That’s wildly unfair. Even the games within those franchises are often wildly different from each other and many are widely considered hallmarks in game design. Plus, Nintendo doesn’t make Pokémon.
I will give you that the first iteration of a series, like Mario Kart, is innovative, but the 16 next iterations, not so much.
While Nintendo doesn’t make Pokemon, they are the publishers, technical platform provider and co-owner of the Pokemon Company, they would have all the leverage necessary to push the Pokemon games to innovate if they were interested in innovation.
What do you mean by first iteration of a series? Do you mean the first entry into the franchise?
I mean we can argue about the degree you can change a go-kart game but I think Nintendo does try different things. Mario Kart 64 was 3D with 4 players, Mario Kart DS did online play, Double Dash did the two drivers in one kart. Mario Kart Wii did motion controls. Mario Kart World Tour (I haven’t tried) but it has this open world driving concept, I think?
They also do milk their IP and they do release a lot of sequels like Mario Party and such.
However, at the same time Nintendo takes risks with their console/games like no other, I feel.
I won’t back their legal strategies though, I don’t think anybody should.
That doesn’t make sense if you think about it for a second. The entire game is designed around the destructible environments. One of the reasons it’s so good is that they use the interior of the landscape. And the gameplay loop is absolutely different.
But Nintendo also gets credit for Super Mario Galaxy; you’re right about that.
It’s a meaningful difference, but it’s still, at its core, “go into level, do little challenges to find a thing and progress the story”, except this time it’s banana instead of star.
I’m not saying you can’t enjoy the game but it’s not that different from Super Mario Odyssey. Its from the same development team, and you can clearly see they have a certain design that works.
And I’m not saying you do have to enjoy the game. I’m just saying that you’re starting with the opinion “Nintendo bad” and trying to backfill the reasons, because saying Donkey Kong Bananza isn’t innovative just doesn’t line up with reality. And saying that Nintendo as a whole isn’t innovative is just ridiculous.
That’s wildly unfair. Even the games within those franchises are often wildly different from each other and many are widely considered hallmarks in game design. Plus, Nintendo doesn’t make Pokémon.
I will give you that the first iteration of a series, like Mario Kart, is innovative, but the 16 next iterations, not so much. While Nintendo doesn’t make Pokemon, they are the publishers, technical platform provider and co-owner of the Pokemon Company, they would have all the leverage necessary to push the Pokemon games to innovate if they were interested in innovation.
What do you mean by first iteration of a series? Do you mean the first entry into the franchise?
I mean we can argue about the degree you can change a go-kart game but I think Nintendo does try different things. Mario Kart 64 was 3D with 4 players, Mario Kart DS did online play, Double Dash did the two drivers in one kart. Mario Kart Wii did motion controls. Mario Kart World Tour (I haven’t tried) but it has this open world driving concept, I think?
They also do milk their IP and they do release a lot of sequels like Mario Party and such.
However, at the same time Nintendo takes risks with their console/games like no other, I feel.
I won’t back their legal strategies though, I don’t think anybody should.
Donkey Kong Bananza just came out.
Mario and Zelda games are constantly innovating.
Your complaint doesn’t align with reality.
I like how no one mentioned watered down donkey Kong rockband.
Anyone arguing against the fact that they’re milking dust out of their financial cow is delusional.
So I think what’s going on here is that you’re actually just a hater.
A little lol
Bananza is pretty darn similar to the studio’s last Mario game. Same gameplay loop at its core, but with a DK and map destruction skin thrown on top.
That doesn’t make sense if you think about it for a second. The entire game is designed around the destructible environments. One of the reasons it’s so good is that they use the interior of the landscape. And the gameplay loop is absolutely different.
But Nintendo also gets credit for Super Mario Galaxy; you’re right about that.
It’s a meaningful difference, but it’s still, at its core, “go into level, do little challenges to find a thing and progress the story”, except this time it’s banana instead of star.
Next you’ll tell me they both have jumping!
I mean that’s all really high level stuff.
I’m not saying you can’t enjoy the game but it’s not that different from Super Mario Odyssey. Its from the same development team, and you can clearly see they have a certain design that works.
And I’m not saying you do have to enjoy the game. I’m just saying that you’re starting with the opinion “Nintendo bad” and trying to backfill the reasons, because saying Donkey Kong Bananza isn’t innovative just doesn’t line up with reality. And saying that Nintendo as a whole isn’t innovative is just ridiculous.
wait, they made a portmanteau of bonanza and banana? HA! I have to play this game