1) Still waiting for those new IPs to arrive in the States (Disaster, I'm looking at you) and see if they're any good.

2) Making better use of existing IPs I was thinking more of doing better jobs with some of the IPs (like Fox and Kong) that weren't done well in their last 2 or 3 incarnations. The ressurection of old IPs is something I'll hold judgement on until they actually get released.

3) Nice that Miyamato said that, but again, let's see it. Is innovation going to mean taking real risks, or giving Link a water backpack?

4) And not to sound like a broken record (kids, ask your grandparents), but I'll believe the hard games whens I plays the hard games.

Anyway, this is talking all present tense. I know the lineup we're looking at this year looks good (and unlike some consoles, I'm pretty sure our games will actually release this year), but it doesn't change the fact that for the past6 months I've been playing my 360 almost exclusively because the Wii market was absolute shit from April to... well, still.

Heh, fair enough, and point taken (especially about waiting until you can get your hands on the game itself). Although the last DK platformer was pretty awesome (even if it made your palms hurt).

Waaaaait a second. You've at least played World of Goo by now, right?

Right?

Well there's probably not going to be any one reason. Smaller install bases on every home console until the Wii is a contributing factor. The gaming industry has changed a great deal over time. Look at what's become of Midway. They use to be a big player, now they're more or less bankrupt. Also as a greater variety emerges the chances of someone finding something better to fit their tastes increases and the same amount of people will likely spread out amongst a greater number of franchises.

And finally how many times can you enjoy the same thing? Nothing stays new forever, and short of being a complete die-hard fanatic of something, you'll eventually grow accustom to what you enjoy, even if it is still enjoyable. There was a Simpson's episode once where Bart and Lisa weren't really watching Itchy and Scratchy anymore, and the producers of the show get them and some of their friends to watch some episodes and use a dial to show what parts they like. They generally liked everything the show was famous for and the producer finally asked what the hell the problem was. Lisa explained to them there was nothing wrong with the show, but after a few hundred episodes it just didn't have the same impact.

That kind of stagnation usually leads to change, but changing an existing series (games or forms of entertainment) is generally dangerous territory to walk as well. Small tweaks can help to keep it fresh, but won't attract many new customers. This also creates pressure to continue to tweak with each iteration, which usually becomes harder each time. Look at the Tony Hawk series, which added major gameplay elements in two and three, minor ones in four, then actually started a storyline for underground and up. After about ten of the damn things Activision has finally shelved them, claming they're retooling the Tony Hawk franchise.

You can go with a big change, try an attract new people to what you're doing, but then your risk alienating your older fans. Even if you successfully completely change gears, then it won't be long before you're right back to where you were and need to keep your new thing fresh. Look at Resident Evil 4 and 5. Four was a big reboot for the series, and it largely worked, but some people are already kind of turned off by 5 since it looks so incredibly similar to the last game.

Creating something new is difficult as well. Strong brand names are hard to ignore, and new IP's without some kind of familiar branding might struggle for enough exposure to gain recognition. Big budget advertising campaigns with a strong company name can help to establish a firm foothold, but are usually very expensive, risky, and may not even payoff. Capcom allegedly spent about 20 Million to advertise Lost Planet, a series that still isn't a series.

And the ultimate risk of trying anything new or different is it may simply not work, or may work, but not catch on anyway. There is a reason why a lot of companies, stick to familiar formats, make "new" IP's that very heavily resemble old ones, that milk franchises to death. It's generally easier, and safer a lot of the time. I think last year you had EA complaining that Mirror’s Edge and Dead Space didn’t perform as well they wanted. Meanwhile Activison was making massive bank on the Call of Duty 5 and Guitar Hero 4 (Which is like the 7th or 8th game in the series =P)

Despite that, things eventually have to change at times, because nothing last forever either. So I guess I’m saying this whole cycle of new and old is a very complicated balance, and none of us really know the best course of action.

Dammit BrainBox, stop making so much sense!

