardly anyone was doing it. It was one of the games that started the trend.

As for TLOU, it's easy to say everyone is making that kind of game, zombies and everywhere, but how many zombie games are focused on storytelling? Or anything like the father-daughter type relationship? How many zombie games really but emphasis on the survival aspect? Dead Island tried to, sort of, but I think DayZ is the only "game" that really makes survival a big part of the "game," and that's not even a game, it's a mod. Hell, how many zombie games have a serious tone?

We haven't played TLOU yet obviously, so that 2nd to last point can be understandably ignored since I'm going on what ND have said and the very little gameplay we've seen, rather than what I've played, so it'll be hard for me to back that up.

Mr Khan said: See, it works the other way. I tend to view the Naughty Dog thing as a tragedy, because they remain a very skilled developer who is too wrapped up in the idea of what kinds of games are "cool." I still remember when someone from Naughty Dog said, regarding Jak II's darker direction, that "no one wants cutesy games anymore" or something to that regard. They used to be a paragon of how it doesn't take Nintendo to do all-ages games well, but now they're near the top of a much more crowded pyramid, making objectively great games, sure, but games of the type that everyone is making.

Were they a very skilled developer?  Honestly, I love Naughty Dog but I think people look on their past successes (especially Crash) with rose-tinted glasses far too often.

What I remember about ND in the early years was kind of different.  They were always seen as this very technically competent developer - a huge amount of praise was poured onto the graphics for Crash 1 & 2 thanks to Andy Gavin's GOOL engines.  Otherwise, they were certainly seen as nothing revolutionary and rode the wave of popularity at the time - which was squarely focused on mascot platformers (and indeed, mascot kart racers).  Crash was great fun, but it didn't really do anything new in the same way that Mario did.

By comparison, watching them develop into Uncharted territory (get it? tehe) has been an interesting process.  They've certainly kept the 'technically competent' part up with the gorgeous graphics of UC, but they moved games as a medium forward - even if only ever so slightly - by creating this cinematic, movie-esque experience.  Sure, a lot of the gameplay mechanics weren't original, but the game as a whole was fresh in its approach.  And if they're riding the wave of games that everyone is doing right now, then it's only exactly the same as happened in the fifth generation.

You're of course entitled to your opinion and if you see Naughty Dog as a great loss then that's fine, but I don't agree at all because I feel you're looking at it wrong - if anything, over-estimating ND based on a half-remembered view of the past.

Plus, I don't really understand that 'cool' part because again, you're remembering Crash Bandicoot wrong.  He was the 'cool' Sony version of Mario, who went to Nintendo HQ to taunt them, who wore trainers & shorts and had an oddball attitude with his own goofy dance.