miz1q2w3e said: DucksUnlimited said: miz1q2w3e said: I've always noticed a difference between how Nintendo does things vs the others. Nintendo will use the same character with ideas that could have been their own new IP. Kirby does this a lot. Others use the same game but with different characters. The Division from Ubisoft comes to mind. The division is just a character swap of a previous game? Which one? It's just another shooter.

So even though it's an MMO with RPG elements set in an open world New York, it's just another shooter? I'll ask again, what game specifically has these gameplay elements I'm talking about?

miz1q2w3e said: The Division was just an example, but it's more about the general idea that new character = new IP which I don't agree with. Something like Dante's Inferno would probably be a better example. Which would you prefer? a) 5 shooters with different characters that all play similarly. b) 5 games with the same group of character that play nothing alike.

Different IP's have settings, temperament and gameplay tweaks that set them apart from one another. Look at the difference between Uncharted and Last of Us. Similar mechanics, yet two totally different games.

DucksUnlimited said: miz1q2w3e said: It's just another shooter. So even though it's an MMO with RPG elements set in an open world New York, it's just another shooter? I'll ask again, what game specifically has these gameplay elements I'm talking about?

There's a ton, but here's an example. Ubisofts version just has a higher budget.

badgenome said: miz1q2w3e said: Which would you prefer? a) 5 shooters with different characters that all play the same. b) 5 games with the same group of character that play nothing alike. But it's not about which you would prefer. Either a game is a new IP... or it isn't.

That's where the discussion lies. ...Which one is, in fact, newer?

S.T.A.G.E. said: Different IP's have settings, temperament and gameplay tweaks that set them apart from one another. Look at the difference between Uncharted and Last of Us. Similar mechanics, yet two totally different games.

I would say TLOU has more in common with Uncharted than Zelda SS has with WW or aLTTP.

The point I am trying to make is that having a different story/setting/characters does always mean this new IP is newer. This is mainly in response to some who criticize Nintendo for not making enough new IP, not you personally.

miz1q2w3e said: Mensrea said: I know I'm in the minority, but I want Miyamoto out. He doesn't seem to contribute much anymore. :/ We get it, Mario sells, but people want new universes and worlds and characters, not just a new game with Mario strapped on. Here's an example, Pikmin was originally supposed to feature little Mario's I believe, and instead they gave it it's own style and characters. I would argue that if Pikmin had little Mairo's, it would feel like just another generic mario spin off. Reminds me of Mario vs. DK I was playing the other day. Could've been made into a 'new IP' instead of people thinking it's a Mario spin-off. You're not in the minority. I don't like him anymore because of what he did to Paper Mario T_T

Jin Fujisawa did not receive so much hate because of Dragon Quest X neither Naoki Yoshida because of FFXIV, maybe that is because they have not Shigeru Miyamoto's notoriety... Concerning Mario vs. Donkey Kong, the game is released for almost a decade why complaining now ?

"Nintendo in the past didn't really have problems trying out new IPs with similar gameplay to other major IPs"

When they were starting developing on NES Donkey Kong was their only established IP, on SNES they had already Mario,Zelda,Metroid,Kirby, Fire Emblem. Nintendo has more and more established IP, it is harder and harder for them to find the right balance between creating new IP and deliver sequels to fans of these established IP (for exemple Metroid, Star Fox, F-Zero,Pikmin...). I do not know if it is even possible to find one exemple of Nintendo IP which have similar gameplay to another...

I can't believe the amount of insults thrown at Miyamoto in this thread. Each developer has a different way of doing things and this is his way. That would be like telling a painter that he is wrong because his techniques is stupid or flawed. How would know? You aren't that painter, you don't make the art.

Miyamoto's ways of doing things is perfectly fine. It suits his work and that's all that matters. I know I don't want a new IP if it has to be in terms of what the industry is turning to now.

While I agree with Miyamoto that fresh gameplay and innovative experiences can help create a new game or intellectual property, I think that he is downplaying the impact of new characters, settings, and stories have on new games.  Additionally, I think that there are new and innovative gameplay experiences that benefit from new characters (e.g., Tearaway).  I think that there are audiences for both approaches, and I hope that Nintendo isn't going to limit themselves to one.

Nintendo-Europe said: Jin Fujisawa did not receive so much hate because of Dragon Quest X neither Naoki Yoshida because of FFXIV, maybe that is because they have not Shigeru Miyamoto's notoriety... Concerning Mario vs. Donkey Kong, the game is released for almost a decade why complaining now ?  "Nintendo in the past didn't really have problems trying out new IPs with similar gameplay to other major IPs" When they were starting developing on NES Donkey Kong was their only established IP, on SNES they had already Mario,Zelda,Metroid,Kirby, Fire Emblem. Nintendo has more and more established IP, it is harder and harder for them to find the right balance between creating new IP and deliver sequels to fans of these established IP (for exemple Metroid, Star Fox, F-Zero,Pikmin...). I do not know if it is even possible to find one exemple of Nintendo IP which have similar gameplay to another...

It's because he's way more well known than those two, and he has more power/say than most devs.

Your second paragraph = good point.

miz1q2w3e said: That's where the discussion lies. ...Which one is, in fact, newer?

I don't know. Just because the games in the second example all play differently from one another doesn't necessarily mean they're doing anything truly new, and it's not really all that desirable to have your favorite franchise changing things up drastically from game to game.

Seems like a false choice, though. I'm bored by the sheer number of them this generation, but are there many shooters that really play exactly the same? I don't think so. Every one seems to have its own thing that sets it apart. I understand that it's easy to become jaded toward the idea of staring down the barrel of yet another gun in yet another brown-and-grey ultrarealistic military FPS, but if you take the time to dig into them, they are at least as different as the various Mario games that use the same characters but play quite differently.