Before we go any further, I have one thing I feel I should say to act as a nice barrier to protect myself: I will happily admit that I’m not the biggest Nintendo fan. My favourite Nintendo game is Super Smash Bros: Melee, and I’m not really a big fan of anything else other than Pokemon. Whilst I do like Zelda, I do not like Ocarina of Time (I much prefer Majora’s Mask and, interestingly, Wind Waker), and I personally think Mario should have died out a long time ago. Whilst I’m not the biggest fan of Nintendo, I do like them (Pokemon is one of my favourite game series ever and I’m currently playing through Black), so please bear this in mind; I am not picking a fight.
Now that’s out of the way, I’ve been noticing a double standard here for a long time. By ‘here’ I mean the internet, but I don’t just mean comments on articles – it’s present in the articles themselves and often in the personal opinions of some of the best known gaming journalists out there.
[drop]Modern Warfare. It’s getting tired, right? Since the original Modern Warfare, the series has pretty much just stopped. The games keep releasing, but the franchise has stopped. There hasn’t really been any progress – in fact, some would say it’s gone in the opposite direction. The story hasn’t exactly improved (Modern Warfare 2’s storyline was atrocious and difficult to even follow), the way the game handles hasn’t changed in the slightest and the campaigns are just more of the same each time, really; scripted and spectacle-based.There’s always a ‘break-into-a-room-in-slow-motion’ moment or twelve, there tends to be a close up scripted brutal melee kill, etc. You get the idea. The only changes have been to multiplayer, and even those aren’t that amazing – just more killstreaks, maybe some customisation, the game is still the same.
So how about Final Fantasy? They’re pretty much the same each time, right? Every time one releases, Final Fantasy fans simply say ‘it’s not as good as [insert number here]’. It’s gotten so far that people cherry-pick parts of different Final Fantasy games, saying ‘this was the best story, this one had the best combat system, this had the least ridiculous hair, this one had the sexiest lead character’, etc. People still look forward to the sequels though.
As an aside; why is this? Black Ops released and everywhere I looked (online, obviously) I saw people saying it’s rubbish, or complaining about the first level being so scripted you can go through without shooting anyone, or the damn servers aren’t working. To be fair, it was true, Black Ops didn’t really work too well when it released, especially if you got it on PC (like I did). Still, the game had everyone going crazy for one reason or another and I rarely saw anyone praising it. Even now when people say they like it, they say it with a shy, uncomfortable look, like they’re admitting they’ve got a crush on their cousin and are often met with reactions that sound more like they’ve admitted they’re having a child with their cousin.
Anyway, a problem that a lot of people seem to have with gaming (and films, for that matter) are these sequels – the same thing released again, debatably just to earn more money. Whilst that is indeed what games are for, there is a difference between what Activision do with Call of Duty to what, say, Sony do with Uncharted. There are numerous changes between Uncharted games that affect gameplay and, hell, at least they look better each time.
So what about Nintendo? Nintendo have been releasing Mario games for 30 years, Zelda’s been around for 25 years, Kid Icarus’ first outing was 25 years ago too – you get my point. Mario is a one-dimensional stereotype who is so whipped by a woman he apparently isn’t even sleeping with that he’s happy to run out and save her from monsters every year or two. Link is pretty much the same but at least with some character thrown into the mix, though I’ve seen more interesting bricks than a Mario storyline. Both characters see their respective damsel in distress being carried off and immediately shout “I’ll save you”, and that’s the whole storyline of the games.
[drop2]Storyline is a big part of modern gaming. When you’ve got a good game but no storyline it will be mentioned and probably even marked down for it – when you’ve got a bad game you might be able to suffer through it if the storyline is good enough. Not only is the story itself important, but characters and motivations are, too. I’ve lost count of the amount of times I’ve read about the one dimensional characters found in most FPS’, but not a single one about Mario.At least the FPS’ people have motivation – they’re in the damn army, it’s their job. What’s Mario’s motivation for abandoning his job to jump about saving Princess Peach? An on-going, 3 decade-long struggle to jump his way into her pants? Or is it just because that’s what Italian plumbers do? I’ve never seen any plumber at all pursuing a large dinosaur/turtle thing in order to save a princess, so I don’t think it’s that.
This wouldn’t bother me if the space marine/typical army man thing wasn’t mentioned so much everywhere. Whilst I understand they’re boring now, it’s exactly the same with a lot of Nintendo franchises. They’re doing this just because – they’re good and the other guy’s evil, it’s what they do. Using a big, fire-breathing dinosaur/turtle thing as an enemy is like having Nazis as an enemy – they’re automatically evil, therefore you must destroy them.
