FUCK YOU RETRO

It'll probably be the unpopular opinion, but between these two, I feel they made the better choice. After three Prime games, I don't feel like there's anything more they could have done with Metroid.

They had a freaking Stinger at the end of Prime 3! They hinted at a fourth game! They liiiiiiiiied to me!! :(

Best first comment ever!

lol.

In all seriousness though, I'm disappointed that those were the only two options on the table. As much as I am a fan of both franchises, I had hoped that they might do something wholly original.

Didn't they expand their staff? Why aren't they working on two titles?

So they had the choice and went with the safe & easy option rather than something that would actually challenge them. Well, I'm disappointed, but Donkey Kong looks pretty good so it'll probably balance out in the end.

What about giving them a crack at Metroid 5?

Why would Metroid challenge Retro Studios more than Donkey Kong? Both would be relatively "safe and easy" considering they have blueprints froor what works for each. There are ways to make the choices more challenging. If Retro Studios ever handles Metroid again, I'd like to see what thu could do in third person. If they ever handle Donkey Kong after Tropical Freeze, I'd like to see what they could do in 3D.

Because the people who made Metroid Prime are no longer with the company. The people there now have worked on THREE Donkey Kong Country games (DKCR, DKCR 3DS, DKCTF). Besides, aside from Dixie Kong I see little in that trailer that wasn't already done in the last DKC game.

If these were the only two choices given to or thought of by Retro Studios, that troubles me.


Still, Tropical Freeze looks great and will be a fine platformer.

Better this than Metroid that's for sure.


I'm happy for DK I was just a little blind sided since they hinted at no sequel for at least a while.

Retro didn't handle the 3DS port of DKCR, Monster Games did.

I wish it was Star Tropical Freeze.

If we're going to get another Metroid game (and I hope we do) I want it to be made by somebody other than Retro. We've seen what they can do with the franchise, and while it was amazing, I want to see someone else's take.

What about Team Ninja?

Some left, some stayed. The company still has three games (four if you count Trilogy) worth of source code and art. Unless Retro Studios went in a completely different direction with a new Metroid, I don't think it would be as challenging as you're making it seem.

I would love to see them get another shot at the series if they could be given more autonomy and less interference from Sakamoto.

So no matter what I was going to be let down.  Is this the corporate culture of Retro or Nintendo as a whole where you discuss "what do we do now?" and the idea of something creative or different or new does not even come into consideration?  I wonder if Iwata era Nintendo's cookie-cutter sequel approach has driven off the truly creative people and the only ones left are those that don't want to step out of their comfort zones.  At Nintendo you make safe generic product.  Creative people need not apply.

I guess I would have preferred Metroid because I like that series better and would like a comeback from Other M, but they have not done as much with DKC since it is only their second game so it's the more natural choice.  But then this is really the blueprint Rare laid down.  I never felt DKC Returns was really Retro's baby like Metroid Prime was.

I have no hope for Retro to ever do something truly new and thus I really don't have any interest in them anymore.  Like they make good games and all but I'm not fanatic about them like I was during the Metroid days.  Retro's next project after this will be either whatever generic sequel NCL assigns them or Retro chooses themselves.  Either way I see no encouragement of creativity or ambition and if you don't have that, I don't care.

retro, go bury yourself next to silicon knights and stop serving us yesterdays warmed up meal.

Rare may have created Donkey Kong Country, but Retro's version blows theirs out of the water.

You're Ian Sane. Why do you seem surprised by this?

My only beef with these Donkey Kong Country games is that there are no Kremlings or King K. Rule. It doesn't feel like DKC anymore. Even DK King of Swing had them still. I guess it is like playing a Mario game but without Bowser or Koopa Troopa's in it. Maybe that would be considered a shot in the arm for the franchise but it's just part of what I consider a DKC element and just seems to like that arch-rival element like Mario vs Bowser, Sonic vs Robotnik, Link vs Ganondorf.

I'm actually pretty surprised they put Dixie back in, much less Kremlings. What's the next surprise, EXpresso?

Maybe King K.Rool is in this one and we just haven't seen it yet?

