Soapbox’s capabilities allow individual writers to express their opinions on hot topics that may not necessarily be the voice of the site. Kate, who defended her defense on March 31st yesterday, decided to tackle another hot topic. Why is Nintendo so focused on rebuilding old games?
Remember a few years ago, every movie was a remake or sequel to an 80’s classic? Do you remember how tired it was for those who had little nostalgia for the last decade? It may not be, but in the past year, the time has changed to beige sludge, so I don’t even know if I remember the zip code, but it was a tough time. Some of us wanted a new movie. innovation. Creativity. instead of, Ghost Busters (But women!), Blade Runner (But Deccard is old!), And Prometheus (But it’s completely missing the point alien series! ).
But that’s okay-now we only get a terrible live-action remake of Disney movies and 10,000 Marvel movies and TV shows. If you need the opportunity to understand the nuances of: Hah.. If this is a moody old man’s hill, I’m going to die.I want Hollywood to invest $ 1 billion in something New arrival..
We’re all on a moody train as we’re heading to the complaining building, Population: Me.
Looking back, there is no progress in trying to recreate our childhood through dark rosy specs. God knows that we all want to go back to a relatively peaceful and simple childhood, but because we were children they are peaceful and uncomplicated, and the world is still war, politics, And I didn’t realize it was full of misery.Constantly relive Goonies I’m not going to bring us back in the year of a dazzling child.
Similarly, the constant cancellations of old game sequels, remakes, and transplants are a bit tired because of my money. (I know I recently discussed the Pullblox sequel, but I include a lot, okay?) Remakes or sequels are usually an easy win for publishers: codebase, outline, The story already exists, so it’s definitely easy to rely on. Rather than building something from scratch, it’s already made. Of course, it’s expected to meet, and sequels and remakes rarely actually meet them-like the new Pokemon Diamond Pearl Tibis, there are always artistic or mechanical choices that infuriate and disappoint fans. There are, but people buy games anyway, so what’s important about it?
I’m going to get Really This is a moody old man, but modern Nintendo can feel afraid of really great risks. Recently, at least in the last few years, Nintendo’s new IP (intellectual property-in short, new ideas, new series, and generally entirely new games) shows off the latest technology or try new technology. It revolves around that.
I could be wrong here, but I Think Ring Fit Adventure was Nintendo’s last first-party game and was actually entirely new. Before that it was ARMS. Before that, Splatoon. If you want to extend the definition of “game”, there is also Nintendo Labo. There is also a 1-2-Switch. This is just a fun tech demo of Switch’s underutilized HD rumble. All great games, but almost all timers (except Splatoon, who has already created a sequel), and most of them include Joy-Con a lot to show what the switch can do. is.
I know. It’s boring to complain that Nintendo doesn’t give me what I want. I warned that I’m the most moody in the old man’s state, and I promise to return to admiring some ambiguous DS games soon.But i don’t I want A sophisticated remake will endlessly relive my childhood. I want to be able to access past games without having to pay £ 100 for a boxless copy of the GameCube game from eBay. We want to design our technology to last longer than a single console generation. I don’t want to be asked to upgrade, upgrade, and upgrade before I’m ready to move on.
Best of all, it may seem scary at first, but in the end you want a new experience, risk, and a leap of faith that will reward you. Nintendo fans (myself included, Hello) is famous that it is hard to love, there is always a risk to remember the anger unprecedented brand new series – Splatoon at first it seemed strange? Nintendo shooting game? No-but we all know they can pull it off.
Avoid the moment when the business shifts from “throwing things to the wall and seeing what sticks” to “this stuck-again, over and over again, and now I know it always sticks” not. Because that is how the business works. They have investors and shareholders who are pleased, and risk does not bring money. Mario, Zelda, and others have proved to be profitable, so they get a lot of money. Small games like Pikmin are shelved and occasionally trot to please cult followers. That makes sense.
Seeking new dangers without knowing what we are actually doing I wantOr, the guarantee that we actually buy it is similar to asking Google to invest millions of dollars in a new line of nuclear tricycles or an affordable lunar trip. Sure, they have the money, the talent, and the connections to do it-but why are they going out of their comfort zone when it’s working?
We now live in an extreme world. There, most are judged by the masses to be good or terrible, and everything in between is resigned to the “meh” hall and will be forgotten forever. Why take a “well” risk when you can guarantee “good”? Even the worst mainline Zelda titles haven’t fallen below 9/10 these days, and even if the Trials of Time eventually consider it a bit unexploded (like the Skyward Sword), it’s Zelda. So it sells.
If the past few years have passed, one day you can expect new Nintendo ideas soon, such as when everything on Zelda / Mario Anniversary is a little gone. But until then, up to the bank, sequels and remakes, sequels and remakes. I still buy them. of course.I’m obsessed with Nintendo’s work, and I point out that none of these sequels or remakes have ever been bad..They are not free New arrival -And I got the same 5 games and movies over and over again, Ready player one-Cruel flavor.
In the meantime, I hope the indies will fix something weird and awesome, and hope someone someday deserves to give them a $ 1 billion budget. Girls can dream.