Wyrdness said:
Figgycal said:
Part of the reason playstation characters don't have as much relevance as nintendo characters is that they don't have nearly the amount of games their nintendo counterparts have. How many games with mario were released in the past 3 years alone. The only series that follows that model on the ps3 is ratchet and clank and those games have been going downhill for the past few titles- not to mention the lack of promotion from sony.
|
What makes Nintendo's legacy almost unmatchable is the company's consistency, whether someone likes Mario, Zelda and so on or not the games are still maintaining 90+ averages even after over 30 years of the company being in the industry, the flaw in saying that the are more games is that games like Zelda for instance only have 14 installments over 27 years while in the same time Metroid only has 11 titles, in the last decade we've had 7 GOW titles, 10 Halo games and 12 Ratchet and Clank games. Think of a game like Last of Us now think of a company pumping out games of that calibur for decades across different eras of gaming and that's the type of legacy we're talking about, the Ratchet and Clank point you bring up highlights Nintendo's consistency and handling of their library.
|
Zelda may have had 14 games over 27 years, but from 2001 to 2013; there's been 9 zelda games (not counting the remakes or re-releases) - with 2 more being announced for the near future.
Looking at how many Mario games there were for the same time period is too many to count ). The number of Mario games still outnumber the number those of every exclusive IP on the playstation combined during the same time period- that's not even counting the 15+ year headstart.
I always assumed nintendo characters remained relevant because: coming out with the same game and characters over many generations creates mindshare- thus making those characters more recognizable and keeping the games relevant. The main reason Crash Bandicoot and Jak and Daxter and Sly Cooper became irrelevant was because those developers went on to make new ip's rather than rehashing old ones. It had nothing to do with the actual quality of the games- because there are plenty of mario games that fall well below 90 on metacritic. And how many of nintendo's current games are new ip's?
And 2: They aim towards a younger audience that is constantly being replaced. There's always going to be an audience for Mario and the like because there's always gonna be kids buying and growing up with the brand and when those kids are older they'll still be playing it, because they grew up on the game.
It's the same tactic call of duty and pokemon use: make a new game every year and every year it'll grow because there are new people constantly being introduced to it and in addition, there's always going to be the large fanbase that will buy it anyways.
Also ratchet and clank have been going downhill because sony don't promote the games like they should. They're still great games. And if I'm not wrong: every Halo game does better than the previous.