See to me this attitude just encourages stagnation.  Mario facing Bowser every time is BORING.  Batman doesn't fight the Joker in every issue, you know?  If you treat the details as essential elements a series becomes really stale really fast.  I never even remotely gave a damn that DKC Returns did not have have Kremlings.  It still has the same platforming gameplay so it always still felt authentic to me.

Batman has an actual plot. Mario doesn't. It's just some arbitrary reason why Peach is too goddamn lazy to save herself. That's why it doesn't matter that Mario faces Bowser every time. Now, if that boss was exactly the same every time, that would be boring. Bowser does something different every time. If it wasn't Bowser, it would be some other character doing those things. Substituting Bowser only changes what you're looking at.

See, that's the conflict I have as well in that I'm glad there are new characters and you don't want a situation like Star Fox Adventures where Andross is suddenly just dumped into the end because he's the Star Fox villain. It's just that it has been over a decade since we've had K. Rule act as the nemesis and I miss it. It gave Donkey Kong more of an identity. Just like Mario has an identity with and is identified by his fight with Bowser. There have been some other Mario games where Bowser isn't the villain but they've done a bit more storywise in those games as well. There's nothing really profound I can tell about the story for this game so why not have King K. Rule as the villian? Would you really be compaining about that if it had been announced?

You just asked Ian Sane if he would be complaining. Is that even a real question?

I wouldn't care if K. Rool is involved since we've been away from him for a while.  Though you know what would be REALLY neat?  If MARIO was the villian like he was in Donkey Kong Jr!  That would probably shock a few people.  Though you know Nintendo would never EVER consider doing that these days.  They would probably consider that idea damaging to Mario's marketability.

Yes and I received the answer I was looking for. His only complaint about my wanting K. Rule in the game was what he mentioned about creating a situation where there is little reason to innovate. It had nothing to do with the character itself and he wouldn't have made any fuss about it if he had shown up.

I know it is easy to seem like Ian is negative about everything but he can also be positive on things and he isn't being negative for the sake of it. He gives reasons for what he dislikes and why which is the proper way to give an opinion. But I've always been able to understand where he is coming from a lot of times more than other people on this site. Maybe it's a Canadian thing. It creates discussion and a sharing of different viewpoints on a matter which is the reason for these forums.

People forget that if he didn't actually like Nintendo or their games, he would have left a long time ago. He still buys and plays them and like all of us, shares what he thinks could be done better or speculates on why things aren't going right and shares what he would like to see in the future. No different than anyone else really. Just my take on it all.

My problem with Ian Sane is that he often expresses his complaints in a condescending way. And sometimes, he posts the same thing too much. Otherwise, I don't have an issue with what he does, and he raises some good points sometimes. He's certainly not the worst poster here.

This is how I feel. I understand why they might have gone in this direction. The engine is there, they have the assets, and it will likely sell more. The game likely will be great. However doesn't mean I'm not still disappointed. This was THE disappointment for me out of the Nintendo Direct. It's the thing that had me in sort of a funk for a while this morning but I'm over it now. I've just accepted that I have to buy a PS4 at some point or just invest in a bigger upgrade for my PC.

I do hope though that this stops Nintendo fans from putting Retro on the damn pedestal they've put them on. That this stops them from looking at Retro as some damn savior to western Nintendo fans that want to be catered to. Accept that Nintendo won't.

Buy a second console or invest in a PC for experiences that Nintendo refuses to provide. You'll be better off and a lot less frustrated.

I was joking. I harbor no ill will toward anyone on NWR.

Still, like Mop It Up said, he can be condescending which gets old. For example, his insistence that casual gamers who like motion control games are "rubes." That line of thinking is total bullshit. Just because others like something he detests doesn't make them stupid.

I'm just gonna say while I would've greatly preferred more Metroid, especially if Retro was on a 2D kick, I'm glad they picked the game they wanted to do more. Or at least I'll pretend to be.

