The Art of Defensive Branding
Nintendo needs to loosen up and reach out to new gamers. It needs to begin taking the kind of risks that brought it to the top two decades ago and create new and original games. Today we have a Nintendo that is so fearful of mediocre sales that it rarely ever releases a new game or fresh idea without prepackaging and stamping in one of the company's many franchises or mascot characters. Pikmin and Animal Crossing aside (AC being a port of a N64 game), I cant recall one 1st party title by Nintendo that isn't a sequel or tied directly into an existing series.
Just look at how much it is milking the Donkey Kong name as I speak. Donkey Konga, Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat, and DK: King of Swing could all be considered new and inventive games. Jungle Beat alone is one of the most innovative and addictive games Ive seen in years. Yet none of these are derivatives of either the classic Donkey Kong series (see Mario & Donkey Kong for that) or Rare's Donkey Kong Country trilogy. Each of those three titles could have been designed as a standalone game filled with new and original ideas, characters, and worlds. We could have seen the birth of wholly new concepts that surpass and break free of any limitations a license brings. Instead, Nintendo slapped the DK license on all three, pumped in a number of nostalgic items to make them feel like Donkey Kong, and called it a day. Resting on its past laurels with the DK series, Nintendo has ensured that all three games will sell, but also preemptively denied itself the ability to create something truly original in all facets of game design.
Many will argue that some, or all three, of the games mentioned above fit the Donkey Kong license perfectly and are best off as DK games. They may be right. The problem is that we'll never know. Nintendo doesn't think of new game ideas anymore. It develops new gameplay innovations around its many brands, preemptively shutting its eyes to entirely new game concepts. Perhaps Jungle Beat was best suited to the Donkey Kong license. Perhaps it wasn't. The world will never know because Nintendo never opened its eyes to the possibility of creating a totally new world for the game. Instead it took the safe route. Nintendo has always been an innovator in gameplay, but it falls back on the safety of its established brands more than any other company I know. A truly innovative game should be able to stand on its own.
Perhaps far worse than any recent abuse of the Donkey Kong license is the intense and consistent profiting that has been done to the Mario license, since its inception in the mid 80s. Dr. Mario, Yoshi, Mario Pinball...these are but a few examples of the lengths Nintendo has gone to ensure the profitability of a new game concept or idea. However, that doesn't diminish the quality of the games presented. Even with the Mario license, games like Mario Tennis would quickly fade if it werent for the quality of the titles themselves. There is also, most undoubtedly, a strong connection many gamers have toward the Mario universe and many of these games are very much worthy of existing as subsidiaries or entities of the Super Mario series. The true issue is that Nintendo pours so much into these kinds of titles that it invests no time into developing new franchises - entirely new stories, worlds, and game concepts.
The tale that unfolded around Rare's Dinosaur Planet perfectly demonstrates Nintendo's reluctance to let go and let creativity drive game development; as opposed to development following the guidelines of a set franchise. Dinosaur Planet was originally a completely new and promising adventure game in the vein of the Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. However, late in development someone at Nintendo noticed that the main character of the game somewhat resembled Fox McCloud (of Star Fox fame). What resulted was pressure from Nintendo and Rare's eventual retrofit of the game to become a Star Fox title. Renamed to Star Fox Adventures (SFA), the game was released on the GameCube in late 2002 (right after Rare officially announced its purchase by Microsoft) to mixed reviews. Though the game was fairly solid (it had its fair share of issues), there was no hiding the fact that it was not a Star Fox title. It was obvious that Rare had shoved Star Fox elements into a game that was designed to be something very different.
There is no greater evidence of this than the final boss battle of SFA. Gamers faced off against General Scales, who would have likely been the final boss if the game had remained Dinosaur Planet. However, the very second you swing your staff the battle ends and you hear an ominous voice that says something about General Scales no longer being needed. The General is then forced to relinquish his Krazoa spirit and falls to the ground, dead. Fox proceeds to grab the final Krazoa spirit and is warped back to the top of the palace where he surrenders it to the final Krazoa statue. Out of nowhere, a Krazoa Head begins to move and reveals itself as famed Star Fox nemesis, Andross. What's strange is that at no point in the game was Andross even mentioned, prior to this. He says something to the effect of "Now that I am reborn, I have the power to destroy the Lylat System!" Without hesitation, Fox jumps into his Arwing and players fight Andross in exactly the same way that they did in Star Fox 64.
The shocking end of the game left our own N-Sider.com Site Manager, Cory Faller, just as puzzled. "The way that all played out just left me aghast. It was as if Rare was desperately trying to tell the story of how the SF license was just tacked onto an already existing game idea out of nowhere, abruptly changing its focus, the storyline, and universe that were built for it," said Faller. I couldnt agree more with him. Gamers today will never know what Dinosaur Planet could have become had it been given a chance to shine.
In an odd way the Nintendo DS (Dual Screen) is another prime example of Nintendo's reluctance to let go and really put it all on the line. The entire concept of the new handheld system is that it offers an entirely new and completely novel way to play games. The DS hardware is very innovative and Nintendo is attempting to push the envelope with something new, yet it refuses to do so without the aid of the old and predictable. Nearly every single DS game I have seen from Nintendo is based on an already existing franchise.
Super Mario 64 DS, Animal Crossing DS, Super Mario Bros. DS, Wario Ware Inc. DS, Metroid Prime: Hunters, Mario Kart DS, Legend of Zelda: Four Swords DS, Advance Wars DS, and Yoshi's Touch & Go (a new Yoshi's Island themed game for the DS) comprise the majority of games Nintendo has announced for its upcoming handheld. While titles like these are fine and even welcome additions to the game library, they shouldnt define it. Nintendo is trying to market a brand new idea with an old face. The DS alone is the best reason Nintendo has ever had to create totally new franchises. How does Nintendo expect to convince gamers that the DS is something totally new, when it cant even come up with any totally new games to sell it? The Nintendo DS is a great looking system, but I have played all of those games before and theres no way Im paying $149.95 for a handheld unless it features something truly unique by every definition of the word. Aside from Sega's Feel the Magic XY/XX, I have yet to see that on the Nintendo DS.