By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Paper Mario: The Origami King announced for Switch!

Moren said:
Hard pass.

This is the same design philosophy from the past two games, only with a shiny new coat of paint.

I feel the same to most AAA games and some 1st parties lately : 

BF 1 and 5 are the same as BF 4 just with a different type of skin.

Assasin Creed is the same bad guys with a different era and different skin.



Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
Zero_Revolution said:

I'm assuming you didn't watch the trailer? This is clearly a huge gameplay departure from the previous games, with seemingly the only similarities being similar art style to Color Splash and returning features from the original games that the last three lacked. It has an entirely new battle system, plot, and overworld mechanics from what we're being shown here. I wouldn't exactly say it's a "bold new direction" as it does seem to keep a familiar overall feeling, but this is definitely not them continuing what they did with Color Splash.

I watched the announcement trailer and the Japanese mini-video that showed a bit more of the battle system. No flower points or equivalent to them, no badge points, no experience points so far. A round battle arena that allows to line up enemies for a new strategical element doesn't mean anything when none of the aforementioned things got implemented; battles are going to feel similarly hollow as in Sticker Star and Color Splash if Intelligent Systems isn't giving them more purpose.

If a trailer with a closer look at the battle system and its impact on Mario's stats and his battle options pops up or has already been shown, I'd love to see it.

I never said it wouldn't be, I was just going off of one of your points which was to either bring the game back to it's original style or go in a new direction. This is definitely a different direction from the previous games, as the battle system is entirely different (the rotating ring on a time limit) and removes the stickers/cards which were some of the main parts of the last two titles even outside of battle. It also appears to have a ton of new gameplay mechanics outside of battle that have never been seen before, and brings back elements like partners and the audience from TTYD. 

I think it's definitely possible it could turn out to not be great, we still don't know. But with the little we do know about the game I do feel it's 100% clear that this is not just a continuation of the same style. Honestly the fact that they didn't just port Color Splash is enough evidence that they are going in a different direction here, so I think it's worth waiting until we know more before assuming it's gonna be terrible.



I think we should wait until we have more information on the battle system before we judge it. Btw, it doesn't need to be like the old Paper Mario to be good. Reading some of your comments gives the idea that they either go back to what they did with the first two games or it's going to be trash. That's not how it works. Intelligent Systems only has to make sure that one: the battles have a purpouse; and two: that the battles are fun. How they do it's irrelevant as long as they achieve those goals.



NightlyPoe said:
Leynos said:
Why does Nintendo let these small developers die like this? They let Cing die. They let Alpha Dream die. Why not invest in them? They don't own IS, so what happens if they went bankrupt? Would Nintendo just sit idle? These are pretty small studios. They could help them stay afloat or outright buy a couple of them. Next level pledged their Loyalty to Nintendo but I bet Nintendo would let them die as well when they could use more western studios. Not trying to shit on Nintendo but honestly curious why they do this?

I'm sorry, did I miss something? 

Yes, you missed something. You missed the IF. It was used as an example as a what-if scenario.



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

I have to be honest. After so many mismanaged attempts to bring the series back and so many years after TYD I'm not even hyped.
The trailer did nothing for me.



Around the Network
Vodacixi said:
I think we should wait until we have more information on the battle system before we judge it. Btw, it doesn't need to be like the old Paper Mario to be good. Reading some of your comments gives the idea that they either go back to what they did with the first two games or it's going to be trash. That's not how it works. Intelligent Systems only has to make sure that one: the battles have a purpouse; and two: that the battles are fun. How they do it's irrelevant as long as they achieve those goals.

Exactly, it's way too early to chuck it in the trash just for not being a carbon copy of TYD.



The last Paper Mario I played was TTYD. It was amazing. I might pick this up.