Now, I know Mario’s gameplay has changed a bit over the 30 years. But when were the last big changes? The jump to 3D on the Nintendo 64 and, possibly, Super Mario Galaxy? Both of those had sequels of more of the same, and the same, original, side-scrolling formula that existed years before has returned to new games since and everyone’s hailed it as the second coming of plumber-Jesus.
Again, I don’t actually have anything against Mario or Nintendo. I’m using Mario in my examples as it happens to be the franchise I’m most familiar with as far as Nintendo goes. As I said, I’m not a Nintendo man. There are a few more points I could point at, such as people complaining about stereotypes in games all the time, but they’re mostly just me pointing back at Mario, so I won’t bother. I do hope you can see past all the comparisons and actually understand why I’m trying to say, rather than just assuming I’m saying ‘Mario is shit, dude, get over it’. Because that’s not what I’m saying at all.
And as far as Zelda goes, I’ll be buying Ocarina of Time 3D when it releases, just because I liked Majora’s Mask and Wind Waker so much, I want to give it another chance.
KeRaSh
It really is weird. I loved Mario Galaxy and when I played Mario Galaxy 2 is had a blast playing it from beginning to end. No sign of boredom. Compare that to Bioshock 1/2 or Dead Space 1/2. I loved both of the first games and even though there was such a long break between the initial game and the sequels I got bored pretty quickly because of the fact that they both played just like the first game.
It’s weird, I know.
Same thing with Zelda. While it’s basically the same thing every time it’s always a great experience playing the games. It might lack some deeper story but you sympathize with the little boy in the green clothes. You feel for him with his struggle to overcome everything that lies between him and his princess. Do you need more if you have such a beautiful world and cleverly crafted dungeons in a game? I say no.
Final Fantasy – what keeps me interested? Well, I must say the whole package. I pretty much love every game of the franchise. XIII was a great geame in my books even though so many people complained about it. FFVII was great, we know. Now get over it. I don’t pick out party of games and say they ruined it for me. I’m the kind of person who picks out things of games that I really liked and FF games always offer an epic experience in depth, gameworld and character development.
Also, Majora’s Mask for the win, right? :D
KeRaSh
Damn the spelling mistakes.
*I had a blast
*game in my books
*parts of games
Spotter5
Maybe slightly off topic but the double standards seems to run with games of the same genre too. From what I can gather, if Homefront was called Call of Duty: Homefront it would have gotten 9/10’s as it seem to have the same mechanics as every other CoD game. But because it isn’t its getting low scores… Also graphics are said to be poor, but so are the CoD games now!? Still, Homefront looks like it could be fun.
E8_BALL_
no consistency, graphics are good & bad depending on the dev.
nobody can dispute that i.ward installments graphis are sweet & t-archs are far below this gens capabilities.
(talking graphics alone)
teflon
Here’s the thing. On home consoles, there’s been a grand total of 4 Mario platforming games since the N64 launch. Compare that with eight CoD games in that time span. There’s been 5 Halo FPS in the last decade, etc. etc.
What was it that was said about SSX? That it’s been given a rest and will come back stronger for it? Well, isn’t that just what Nintendo are doing? Ignore all the franchised titles and re-releases. When you get down to the bare roots of Mario, how many actual full titles have been released, and how many of those have been a simple cash-in that doesn’t evolve the series.
By my count, the only releases that didn’t evolve Mario have been Galaxy 2 and the New Super Mario Bros. games. That’s pretty good going, when you think about it, but does set a worrying precedent for the future.
Mario might be everywhere, but he’s just a face, when it comes to the actual games, Nintendo have very rarely stood still, nor have they flooded the market with core platforming titles until very recently.
djhsecondnature
Interesting point you raised but there has been at least 5 Mario platformers since N64 launch (Mario 64, Mario Sunshine, Galaxy, Galaxy 2 and New Super Mario Bros Wii).
But you can’t discard the handheld releases, nor the spin-offs. I mean ‘Mario’ has been in 75 titles in the last ten years. 75!!! It’s more the over saturation of the brand, rather than the game.
I know you argue about the ‘roots’ of Mario but you can’t just discount them because it makes the argument easier. He’s everywhere and it’s wearing thin really. Would be nice to see Ninty carve out some new franchise rather than rely on the ones of old every single year.
minerwilly
100% agree about Mario , Nintendo . Said much the same on this site twice recently only nowhere nearly as concisely put as you Gamoc .
Suhn-Sol-Jashin
Dude, you can’t compare the FF series with CoD. With CoD you have the same campaign everytime, same characters and such, and on the FF you don’t. They’re completely different Genres too.
You obviously don’t play FF.
Gamoc
I think you missed the point of the article.
