Mario Kart has actually changed significantly since its inception: Super Mario Kart introduced super fun, light, kart racing with combat elements. Mario Kart 64 brought the series into the third dimension (not the 2D 3D that the original was). Mario Kart Double Dash tried its hand at making a brand new gameplay mechanic (co-op) and is technically the first online Mario Kart... again, though, only technically Mario Kart GBA, perhaps is the least impressive of the Mario Kart games. It was more of a best-of compilation of the best tracks, and it was really only important because it was the first portable Mario Kart. Mario Kart DS added in a fun challenge mode that is perfect for bitesized play, and I believe it was the first TRUE online Mario Kart. Mario Kart Wii was... Mario Kart Wii. First true online CONSOLE Mario Kart, motion controls... blah blah blah. Mario Kart 7 had some vast improvements to the way it handles online races, though some argue it also lost a lot of luster in that department. Each of the games improved the course selection significantly too. The courses have gotten more and more wacky and fun, and I would argue the whole series has just gotten more "fun" since the first one on Super Nintendo (with the exception of Mario Kart Wii). I think Mario Kart Wii did start the series off on introducing new ways to drive around the track, though, so that's also a big thing. Mario Kart 7 really ran with that idea, and it looks like Mario Kart 8 is continuing it. Not even listed above is that the tracks have also become much more dynamic and unpredictable. To me, that just adds to the fun. The tracks feel like they have more passion put into them, rather than just being "bent road segment here, cow here, foliage segment there" like a lot of other racing games; the tracks are breathtaking nowadays. They feel completely unique and amazing, and even the remakes of older tracks have awesome new elements. You can harp on a lot of series for lacking innovation, but Mario Kart is not one of them, mister Call of Duty has not changed all that much since its massive makeover in Modern Warfare. It's not a bad game for that, but it is frustrating that the only difference between the games nowadays is a couple killstreaks being different, a couple new guns, and the new maps (which in my opinion are just getting lazier and lazier by the year). But credit where it's due: I believe Modern Warfare completely turned the tables in gaming regarding persistent ranking systems, ranking up in games that aren't RPGs, killstreaks, and the most humbling of all to me: proof that no matter how big a juggernaut a game may be, it can always be overthrown. In this case, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare blew away Halo. I don't think anyone could have expected that. Call of Duty makes incremental improvements each entry (since Modern Warfare). The one thing that was perhaps a bit different was the Treyarch series... but now Black Ops II is way too much like Modern Warfare, so now the whole damn series is just Modern Warfare this and Modern Warfare that. There is not much to innovate on the Call of Duty front, but Ghosts looks like it will at least try something new. I disagree that Mario Kart has been the same game over the years. It has changed a ton. But I will not discount that Modern Warfare has been quite possibly the most influential videogame of the current generation. It really did change everything... when you have something that has that much of a monumental impact on an entire industry, it's hard to innovate further
technically this new IP is a spiritual sequel to xenogears. It looks like zone of the enders meets skyrim meets monster hunter
More Wii U trouble: http://kotaku.com/what-will-it-take-to-get-ea-on-the-wii-u-again-sell-m-513572163 "The only thing [Nintendo] can do to fix it is to sell more boxes," Frank Gibeau told Joystiq. "We publish games where we think we can make a great game and hit a big audience, and make money." And yet if you've played the first one, you know how to play the last one. The most obvious changes are the way it got worse going from 64 to DD and then even worse than that going to MK Wii.
Not really, Mario Kart DS came between DD and Wii and the majority class Mario Kart DS as the best entry in the series. In fact, the only things Mario Kart 64 brought were four player split screen and 3D courses (even the characters were still 2D sprites). Other entries have furthered the series more than that.
They've added a couple of things, but DD was so damn boring, and Mario Kart Wii is probably the least liked of all. The complete lack of balance and fairness in that game inspired memes.
If you've played the first SF, you know how to play the last one. If you've played the first Tekken, you know how to play the last one. If you've played the first Sonic, you know how to play the last one. If you've played the first Ace Attorney, you know how to play the last one. If you've played... Should I continue? Companies keep the gameplay base instact to avoid losing fans. That means nothing.
