|
|
|
A Nintendo community by the fans!
|
|
|
∧ |
Forum main |
|
|
How many other devs make "Nintendo-style" games? [roundtable]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It reoccurred to me recently that Nintendo really doesn't make games in the same way as most other current developers. I mean, if you look at it historically, we started with arcade games, which usually made the most of a single mechanic. A limited amount of content, but high replay value. Then the shift to home consoles sort of broadened the scope of a video game. Now we could have adventures (even on the 2600!). Which first meant bigger worlds in which to ply that limited set of mechanics. But soon that definition evolved to include games in which the mechanics expanded and changed over time, resulting in a more varied (but perhaps less pure) experience. In it's early history, Nintendo was a key component of this evolution from arcade games (Donkey Kong, Balloon Fight) to expanded arcade-styled games (Super Mario Bros.) to more realized worlds with more varied mechanics (The Legend of Zelda, Metroid). Over time, Nintendo has further refined its ideal of video game design. Basically, a gameplay-driven experience, in which creative level design and/or new abilities keep the experience fresh over the course of the game. We love that shit, right? But most established developers don't make that type of game anymore. The current vogue seems to favor one set of gameplay mechanics throughout an entire game (or even series), modulated largely by change in setting or narrative. Rather than bring new actors on the stage, they change the set design. I think this explains why Nintendo fans' tastes are often so different than those of the mainstream. Why some of us feel alienated in gaming discussions. To an extent, we're playing apples, and they're playing oranges. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule. Independent devs mostly prioritize gameplay, albeit with a more limited scope. So, two questions: 1) Do you agree or disagree with the analysis above? 2) If you agree, which other developers still make "Nintendo-style" games? URL to share (right click and copy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
06/29/15, 23:12 Edited: 06/29/15, 23:35
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ZeroI don't really know what the exact definition of "system" is, it's kind of like "mechanic", it's a game design term that seems like it can be applied to lots of things. Like in Dark Souls, is the combat a system, or is it a mechanic? Or both? I dunno. But back to Nintendo, yeah they certainly have specific way they design Mario, constantly introducing all these different obstacles and then re-configuring them in different ways to always keep you guessing and also doing something new, I feel like other devs obviously try to rip that off but none are as successful. Something like Rayman comes to mind, it has many of the same elements but it always feels at bit more sloppy and random, and the difficulty spikes in some the early levels to the point where it feels unfair, but then later levels are easier. Mario always has a nearly perfect difficulty slope because of the way they systematically keep upping the complexity of the challenges. EDIT: Back to the OP, the more I think about the more I think the answer is none. No one else makes games like Nintendo. Nintendo makes Nintendo-style games, just like Bethesda makes Bethesda-style games, and EA makes... shit. (jk, I'm sure some EA games are good, I just mostly avoid them) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There aren't many, really, especially from the major publishers. @Zero brought up Batman, and I thought the first Batman: Arkham Asylum had a very Nintendo-esque design ethos, but they've really strayed from that quite a bit over the past few games. Some of that has gotten lost in translation with the move to an open-world. Anything open-world, really, loses a lot of that special feeling of a hand-crafted world. So many games now are moving in that direction and using "open world" as a selling point, but I find it to be a negative in some respects. It's one of the things that has actually worried me about Zelda U, in spite of how awesome it looks. A tighter, more focused package usually wins out for me. Bloodborne is a good example of a recent adventure game that had a really well-designed world, full of secret inter-connecting paths and exploration that felt rewarding and worthwhile. With more and more games going open-world, everything has become more mission-based (handling both story and experience progression) and a more gameplay-driven experience is put on the backburner for something that tries to be more immersive. But video games will never become 100% real-world replications, and whenever games try to do this, they just feel shallow -- there's more places to see and go to, but I never feel like there are more compelling things to actually do. I prefer things to be more "game-y", if that makes sense. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@nate38Bloodborne is very similar to Dark Souls just with more of an emphasis on speed and being aggressive, and some of the RPG elements are more streamlined. But I think the thing about those games that sets them apart from most games being made today and makes it feel like an "old-school" experience is the level of engagement. The game demands your attention, even the weakest enemy can pose a threat and you have to employ both strategy and skill in every encounter, the world is vast and complex and full of secrets that you will miss if you're not constantly looking and thinking, there's no NPC speaking in your ear to guide you, no map, no markers or icons floating in the sky, no hand-holding whatsoever. It's a lot like playing Mega Man, Castlevania, Metroid or Ninja Gaiden of old, those games also require skill and precision to play, you simply have to be engaged, you have to be really paying attention to what the hell your doing or you will die, you can't button mash your way to a Win screen while barely paying attention like most modern games. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
∧ |
Forum main |
|
|