I think you've identified the situation fairly well, but I'm still not completely satisfied. None of the Nintendo games have ever completely been just "more of the same" (contrary to some people's opinions), but the surprising part to me is that the changes have not been enough to entice at least as many people back in as before. Has Nintendo just been consistently misjudging the market? Or have they just not changed their titles *enough*?

The massive breakout success of the Wii ____ series seems to imply the latter, but if that's the case what's changed within Nintendo to make these new titles possible? Is it Iwata assuming control, or the fact that Nintendo felt enough was enough? Having succeeded by upending the tea table, why do they continue to pump out the Mario/Metroid/Zeldas (not that I'm complaining!)? And why does that explanation not apply to Zelda and a few other titles (which haven't seen more change than other Nintendo series)?

And while I agree that the smaller install bases played a role, I think that's too circular an explanation for our purposes: people don't buy the games as much because they don't own the system, but they don't own the system because they're not interested enough in the games.

I guess this all boils down to one question: what makes some series more resilient than others?

If I knew the answer to your last question, I could probably get hired somewhere as a marketing consultant. =P

It's important to note that everything does have it limits and peaks, and there's only so much any one thing will sell. As for enticing as many people as before, well you have to look at the context. In the mid 80's, in the US, the console industry had mostly died with Atari. Nintendo and the NES was a massive revival for console gaming the US and it was an explosive success that swept a lot of people in a Nintendo Fad. Yes, the NES was indeed a fad. There was cartoons and cereal based around Mario and Zelda, but after the fad died, the NES and Nintendo did continue because they had made something people loved. But it's likely there are some people who were caught up in it, and didn't continue to follow it after the fad had passed, or simply not as intently. The NES brought a lot of people into console gaming, but some of them did leave, and others moved to the competition.

As for why Nintendo keeps making games from traditional franchises even though the Wii series and similar games are so profitable. Well there's probably a few reasons. One is even if they don't sell as well as Wii Fit or Wii Play, they do sell well, and they already know how to do those games well. Such expansive market presence also probably helps strengthen their overall brand name as well. Despite being a company, they are still run by people who each have their own passions for what they do. That's why someone like HVS is making the Conduit, they do just fine on license titles, but they didn't become game markers to only make money.

The big one is because the Wii series is bringing in so people, they'll want to make more Marios and Zeldas. To some of the new people buying Wii's, Mario and Zelda may be new to them. It's likely the same reason Iwata is against dropping the price of their games, he probably wants people buying a Wii to see Super Mario Galaxy and the Twilight Princess on the shelf at full price with all the new releases like they just came out. Like they belong there. Obviously not everyone buying a Wii is going to want Mario and Zelda, in fact it's probably a slight few at this point. But as long as there is a few new Wii buyers picking up Mario and Zelda, it'll keep adding up until the Wii stops selling.

It's where these Wii legs come from we like to keep talking about. Someone who’s buying the system for the first time isn't going to look at the new releases, but the system's entire library. Quality titles that can maintain shelf presence will likely keep getting bought up as long the Wii keeps selling. Someone from 2K actually said they’re not rushing to release Carnival Games 2 because they don’t want to cut off the first one’s sales. People like to laugh at Carnival Games, but it’s at about 3 Million now, and is only $3 cheaper now then when it released.

This is why Miyamoto wants to remove as many reasonable control boundaries as possible while not compromising the actual series he works on. To make the older Nintendo Franchises all the more enticing to the new comers who will grow up on Wii Sports and Brain Training. It's why Mario Kart Wii is doing so well. That wheel is more enticing then the control pad or joystick ever were for a lot of people. But the old controllers work just fine for it as well, keeping the old fans appeased. A tricky maneuver that let’s newcomers and old timers play together on relatively even playing field.

