It really doesn't need any more innovation, that's such a lame excuse. Not all sequels require groundbreaking new innovation in comparison to their former titles, that is way to experimental and risks not being a proper sequel.
All they have to do is just duplicate the mechanics from GX, keep the cup names and make some new maps. But preferably, not trying to be like mario kart and adding that silly casino race.
[QUOTE=Karmah;41128752]It really doesn't need any more innovation, that's such a lame excuse. Not all sequels require groundbreaking new innovation in comparison to their former titles, that is way to experimental and risks not being a proper sequel.
All they have to do is just duplicate the mechanics from GX, keep the cup names and make some new maps. But preferably, not trying to be like mario kart and adding that silly casino race.[/QUOTE]
Except snaking, of course. Gotta play the game it is supposed to play.
Racing games don't tend to be innovative, it's totally alright.
Nintendo seem to be saying a lot of reasonable things recently. They don't want to do a game badly and disappoint fans. I am somewhat with them that a bad game is more disappointing than no sequel. But still, would be nice to see a "we're working on it, but it's tough".
I wouldn't even care if it added much
I just want a new Fzero game.
lol difficult to innovate. Unlike Mario, Donkey Kong, Zelda, Smash Bros, etc. Which at e3 were all fucking basically rehashes.
I loved F-zero X as a kid, it's my favorite racing series, aslong as there's some neat maps I'd love a new one.
[QUOTE=BenJammin';41129218]lol difficult to innovate. Unlike Mario, Donkey Kong, [B]Zelda[/B], Smash Bros, etc. Which at e3 were all fucking basically rehashes.[/QUOTE]
The new Zelda game isn't a rehash...
[QUOTE=Liem;41129207]I wouldn't even care if it added much
I just want a new Fzero game.[/QUOTE]
I only ever played the first and I'll be honest, I'd be happy with a Wii U / 3DS reboot. It doesn't have to be anything innovative as the game itself has a unique charm to it.
It's pretty irritating listening to the internet when they talk about Nintendo.
Nintendo gets slammed for making too many samey sequels and not coming up with new IPs. Then they come up with new IPs and nobody cares about them. Later, Nintendo gets slammed for not making enough sequels for their old IPs. So they go and make sequels for old IPs (Sin & Punishment: Star Successor and Metroid: Other M to name a couple) and they don't sell while people complain that it's either more of the same or too different from the original.
Miyamoto, the one helming the oft-protested sequel factory Mario that everyone complains about not doing anything new, comes out and actually says he doesn't want to do another F-Zero because he can't do anything new with it. So everyone says "it's okay, just make the same thing again". What???
GX fucking ruled, but it basically was just an updated clone of the original. I had no qualms with that though, those games are really about their level design and they did fantastic with that aspect. At this junction though I'm sure there's more they could do with the series, they just aren't thinking hard enough. I mean, it's a racing game in the future.. they could do SOMETHING with that. They don't need to make it all Twisted Metal or anything, but they could add more unique properties to the different racers' vehicles or something along those lines. More complex customization?
I wouldn't mind a new f zero story mode like this...
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFtw7qW7Vcw[/media]
I think a great potential for the wii u and f zero is to use the game pad as a track editor.
[QUOTE=Shugo;41129363]It's pretty irritating listening to the internet when they talk about Nintendo.
Nintendo gets slammed for making too many samey sequels and not coming up with new IPs. Then they come up with new IPs and nobody cares about them. Later, Nintendo gets slammed for not making enough sequels for their old IPs. So they go and make sequels for old IPs (Sin & Punishment: Star Successor and Metroid: Other M to name a couple) and they don't sell while people complain that it's either more of the same or too different from the original.
Miyamoto, the one helming the oft-protested sequel factory Mario that everyone complains about not doing anything new, comes out and actually says he doesn't want to do another F-Zero because he can't do anything new with it. So everyone says "it's okay, just make the same thing again". What???[/QUOTE]
This is why I tend to ignore people who offer the argument that Nintendo only makes rehashes.
If they make something new or different, they never buy it or don't give it a chance.
The fact that someone already brought up Donkey Kong as an example of a rehash is amazing, because there's only been two actual Donkey Kong platformers in the past 10 years (unless you want to count Jungle Beat.) and it was Retro's decision to make the new Donkey Kong. They figured that since everyone loved Returns, that they should go ahead and make a sequel.
Like, if you're going to criticize Nintendo, then please get actual arguments and don't just say they rehash games...because chances are you didn't even bother to play those games either, in which case, you truly have no argument and you're just being an idiot.
