You're pretty much damned if you do damned if you don't, when Nintendo actually try to do something innovative it's written off as a novelty and they're criticized for not focusing solely on gameplay quality and when they do just that and make another solid title in their franchises it's criticized for not being radically different enough. I call it the Mega Man dilemma.
I mean is God of War III gonna be that different from the previous games? Is GTA IV that different from previous games? Are most sequels?
I agree that there hasn't been a Mario game as groundbreaking as Mario 64 or a Zelda game as groundbreaking as Ocarina of Time. But to be fair it's pretty damn hard for anything to be that groundbreaking nowadays when there's so many games and premises and gimmicks that are all over the place. The gaming industry isn't gonna see anything as groundbreaking as those games until there's a huge technological breakthrough and it's made cheap and accessible for developers.
I can't blame Nintendo for sticking to what they're good at, Nintendo still has ambition to come up with something like The Wii where the graphics aren't the selling point. At the same time, too much ambition has cost them money in the past (Virtual Boy).
I do think they rely a bit too much on the big name franchises and they should try focusing on some of their more neglected properties like Star Fox and F Zero, maybe revive old classics like Kid Icarus and Earthbound.
|