Going back to why aren’t there as many people invovled now as there were then, those numbers we have from the NES era aren't going to change, the Wii is still alive and going very strong, and many of it's games will keep selling. I wouldn't be surprised if at the very end of this generation Twilight Princess does manage to top the original Legend of Zelda. (If you include the GC numbers, it already has.) Even then, not everyone who bought a Mario game on the NES back then is going to get now. Going back to 80's, Nintendo were ruthless dictators to the 3rd party developers, limiting every company to only release five games a year on the NES. A measure likely to prevent another game crash for the time, but one that probably did stunt growth and experimentation. Since then there are many many more types of games that didn't even exsist then, and the same group of people who gamed on the NES are likely spread out over this wider variety titles now.

As for Zelda not sinking like Mario did, well you'd have to look each series. Like I said, the jump the 3D was a massive change from the 2D Mario series, and some may (And I think in this thread, already have) argue not for the better. I essentially had to re-learn to play Mario when I played Mario 64, but as a kid loving his new toy, it wasn't much of a hurdle for me. Other people, may not have liked that. Playing Ocarina of Time from the Link to the Past though, not as a big step for me. Having played Mario 64 first, I had already gotten use to the idea of a 3D Camera system, after that it felt like Zelda as usual, except now if I got lost, I could ask for hints of where to go instead of bombing every wall and charging into everything. You could say the 3D Mario games where made less accessible then the 2D ones, where as the 3D Zelda's where made more accessible then the 2D ones. 

Malstrom already pointed out that New Super Mario Bros HAS sold more then Super Mario Bros 3, it's a return to the original easier to play Mario games. In a way the 3D and 2D Marios are almost separate series. Almost like the Metroid series, whose 3D and 2D games actually have similar sales slopes unlike the Marios. Something like the Mario Kart series didn't have that kind of big change gameplay wise, even in the jump the 3D. That's probably why it's DS version and Wii version are neck and neck instead.

Not sure if any of that actually answered any of your questions. I’m just another lunatic rambling like anyone else, and there are dozens of other variables I didn’t even touch on that shape these kinds of things. Still I’m enjoying this back and forth, so either way, I had fun.

Personally, i like Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, Mario Kart Wii, and appreciate Super Smash Bros Brawl for what it is, plus you can throw the Zelda: Twilight Princess in there, and thats 5 AAA games from nintendo in 2 years. I'm not dissapointed in their games, but more on the specs of the system, and motion controls, i'm not too fond of them, but mostly on motion controls.

Dude, I read the thread title, thus I gave the response I did.

Core-Nintendo-fans that are unhappy with Nintendo are unrealistic and frankly insane.

Galaxy, Metroid 3, Brawl, Kart, Paper Mario and (last but definitely not least) an amazing Fire Emblem. All in 2 years.

Now if you're unhappy with the 3rd party offerings I get it, but Nintendo has been a beast so far this gen.

As to the question of why some Nintendo series aren't selling like they used to, it's simply that they have existed for so long.

In gaming also, you can look at things like Tony Hawk. The last game, I hear, was quite the break through for the series, but yet it sold like dung. Now, that series has been beaten to death in it's short time on this earth, but it's simply that there have been like 10 games of it already.

Without looking, I'm not sure what numbers the best selling Zelda games have hit, but I'm willing to bet that they aren't way, way more than Twilight Princess has sold. That said, you have a series that most people view as "hard", and it's no longer new and fresh. (No matter what they do with it, that's the perception it will keep, barring an RE4-like successful reimagining.)

In comics, there are something called "spike sales". Issue number one of a new series may sell X copies. If it's "hot", issue 2 will sell more, and so on. But this only goes on for a finite amount of time, before the sales fall and level out. In order to counteract this, publishers relaunch the series under new titles, with new number 1's, and create a spike in sales. But each time this is done, the spike becomes less great.

I'm fairly certain that the basic idea of this works in games, as well. With the exception of Madden, it seems to me that every franchise in gaming goes through these types of sales phenomenon.

People can blame whatever they want on some series not selling like they once did, but the truth is, I believe, that it doesn't matter. It's not really the games themselves, but the familiarity of the brand, and once something is familiar, it's not going to attract the same curiosity that it once did.

So.. now maelstrom is not your hero anymore? :O