I'd also argue that fighting games are one of the least innovative of all genres, ever. I'm not a big fan of them for the very reason you just mentioned. Sonic's had plenty of different games. If you instantly know how to play Adventure, it's not because you played Sonic 1, it's because you know games in general. Japan is pretty bad with repetition too, granted. Just look at Dynasty Warriors. None of this is an argument against Nintendo's recycling.
You didn't get my point. Sonic the Hedgehog 1, 2 and 3 play almost the same. Of course Adventure and 1 play different, just like SMB and Galaxy play different. What I meant is that sequels will always play more or less like the previous game, otherwise calling them sequels would be pointless. Some games evolve a lot, like Mario Kart, while other series like COD change less.
Indeed. Completely agreed on this one. When the gameplay changes, it is a spin-off, not a sequel. Theatrhythm: Final Fantasy? Spinoff of the overall Final Fantasy series Metal Gear Ac!d? Spinoff of Metal Gear Solid series Uncharted: Fight for Fortune? Spinoff of Uncharted series Completely different gameplay mechanics mean a new game series/spinoff.
Sequels, I expect to play the same. Dragging out a single formula over 20 years is different. Tomb Raider evolved, Grand Theft Auto evolved, Metal Gear evolved, Resident Evil evolved, Fallout evolved, The Elder Scrolls evolved, Final Fantasy evolved, X-Com evolved, Burnout evolved, Ninja Gaiden evolved... ...get the point yet? Nintendo IPs aren't evolving, and it's intentional. That's good for the company and bad for the fans, unless of course you like being spoon-fed the same uninspired content time and time again.
I'm not really sure how you can say Mario Kart or any Nintendo IP has not evolved when you list Burnout, Xcom, Elder Scrolls and Tomb Raider as games that have evolved. How have those games evolved any more than any of Nintendo's franchises? What about Donkey Kong? Super Mario? Zelda? Especially Burnout, Elder Scrolls, and Tomb Raider. They are all essentially the same games through the years, with better graphics of course, and some major gameplay improvements... just like Mario Kart, Super Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, Metroid...
Tomb Raider is the one with the least amount of change, although the reboot doesn't exactly feel like any of the previous games. Burnout practically reinvented the open-world racer, added free roam multiplayer and a bunch of modes that aren't just racing. I'd say that's a fairly huge change. The biggest evolution Nintendo has ever had was when they were forced into going 3D by the PlayStation, and even then they seemed to avoid change as much as possible, i.e. opening a chest in Ocarina of Time. I don't know what the use in arguing is anyway as Shigeru Miyamoto is the person who said he doesn't want Nintendo's games to change. Take it up with him.
Fair enough, but the open world part didn't come until Paradise, and it arguably wasn't a Burnout game at all, in my opinion. It was more of a bridge game between Burnout and its mutation into Need for Speed. You can't tell me Super Mario didn't evolve from Super Mario Bros. to Super Mario Bros. 2 (USA) to Super Mario Bros. 3 to Super Mario World to Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island to Super Mario 64 to Super Mario Sunshine to Super Mario Galaxy, though? Maybe it's just that there are so many games in the series that it seems the evolution isn't as significant as other games (like Metal Gear to Metal Gear Solid to 2 to 3 to 4), but I think there is just as much evolution in the Mario series, if not more (storytelling notwithstanding, of course). Zelda opening a chest the same way between A Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time is a sign of it not evolving at all? I guess we should discount Metal Gear, as well, since that exclamation point appears the same way above all the enemies' heads when you get seen? Agree to disagree, but I think you just have a vendetta against Nintendo. Fire Emblem, perhaps that hasn't changed much over the years. Mario, though? The platforming gameplay is the same, but the games themselves have changed astronomically (quite literally with Super Mario Galaxy). Zelda also has the same gameplay as always, but it has evolved greatly as well. The other series you named? The gameplay has always been the exact same, but improvements in graphics, system architecture, and fluidity show improvement in all of those series, plus all the Nintendo ones.
