Just curious, after all of this NSMB2 talk. How much is too much? Can a good thing ever become bad? Do you lose anything by playing every other entry? Are most of the complaints coming from a vocal minority, or is franchise fatigue a common sentiment?
Assuming reasonably similar (series average) quality and length from entry to entry, are there any Nintendo (or other) franchises that you could conceivably buy and enjoy EVERY year?
I'll say 2D Metroid. Right into my veins. Definitely not Zelda, though. It takes me, like, a year to play through each one.
I like Mario games of all kinds so I already get what I want every year, although the quality isn't always there.
Maybe not every year, but I'd like to have seen more Super Smash Brothers games. A Mario-, Zelda-, and Pokémon-specific version would be great. But I guess that doesn't really apply here. Other than Mario, there's not really a series I'd want every year, just a bunch I'd like more than one of each generation.
Actually, I take my previous answer back. I thought of a franchise I'd love to see come out every year.
Not the "Country" stuff. I'm talking about the old-school, arcade-style stuff. Like Mario vs Donkey Kong. And have them come out at like, $8 or $10 downloadable titles. Maybe alternate between the standard MARIO vs DONKEY KONG games one year, and then the next year, do a MINI-MARIOs vs DONKEY KONG game. Then back to MARIO vs DONKEY KONG. And so forth.
And make sure they are downloadable on both eShops - both Wii U and 3DS. Especially Wii U. Because GOOD GAWD everyone knows the console players need some games once in a while. Good ones.
Nah, I'm not a huge fan of anything being annualized outside of sports games. Even when sequels come out every two years, it seems a bit much.
That said, there's the other extreme where the gap seems to be a bit much as @Mop it up mentioned. I don't think there ever needs to be 5-6 years between Smash Bros. games. I don't want to see it annualized, but for that type of game, the time between sequels should be closer to that of 1/Melee than Melee/Brawl and apparently Brawl/next one.
I would vote yes to several if the styles got switched every year. For example a 2D Metroid every other year and a 3D one in the alternating years. Same thing with Zelda. 2D top down, then 3D then maybe 2D sidescrolling ala Zelda II.
I do not want any franchise annualized but I would love for some of them to have DLC released to keep me playing some of them. Theres no reason a Zelda game couldn't get additional dungeons, additional circuits in Mario Kart, and new Levels in Mario games. It won't happen but it would be nice.
Ehhh it depends what you are in to Zelda for. If it's just the core dungeons then yeah it would work but for others like me who like the whole experience it's going to be devoid of buildup or ramifications within the game world. I'd rather if they had a good idea for a Zelda dungeon they save it for fully fleshed out game.
I would buy a new Kid Icarus game every year. But that's mostly because of the 20 year constipation on these games.
Other than that, probably nothing. 3D Mario, if they could keep the quality up, but I think that's pretty unrealistic. 2D Mario, if they could change the look and feel up regularly, but that's probably unrealistic, too.
Hey, Animal Crossing! Buy the exact same game every year. It's like a tradition!
Assuming reasonably similar (series average) quality and length from entry to entry
The problem is that there is absolutely no reason to assume this would ever be true for any franchise. I'm pretty sure every franchise that has been annualized has suffered in some form, at least in "too repetitive / nothing new" and such.
@Stephen I think those titles are the few that don't need more than one a generation. They pretty much never get old for me.
Yeah but realistically, would it have gotten a better crack at online? Nintendo doesn't seem to shift their attitude towards things mid-generation very often. I guess this comes back to my "there is absolutely no reason to assume" comment. I'm looking at this more in how I think these things would realistically play out versus how I would ideally want them to play out. Also Smash already has an insane amount of characters, I think they do clones purely because they just don't want to try to balance any more unique characters than they already have. Could be wrong on that though.
Actually, there's really no reason for sports games to be annual any more, except that it lines the studios pockets. In NBA2K12, the company automatically updates the rosters for you, but stops on the day of the draft so you have to buy the new game for the rookies. Luckily, I have the PC version and it's easy as pie to download an updated roster. I'm seriously considering not getting NBA2K13 if there's not some dramatic differences.
None. I hate it when publishers do that crap. It's one of the reasons why I pretty much refuse to buy any EA sports games. Cuz I know that if I plop down money for one of them, a better version is going to come out in the not too distant future. I feel like I'm buying an unfinished game.