Mr.Spo
Since you’re an old friend of mine, I joined to respond…
Zelda is a strange beast. I think it has become stale, much as I love it. I think you enjoyed Wind Waker and Majora’s Mask because out of the 3D Zeldas, they represent the most structurally, aesthetically and thematically unique Zeldas. Wind Waker’s whimsy and oceans are captured beautifully by an art style that has allowed for visuals that will age far better than many games contemporary to it, and Majora’s Mask is the oddest, darkest and saddest of all Zeldas. I felt a pang of regret every time I reset the three day cycle–even though it was necessary to save the world of Termina, how many worlds did I doom to save one world in the end? Skyward Sword represents an important point for Zelda as a series, it risks being seen as quaint and outdated compared to other action adventure franchises. They have taken aesthetic risks, but not as bold as Wind Waker. What they need to do is take structural risks, as they did with Majora’s Mask, they can’t repeat the same –Town, Dungeon, find item, use item to beat Boss, discover identity as hero, set out into field, rinse and repeat for 5-8 times– structure that has been used since Ocarina. It works, and it works very well. It makes for exceptionally enjoyable adventures. Twilight Princess added a level of emotion, cinematic quality and sheer epic adventuring unseen in previous Zeldas, and despite how much I absolutely enjoyed it, I was still left wanting. The thing is, Nintendo perfected that formula at the first attempt with Ocarina of Time. Perhaps it is difficult to step out that of very, very long shadow.
What I’m suggesting is that a ‘traditional’ Zelda game may not step out of the shadow of Ocarina until the Wii’s successor comes along, and that Skyward Sword will be a more experimental experience akin to Wind Waker and Majora’s Mask. As for Mario, I think you’ve missed the point if you play for story. It isn’t about rescuing the princess, its about playing for the enjoyment of playing. New Super Mario Bros takes nowhere near enough risks, I feel, I’ll be clear on that. As a platformer, it is boring. On the other hand, the two Galaxy games have more variety in them than entire series do. To quote from Edge’s review of Galaxy 2; “It’s often a criticism to say that something is built from gimmicks, but the problem only actually arises the moment those gimmicks run out. In Galaxy 2’s case, they never do. This is a game that refuses to bore you, that can take you to the 60-star mark before asking you to do the same thing twice. It reuses assets, but almost never recycles ideas; you’ll never see another title so thrifty, or so gratuitous.”
As for Kid Icarus–it’s the first Kid Icarus title in 20 years, and only the third in the franchise. It’s also completely different to the platform style games the original two Kid Icarus games. Much more of an on-rails shooter/flying game/dungeon crawling/combat mix from the director of Smash Bros Melee. If you don’t pay attention to what Nintendo do with their franchises throughout the years, it’s easy to miss the changes in them. The changes can be gradual, as with Zelda, or they can be sudden–look at the identity crisis Metroid has had since its initial side scrolling days. The sublime Prime series was followed by a Pinball (!) game and the-good-game-with-a-dreadful-story 2D/3D 3rd person 1st person hybrid Other M.
I think alot of confusion with Nintendo comes from the fact that yes, in some cases they reuse ideas and mechanics, but simply in others that they reuse characters and franchises but with completely different mechanics and ideas–as will be the case with Kid Icarus. The trick for them is they appeal to their veteran audience while finding new audiences, and new ways to play, even if that isn’t for everyone. They establish new franchises–as they are doing this year in the shape of the Mistwalker co-developed Last Story, and the internally developed Steel Diver and Xenoblade Chronicles.
I get sense of gamer fatigue in your article, fatigue with Mario in particular. But Mario has managed to stay relevant to tens of millions of people. It’s fitting then, that you mention Activision’s latest behemoth (Black Ops, which I love by the way) in your article. Only a few months ago Activision sacked the entire team responsible for the Guitar Hero business. This was because of serious mismanagement on Activision’s behalf, I feel. You’re tapping into something that’s a wider concern, for me–that when something sells, gaming companies become complacent. That was certainly the case with Guitar Hero. It is the case with 2D Mario. I fear it became the case with Zelda–I hope sincerely Skyward Sword will prove me wrong. The same old franchises will be here to stay, particularly with Nintendo, but so long as they are reinvented, either in small or large ways, this is no bad thing.
You’re enjoying Pokemon Black, I take it? I enjoyed it too. That’s a fine example of an internally developed Nintendo game from a massive selling, 15 year old franchise not in need of a revamp in order to continue to be a massive hit. Still, I take it you noticed all the tweaking and slight reinventing they’ve done to make it fresh? I guess that could have made my argument for me…
Ah well. That wouldn’t have taken up twenty minutes of dissertation time. I hope life is good, comrade!
(This is virtually a blog in response. I apologise!)