There's nothing wrong with a legitimate vendetta. Of course I have problems with Nintendo, I'm admitting that openly. I also have valid reasons behind my issues, as does a rather large majority of the gaming community. Most people tend to look on Nintendo and its recent consoles as a joke. The big stories always revolve around whatever is going on with Microsoft and Sony and the few Nintendo fans mill around in the background being ignored by everybody. You're right though, I do see Yoshi's Island as one of the rare, unique game in Nintendo's catalogue, so well done Ninty, there's a SNES game out there that's worth playing. Very applicable to 2013. Super Mario Bros to Super Mario World... not so much. It's essentially the same thing with a few new hoops to jump through. And Burnout Paradise couldn't possibly be a bridge towards NFS, because that deal didn't even exist back then. Even if it had, it's more a case of NFS taking on Burnout-esque properties than the other way around. Hot Pursuit and Most Wanted are definitely more Burnout than they are Need for Speed. I'll address this separately... yes, that does apply to Nintendo, that's the problem. The only way their games advance is in order to take advantage of new technology. As I said earlier, with the jump from 2D to 3D it was noticeable, since then... not really. If all game franchises are going to do is improve graphics, you end up with the kind of repetitive gameplay Nintendo's first party titles have to offer. And on that note, it's not just the recycling that's the whole issue, it's the fact their consoles practically rely on these recycled games and almost nothing else that makes it an issue. If these beloved IPs were appearing on the Playstation 4 alongside the hundreds of worthwhile third-party games, people would be more interested. Sitting alone on a console that has little to offer other than a bit of nostalgia is why people aren't very interested in the Wii U.
Back in my day, consoles were only dictated by their exclusives, and multi-platform third-party games were very rare. The problem with the last couple generations has been that the consoles really aren't all that different from each other except for the exclusives. Way back when, though, that was a completely different story. The Xbox, PS2, and GameCube era was still quite nice with exclusives, but the Xbox and PS2 were very similar with their game library still. So in my opinion, I like that Nintendo's consoles are different in the technical specifications from the Sony and Microsoft ones because it opens the doors for more variety in their game library. According to this last generation mostly, and the one before that a little more loosely, at least. After this most recent E3, it's apparent that while the Wii U is a terrible joke of a console, it has more variety in its library and more exclusives than the other two consoles. There were only a few exclusives shown for both the Xbox One and PS4, whereas the majority of games shown for the Wii U and 3DS were exclusives. And a side note: This is one reason I really love handhelds as well... the handheld race is always behind the home consoles, and they are still dictated by exclusives. Very few multiplatform games are made between the competing handhelds of their era. 3DS and Vita? PSP and DS? Game Boy Advance? Game Boy Color and Game Gear? Game Boy Pocket and Atari Lynx? Yeah, I'll admit... I'm a Nintendo fanboy in terms of publishers/developers... but handhelds is really my fanboyism. I'm a handheld fanboy. I think there's still so much fun to be uncovered on handheld consoles, and they haven't hit that graphical/technical wall that we are experiencing in this next generation... not yet, at least. The improvements in the next consoles are so... minimal. Under the hood, they are big improvements I guess... but on the surface, what people really look for, they are really hitting a wall. Not so with handhelds!
For me, the next big step is a social one, which is odd because I hate Facebook/Twitter integration and the like. But I'm really interested in being able to stream my PS4 games to my friends and even allow them to take over control from me. The screenshot and video upload features are really exciting as well. I mostly play single player games, but I've had so many situations where I've pulled off a one-in-a-million feat or wanted to show somebody a new upgrade that these are the exact features I want from future consoles. I've been saying for years that every console should have a "print screen" button, and I'm so sick of having to take fuzzy photographs of the TV with my iPad. I'm not a big fan of handhelds, probably because I'm the kind of guy who will go through well over a hundred games in one console generation and I simply wouldn't find anywhere near that amount to interest me on handhelds. I like the look of a couple of Vita games and I think it's an amazing piece of hardware, I just want another 100 great (unique) games to hit it over the next 5 years and I'm not entirely sure that'll happen. If it got the support it probably deserves from developers, I'd be all over it. Nintendo does have some good exclusivity on their side, I just wish they'd make more exciting use of it, and get games out of the door on a more frequent basis. That said, Wikipedia lists about 212 exclusive games for the PlayStation 3. Some of them are Asia-only and a chunk are PSN games, but I'd still call it a good number regardless. With most console generations these days though, multiplatform outnumbers exclusives by a big amount, so it makes good sense to get a platform that will play those games effectively. It's probably what a good 90% of the gaming media revolves around and it's way too huge an amount for me to miss out on. Oh, and you have my thanks for keeping this debate a civil one. I have no ill feelings towards you other than thinking you're wrong about a few things
Anyone know if the new Battlefront 3/possible reboot (BattleFRONT, not field) will come to the Wii U?