[QUOTE=gnome;41129409]GX fucking ruled, but it basically was just an updated clone of the original. I had no qualms with that though, those games are really about their level design and they did fantastic with that aspect. At this junction though I'm sure there's more they could do with the series, they just aren't thinking hard enough. I mean, it's a racing game in the future.. they could do SOMETHING with that. They don't need to make it all Twisted Metal or anything, but they could add more unique properties to the different racers' vehicles or something along those lines. More complex customization?[/QUOTE]
It's a shame they've never tried to replicate the F-Zero X expansion pack for 64DD. Especially since anyone that wasn't Japanese didn't get to play it. But I think Miyamoto is also worried about the sales of the game, because after F-Zero X, the sales of the games after that just went lower and lower. If they're going to make a new game in the series, they're going to want to make it different to try to get people more interested because going by the sales, it seemed as if people just didn't care about F-Zero anymore.
[QUOTE=Karmah;41128752]It really doesn't need any more innovation, that's such a lame excuse. Not all sequels require groundbreaking new innovation in comparison to their former titles, that is way to experimental and risks not being a proper sequel.
All they have to do is just duplicate the mechanics from GX, keep the cup names and make some new maps. But preferably, not trying to be like mario kart and adding that silly casino race.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Look at Batman: Arkham City vs Batman: Arkham Asylum. They are at the core the same game; however, with small tweaks to gameplay and more interesting writing and level design, you get a game that's orders better than its predecessor.
[editline]21st June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Shugo;41129363]It's pretty irritating listening to the internet when they talk about Nintendo.
Nintendo gets slammed for making too many samey sequels and not coming up with new IPs. Then they come up with new IPs and nobody cares about them. Later, Nintendo gets slammed for not making enough sequels for their old IPs. So they go and make sequels for old IPs (Sin & Punishment: Star Successor and Metroid: Other M to name a couple) and they don't sell while people complain that it's either more of the same or too different from the original.
Miyamoto, the one helming the oft-protested sequel factory Mario that everyone complains about not doing anything new, comes out and actually says he doesn't want to do another F-Zero because he can't do anything new with it. So everyone says "it's okay, just make the same thing again". What???[/QUOTE]
There's a very reasonable explanation for this. The people who don't like the Mario sequel factory are not the same people who say "It's okay, just make the same thing again."
Also Metroid: Other M was a perversion not just as a Metroid game, but as a video game in general. People didn't slam Other M because it "wasn't different enough," or because "it's too different," they slammed it because Other M was a terrible fucking game with disgusting writing. It was a game that got judged for what it was; terrible.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;41130838]Also Metroid: Other M was a perversion not just as a Metroid game, but as a video game in general. People didn't slam Other M because it "wasn't different enough," or because "it's too different," they slammed it because Other M was a terrible fucking game with disgusting writing. It was a game that got judged for what it was; terrible.[/QUOTE]
It wasn't that bad. The writing? Yes, that was terrible. The gameplay was fine and the only thing that was really bothersome was the "YOU'RE NOT AUTHORIZED TO DO THAT" stuff. The actual gameplay itself was okay, which is generally the whole point of playing a game in the first place...
The gameplay was average. It wasn't [I]bad[/I], but it wasn't an experience I wanted to put up with when the reward for the meh gameplay was just more of the terrible writing.
The problem isn't innovating the series (there were some new mechanics in Climax they could introduce to the consoles, map editting that was never seen outside Japan, and there's always online multiplayer, that I'm sure the player base would be content with), the problem is trying to make the series sell or appealing to a bigger audience. The anime dubbing got cancelled and the series has never sold well despite Nintendo's past efforts.
Also there's still very little merit to the "Mario Sequel Factory" argument because
1. the NSMB series is spread apart not just by development time differences (3 years for each one bar 2 and U, both developed by different teams,) but they're all on different consoles. 4 games over 6 years all on different consoles vs 7 games over 5 years on the same consoles (Call of Duty in Gen 7)
2. NSMB 1 serves as a re-introduction of 2D Mario platforming because there hadn't been a true 2D Mario platformer (the remakes don't count) for 10 years at the time. NSMB Wii had an emphasis on Multiplayer. 2 had an emphasis on actually exploring the levels while trying to find the fastest way to beat a level and U's emphasis was on multiplayer with the addition of a 5th player (Or rather, a player with the ability to help or hinder you). It's "the same" in terms of a gameplay sense, but each one at least offers a different experience in a certain way.
3. Galaxy 2 was universally superior to Galaxy 1 and more people were disappointed by the fact that the new 3D Mario wasn't a Galaxy 3 than they were with "ANOTHER MARIO GAME?!?"
