It follows the basic Mario game formula, minus being able to play as Toad and Peach, with the same kind of world layout (tiles for entering levels, castles at the end of each world, ect.) that's been used in "Super Mario World" and "New Super Mario Bros Wii" and a bunch of other games. Though it's not a straight up remake of anything, it's more familiar than say, something like "Mario Sunshine" or "Luigi's Mansion" which were more deviant
Zelda games don't deviate much either, but they're definitely not remakes. Except, you know, for ALttP GBA WW Wii U, and OoT 3DS.
People probably looked at the title and thought: "Woah, already the 100th sequel of the same thing? Nintendo must have really run out of ideas." :derpe:
It's because when Nintendo actually does try new stuff, no one ever notices. I just had to google Wonderful 101 to even know what it was. And it seems very forgetable from the looks of it. Even so, it's only one new franchise in a decade of remakes, and will not likely live long enough to see a sequel. This is why Nintendo clings to it's originals like a toddler to his security blanket...
Now wait a second, are we talking about just games developed by Nintendo or any and all first-party Nintendo titles. Because Xenoblade Chronicles is a Wii-exclusive developed by first-party developer Monolith Soft and that released in 2011. There's also a ton of smaller Nintendo first-party titles that aren't successful or don't even make it overseas so you can't really say they cling to their old IPs out of insecurity when it's more like because they succeed. The same exact reason Microsoft couldn't let the Halo franchise die with Bungie separating and wanting to do something different. If we're just talking about Nintendo as a developer (so games developed in-house). I don't think they are any different than most developers. You can't fault the Nintendo EAD team for only releasing games from popular franchises, because in the past 5 years they've given us some really great titles, as well as Steel Diver for 3DS which was released in 2011 so you can't say they haven't given us a new IP in 10 years. I didn't think Steel Diver was all that special but it was still a new IP. (Oh and for the record, The Wonderful 101 was a pretty big highlight for the launch of the Wii U and once you've started playing it I don't think it's forgettable. You really can't judge a game until you've played it...I also don't think it counts as a first-party title since it was made Platinum Games, but it was published by Nintendo). Compare this to some of Sony's first-party developers who have produced 2 or 3 IPs in their entire existence and also rely on the name of franchises. Sony Santa Monica for example has collaborated on a lot of projects handled by different developers (such as Journey, The Unfinished Swan, and PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale) but the only games they seem to develop internally is the God of War series. I don't think it's really rare for developers to stick to established franchises when they have something successful so I don't see why Nintendo needs to held to this higher standard. Hell, Blizzard Entertainment made games for the same 3 franchises (Warcraft, Starcraft, and Diablo) since 1996 and they've only relatively recently announced new IPs.
Also, people say Nintendo should revive some of their old franchises, when, like I said in my OP, last gen alone, they revived Punch-Out, Kid Icarus, and Sin and Punishment.
Nintendo remakes a lot of games. However, I like their remakes and find them very playable. I also think lots of other people who fall into the "casual gamer" demographic like Nintendo and I think Nintendo makes some of the best games that are highly regarded by the demographic. Any Mario game is generally popular among casual gamers, which is cool. They're also cheaper than some of the alternatives found on other consoles. They make for good recreation that can be fun for any person of any age. Lots of other games don't stack up to that. It doesn't make them worse, but in my opinion it's nice to have good games out there that younger kids can play without being overexposed to gratuitous violence and sexual themes. That I can also enjoy those games is a bonus. Nintendo has kind of always had a "family friendly" reputation, much more so than Sony or Microsoft, though they do try.
Are you trying to say that "family friendly" games are "casual games"? Because that is simply not the case. Nintendo and Nintendo's first party makes a lot of different kinds of games, not all of them can be fit into what the industry would refer to as "casual games". Fire Emblem is a good example. Mario games are also popular amongst those who have played a lot of games, not just those who would identify as being a casual gamer.
No, I was not trying to say that all family-friendly games are casual games. And, for the record, I don't believe any game is much more of a "casual game" than any other. You can probably find someone who takes it seriously. I guess some people make money from it or practice business with it and others don't, for all the difference it makes. Certainly the term "casual gamer" seems to be used very liberally where I see it. To someone who plays a lot of different video games, everyone who doesn't is casual. To someone who puts immense amounts of time into many games, everyone who doesn't is casual. To someone who pours finances into and profits off of the games they play, everyone who doesn't is casual. I guess it's a matter of perspective. I only used the term in the first place because it's such a familiar term to the video game players here on the internet. It's meaning is highly relative. You are correct in what you have said. However, while not all family-friendly games are casual games (or the other way around) there is a general atmosphere of tied-in family friendliness and casual fun together in some of the Nintendo franchises that have been mentioned in this thread. I was simply saying I enjoy them being around. I said Nintendo has a family-friendly reputation, not that they only make/are affiliated with family-friendly games. Nintendo sometimes even uses that reputation to sell its games. I also said that many casual gamers enjoy Nintendo games. Could there be a correlation between those two facts? And could other, unrelated demographics also enjoy the games in question? Yes, of course, on both accounts.
Just making sure, because you were talking about casual games and then said it was nice that kids could play games that weren't full of graphic violence or sexual imagery and those two things aren't really related. I'm also really stuck up about using industry definitions for casual and core, so to me it doesn't make any sense when someone calls a lot of Nintendo games casual just because they are colorful and appropriate for children.
I think this article could be relevant --> http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-secret-developers-wii-u-the-inside-story It basically points out the difficulty Nintendo had before launch of the Wii U. The troubles they're having now is mostly because of the strange ways of handling third party publishers. You rarely see Nintendo trying to get exclusive partnerships with third parties (Although Kudos for Bayonetta) whereas Sony/Microsoft are throwing money at Activison/EA for exclusive map packs, DLC's, content etc.
I think the argument that Nintendo rehashes games comes from ignorance. I mean, you have to be ignorant to think all the Zelda games are the exact same thing. You can't say Twilight Princess is like Ocarina of Time. Also, Sunshine and Galaxy have different mechanics.