Nuvendil said:
Leynos said:
Why does Nintendo let these small developers die like this? They let Cing die. They let Alpha Dream die. Why not invest in them? They don't own IS, so what happens if they went bankrupt? Would Nintendo just sit idle? These are pretty small studios. They could help them stay afloat or outright buy a couple of them. Next level pledged their Loyalty to Nintendo but I bet Nintendo would let them die as well when they could use more western studios. Not trying to shit on Nintendo but honestly curious why they do this?

Random question but the answers are not hard to figure out.  In the case of Cing, their games never sold all that well.  Their games were niche, at most times very niche, and didn't match with the amount of money they were spending on development.  It wouldn't be advisable to bail them out of bankruptcy if they are losing money on a consistent basis.  Especially after several releases.

AlphaDream we know much less about.  But from what we can gather, there seems to have been some pretty serious financial mismanagement.  That's another thing you don't want to throw money at.  You could buy the company, but if they are no longer producing the quality releases that made them worth partnering with, what's the point?  You can just as easily hire people from the company after it disbands rather than shouldering the burden of actually owning the company.  

As for IS and Next Level, they might let them close if they went the way of Cing and AlphaDream.  Nintendo's not responsible to prop up a floundering company for old times' sake.  But that's not a likely thing to happen.  IS is far more integrated with Nintendo's operations for one, so they have a lot of money coming in from work done with Nintendo beyond just their own releases.  And Next Level just produced by far their biggest success yet.  

In short, Nintendo doesn't run a charity any more than any other platform holder or publisher.  It is not their obligation to prop up a company that is collapsing due to lack of sales and mismanagement brought on by their own actions and releases.  Nintendo as a publisher funds these projects, they shoulder financial risks of their own to give these devs a shot.  If they blow it repeatedly or squander their gains with mismanagement it is not then Nintendo's job to spend more money to keep their lights on.  And that goes for any publisher.

And worth noting most of these devs have no interest in being owned by Nintendo or any publisher during their peak.  Studios like Next Level, Cing, AlphaDream, and IS are independent on purpose.  The only reason they would maybe be interested in selling to Nintendo or anyone else is because they are desperate for the cash.  Which is to say, they are only interested in selling typically well after they were worth buying.  

Edit:  Also what Rol said.  Nintendo typically buys companies that are fully on board and at times even prefer the studio approach them about such a relationship rather than the other way round.  Nintendo's culture and structure is unique, you have to be down with becoming very deeply integrated with Nintendo's development operations.

Obligatory reminder that in inteligent system's case they, at its core roots, are a development tool development company, so a LOT of what they contribute is probably behind the scenes, and is in fact, a bigger contributer to nintendo that you might think at first glance with them only making niche games.

Both HAL and Intsys are two second party companies that nintendo WILL try to save in case of a catastrofic failure, the two companies are de facto a subsitiary of nintendo. comparing the relation between theses two and any other third party (yes even gamefreak).... yeah no. these are probably the only two companies that can casually just ASK nintendo for any of their IPs and use them....



NightlyPoe said:
Leynos said:

Yes, you missed something. You missed the IF. It was used as an example as a what-if scenario.

I'm still missing what brought this up in the first place and why you acted as though it were in the process of happening ("Why does Nintendo let these small developers die like this?").

If you wanted to complain about Nintendo letting a company fail, I'm sure there's an Alpha Dream thread you can give a necro-bump to.  Why suddenly bring it up for a company that has enjoyed the status quo for so long and is currently going through some of its better days?

Other people brought it up. Now drop it please.



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

Leynos said:
NightlyPoe said:

I'm sorry, did I miss something? 

Yes, you missed something. You missed the IF. It was used as an example as a what-if scenario.

Where did you get the notion that they don't own Intelligent Systems from? They're an in house first party studio that was formed by members of Nintendo R&D 1 and were originally a part of the department they were created initially for programming purposes such as porting software to rom cartridges.

https://www.giantbomb.com/intelligent-systems-co-ltd/3010-333/

This is why IS handle a lot of programming tasks for Nintendo before anyone goes on about IS being a partner the studio Creatures are also a partner but are fully owned by Nintendo as they used to be called APE who are the team that did Earthbound.