4. You're not forced into buying the games...This is another big one that nobody seems to realize, and it's not just with Mario...But you still can't trash on a game if you haven't actually played it.
[QUOTE=BenJammin';41129218]lol difficult to innovate. Unlike Mario, Donkey Kong, Zelda, Smash Bros, etc. Which at e3 were all fucking basically rehashes.[/QUOTE]
Mario: The levels are a lot bigger and there's more variety not just with enemies or obstacles, but levels (which I feel 3D land didn't have enough of) and there's actual boss fights this time. And Multiplayer. Something they've literally been trying to pull off since Mario 64 and couldn't do.
Donkey Kong: Like I mentioned before, are you seriously complaining over a new DK game? The same DK who hasn't had a game for years up until DKCR? The same DKCR that a lot of people actually enjoyed and wanted more of? I will admit that the hype leading up the reveal was a little stupid (Because Retro implied it was something huge) but a new DK game isn't bad. Far from it.
Zelda: They basically admitted they were going to do an HD remake of one of the 3D games so people could have something to play while they made the actual new Zelda. So it was going to be announced anyway whether you like it or not. Considering the fact that it gives more people a chance to play it since a lot of people just wrote the game off when it released for being too "kiddy", I'd say it's fine.
Smash Bros.: This one has even less merit than the NSMB complaints. 4 games over 15 years...Again, all on different consoles, and most of the characters have actually gotten numerous adjustments over those 4 games while simultaneously making the roster a lot bigger and the levels have only gotten better and the multiplayer crazier. I think you're just looking for things to criticize Nintendo on, dude. Calm down.
The games aren't even out yet and you're writing them off. That's really stupid and you need to get over it.
[QUOTE=Donman;41131256]The problem isn't innovating the series (there were some new mechanics in Climax they could introduce to the consoles, map editting that was never seen outside Japan, and there's always online multiplayer, that I'm sure the player base would be content with), the problem is trying to make the series sell or appealing to a bigger audience. The anime dubbing got cancelled and the series has never sold well despite Nintendo's past efforts.[/QUOTE]
Ding ding ding. F-Zero is a series of games you can easily get frustrated with because the game is designed to be really hard. There's only so much they can really do to make the game appealing without completely changing the way the game works (which F-Zero fans would be upset about.) Trying to make the game easier or adding items just turns the game into Mario Kart with higher speeds. Even Online play isn't something they can easily do with this series because of the difficulty curve and adding something like lag will just make playing it even worse, because if you fall off the track, you don't respawn in multiplayer.
[QUOTE=darkzero226;41130978]It wasn't that bad. The writing? Yes, that was terrible. The gameplay was fine and the only thing that was really bothersome was the "YOU'RE NOT AUTHORIZED TO DO THAT" stuff. The actual gameplay itself was okay, which is generally the whole point of playing a game in the first place...[/QUOTE]
No. No no no. No. Metroid: Other M was a total bastardisation of a Metroid game. The only reason that I still own it is because I want to have every metroid game produced. But holy shit, the gameplay was dreadful. The repeated "slow down when a projectile comes near you so you can have loads of time to make a decision" got really annoying after a while, and the fact that the game told you[B] exactly [/B]where every powerup was , it totally eradicated the point of a metroid game. Missile shooting was atrocious, and some of the bosses were just horrible to fight.
And writing wise, they essentially just took Metroid Fusion's story and made it all sobby-wobby. And shit. It was dreadful. You'd have thought that samus would have caught on exactly what was going on in Metroid Fusion.
It's a shame though because nintendo now think that metroid is a dead franchise due to the hilariously poor sales of Other M. I'd have really liked to have seen another prime game or maybe even a game similar to Other M that was, y'know, not shit.
also I love F-Zero and to be honest, a new game would be great. They just need to get on par with WipEout
OK then just take an older f-zero game, update the graphics, and release it as a remake on the wii-u e-shop
I've never played quite a few f-zero games
[QUOTE=darkzero226;41131414]Also there's still very little merit to the "Mario Sequel Factory" argument because
list of reasons[/QUOTE]
I've never been particularly fond of Nintendo IP's so I don't feel like it's my place to criticize how much they do or do not innovate from game to game and platform to platform. I'm a fan of Call of Duty and Battlefield so I know what it's like to follow a series you enjoy and watch people on the sidelines complain about it not being "different" enough.
But honestly? If Activision or EA announced a sequel 4 years after their last game and the major changes were "the levels are larger and it some characters were tuned" they would be the laughing stock of News Node. I think it's entirely reasonable to say that Nintendo, since the Gamecube launched, has more or less become not so much a Mario factory, but just a general first-party-franchise company. Not that there is anything wrong with it, I realize how many people love Zelda and Mario, but it's just how they do business now and have done for awhile. No one bought a Wii U for Assassins Creed.
