Are Nintendo too obsessed with making their games based on gimmicks now?

CM30

CM30

Gaming Latest Admin and Gaming Reinvented Owner
Full GL Member
Credits
1,530
Think about, prior to the Gamecube, a new game was just a Mario game, or a Zelda game, with the gameplay the series was known for and any add ons as entirely optional elements. Okay, the Dark World in A Link to the Past was a major element of the game, but it really acted more as a sort of extention of the main gameplay, you never had to travel back to the Light World after a certain point. Ocarina of Time's time travel element was important, but again, it acted more as a gate to the second half the game, with just two required times you had to go back in time (Bottom of the Well, Spirit Temple).

Now though, it seems Nintendo designs games with the gimmick first and the world/gameplay second. Everything in Mario Sunshine revolved around FLUDD in some way As did most things in Spirit Tracks revolve around trains, or Wind Waker boats, or Mario Galaxy gravity.

Why can't we just get traditional Zelda and Mario games where the series trademark gameplay is the main focus and without any new gimmicky addition. Do we always need this 'innovation'?
 
New Super Mario Brothers Wii was as old school as you could get with the gameplay, while still being fresh
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Because too many people are already complaining that the series' are becoming too stale (especially Zelda), and so they need new ideas added to them?
If you want an old-style game, go and play one. You can't just keep churning out game after game in the same mould, that's how a series grows stagnant (like Dynasty Warriors, for instance). Each new instalment must have something at least different, if not better, than the last.
And could you honestly say that the gameplay in Super Mario Galaxy is second-rate? If you could, then you'd be in a very small minority.
 
Meh, I kinda like the gimmicks the put in games now.
 
I'd disagree, mostly because of the two arguments posted above mine, but also because the gimmicks are what make the series GOOD, kinda like what kunino-sagiri pointed out.
 
Really depends on how the gimmicks are implemented. An example of a GOOD gimmick would be the whole "space theme" of Mario Galaxy, where you jump from mini planet to mini planet creating a whole new way to play a mario game and lead to some fun platforming. An example of a BAD gimmick would be the whole "sword" gimmick in Sonic and the Black Knight. It lead to the gameplay constantly slowing down and really, when does ANYONE, even THREE YEAR OLDS wanna see Sonic weilding a damn sword? Nobody that's who..... Generally though every game has a gimmick, it is what makes it unique, good or bad.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I loved FLUDD.I would love it if he was in Super Mario 3ds,but only as a power-up in certain plces
 
How was sailing in Wind Waker a gimmick? It was essentially Epona but instead of it being a way to make moving around Hyrule go by faster it was necessary for travel in the game.

Actually that reminds me, I was playing through WW again and I found this quite humorous...
[attachment=115:Irony.png]

And then Nintendo releases motion control with the Wii and sells millions of consoles.

The boy in the Nintendo Club is poking fun at Nintendo fans, or the stereotypical "guy who plays way too much video games".
 
I really want to disagree, but I can't think of any recent games that didn't have a gimmick... NSMBWii pushed 4 player multiplayer, Galaxy 2 is just Galaxy 1 minus a story and different levels, cell shaded Zelda games have a transportation gimmick, etc.
 
Gimmicks help make the difference between game-play for those games who use the same style of Game play. I have no problem at all with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top