Because of/in spite of that, I feel like an F-Zero sequel doesn't necessarily have to innovate. It's a racing game. Tune the controls, up the graphics (while making sure it runs well), maybe add some new mechanic, and release it for your newest console. I don't think we need an F-Zero every year but it's still a relatively good racing game, atleast back when I played it.
[QUOTE=meppers;41133109]OK then just take an older f-zero game, update the graphics, and release it as a remake on the wii-u e-shop
I've never played quite a few f-zero games[/QUOTE]
I hope they do something like that. I've never played any F-Zero game despite being pretty big into Nintendo stuff.
Graphics of a modern game, online 8 to 16 player races. You've not even come close to your potential in the way of track ideas. Character banter with a Kid Icarus level production values, and no offense to Fzero GX, but fine tune the bugs out and balance the game.
F-Zero isn't a perfect series, we could do with a sequel that's just flat improvement. Not everything needs "innovation".
[QUOTE=power-mad;41134901]Graphics of a modern game, online 8 to 16 player races. You've not even come close to your potential in the way of track ideas. Character banter with a Kid Icarus level production values, and no offense to Fzero GX, but fine tune the bugs out and balance the game.
F-Zero isn't a perfect series, we could do with a sequel that's just flat improvement. Not everything needs "innovation".[/QUOTE]
Bugs? What bugs? I never encountered a single bug in the entirety of playing GX that I can recall, and I played the shit out of it. Balancing maybe because some pilots' machines from the start are quite legitimately outclassed by other ones. I remember there being some characters that had stats like "D, D, C", and then maybe their only legitimate advantage was the weight difference which factored in a bit. There really could have been more stats to play with and then it would have made having like 30 characters a bit better of an idea.
I definitely would not want the game to be any less hard though. I know people are always crying about crashing into walls and shit, but the game is all about reaction time and if you can't help that, learning the tracks. Me, I fucked that game up, and I'd always make sure to turn on no recovery when I played with friends just so I could laugh at how quickly they were out of the race. It does get FUCKING hard though. I unlocked the diamond cup and completed everything on master except for that one (which I believe was required to get the arcade content). That I'm not sure I even believe to be possible, the tracks in that cup are fucking ridiculous, and the AI are fuckers on higher difficulties.
[QUOTE=power-mad;41134901]Graphics of a modern game, online 8 to 16 player races. You've not even come close to your potential in the way of track ideas. Character banter with a Kid Icarus level production values, and no offense to Fzero GX, but fine tune the bugs out and balance the game.
F-Zero isn't a perfect series, we could do with a sequel that's just flat improvement. Not everything needs "innovation".[/QUOTE]
Nintendo is a company that likes their games to be their own thing. Like you could go back and still enjoy a game for what it is, they are their own distinct entities. Pretty much all of their games try and have a unique pull so that way they can be classics.
Kind of like this, considering if you had neither of the games, and were just purchasing one right now.
would you buy black ops 1 when black ops 2 exists?
would you buy twilight princess when skyward sword exists?
They are a company that tries to make things timeless, and capable of standing on their own.
[QUOTE=gnome;41135242]Bugs? What bugs? I never encountered a single bug in the entirety of playing GX that I can recall, and I played the shit out of it.[/QUOTE]
I might've said that wrong to imply glitches as in like the game crashing and such. What I mean more are exploits.
Snaking for starters is the most obvious one. I know people love the exploit, but they need to treat it and the other glitches people use to obtain speed as features, not as glitches. It shouldn't allow you to go 3 times the speed of what you normally can. They also could do with fixing tracks so the runs of a good number of them don't involve flying off the track old rainbow road style and skipping most of the level. This is the kind of stuff that if they added online would ruin it. Mario Kart 8 should be good enough evidence of that.
[QUOTE=Trogdon;41135290]
They are a company that tries to make things timeless, and capable of standing on their own.[/QUOTE]
A nice ideal, but does Mario Kart 64 stand on it's own? Does the original Smash Bros? We can play them for nostalgia, but what Nintendo did was flat out improve on those games later. This is the state F-Zero is in right now to me. It's a series that still has yet to add some modern features and perfect what it has for as much as I love it.
While I wish we were getting a new one, I really respect how the reason is that they can't think of anything new to bring to the table.
It's really not one of their franchises where they can afford to keep bringing out a new thing, and Zelda and Mario always bring something new to the table in terms of gameplay, minus NSMB.
Although I think that F-Zero is more of a franchise that people would be fine just having more of.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