Retro seems to have supplanted Rare in a lot Nintendo fan's minds. And when you think about the timing of it all, Rare's last game being Star Fox Adventures and Metroid Prime from Retro occuring at close the same time I think made people gravitate towards Retro as being the answer to fill that hole. Especially with the detail they put in games like Rare did.
The problem for me is that Retro is not as prolific as Rare was. The amount of games Rare put out is far superior to what Retro has provided so far. (Whether people want to argue who's better isn't the point, I'm taking quantity here) So waiting every 3 years for a new release for them or so is pointless because they clearly aren't going to provide the fill-ins neccessary for whatever gaps people see in Nintendo's software line-up. Not to mention they have now only done Metroid and Donkey Kong. Their range of games is nowhere near the variety Rare provided either. If anything, Retro took the place of what Silicon Knights could have been. A solid dependable developer that can release a couple quality titles each generation but SK was never going to be releasing a bunch of games each year.

The loss of Rare has still been a big issue for Nintendo that they've never been able to solve since that first year of the Gamecube. As much as some people like to show derision towards Rare for how they fell apart after leaving Nintendo, (which has happened to quite a few developers which makes it so bizarre why so many keep making that decision) you can't help but wonder what things might be like right now in the software history of the GC, Wii and now Wii U if they were still making the amount of games they had provided before and if they would have kept creating new IP's or at least developing them further.

Maybe there wouldn't have been such a big debate about hardcore and casual games in the Wii generation. Maybe the extra software output would have helped the GC grab a bit more marketshare. It was probably a lost generation for the most part but with the extra software and some of those more "mature" franchises maybe GC would have made a bigger fight. And now with the Wii U, maybe they would help in solving a lot of this drought issue everyone is freaking out over.

But it is all speculation and until we can travel to the proper parallel universes, we'll never know. I do think it is worth pointing out.

You always complain about Bowser like its some true limitation. Every 3D Mario he is fighting in a different way and in Galaxy he wasn't even restricted by his design. I mean how in the world was he just flying for no reason? If Kremlings don't matter when they're absent then why does Bowser matter when he is present?

You say things like fans beg for X character to show up in sequels, yet you know it's not so much the character that makes the difference but what X represents. According to that, Bowser has a lot of value so why are you always on the crusade of a new Mario villain? Especially when that would hardly make a difference to what's really important to the game like gravity affects, cloud power, etc.

Now as far as narrative is concerned I could understand fighting the same bad guy over and over. But Mario's story means nothing in the main games so what does it matter? Nothing that's what.

I really expected Retro to be working on a new game so I was slightly disappointed in that regard. But to be mad at them for making a sequel to a franchise that was only recently revived is just... I don't know, makes some of you sound like babies. There are plenty other games that aren't 2D platformers and/or cartoony that you will certainly be happy with. 

This is the main reason why I think that Nintendo should have bought Vigil Games because they are located in Austin, Texas with Retro Studios and could act as a supplement to them for bigger game projects.

Those were ur only choices?  so sad as the NS6 needs
An identity that a fresh franchise would have given.
Instead we get more Mario, DK, and Zelda remakes .

I use the term "rubes" not because casual gamers have different tastes than me but because I feel that Nintendo's strategy is to INTENTIONALLY offer a half-assed product and sell it to this demograhic because they are too ignorant of gaming as a whole to know they could have better.  I see the Wii as a con and cons prey on rubes.  Nintendo is really who sees them as rubes or marks or suckers.  I feel that Nintendo would never have made the Wii or games like Wii Sports as is if they were targetting an audience more familiar with videogames.

I agree with Khushrenada about the void Rare left that has never been filled.  I think the most important thing was that we got games with Nintendo quality that did not necesssarily have the same style or feel as Nintendo games.  That provided variety.  It's a good thing that EAD or Retro or Intelligent Systems or HAL all have their own little styles that adds flavour and variety to the overall Nintendo experience.  Since Rare left I feel Nintendo has become very homogenus.  EAD's influence is everywhere which results in a lack of variety.  This wouldn't be so bad if Nintendo had good third party support but they don't.  Therefore it is MUCH more important for them to provide the variety themselves and they don't.  We wanted something different from Retro just to get some variety from Nintendo.  Instead it's all just the same franchises that you feel could be handed to anyone and the identity and uniqueness of each developer is lost.  It really was never about Retro.  We just want some variety and something fresh and new and we just ASSUMED that Retro would the one that could provide us with it.  The same old games from Nintendo have gotten stale.  I think for a lot of fans the Wii U is that point where that really hit them because they have to buy a new console and they find themselves thinking "Why?"  If a new console provides nothing truly new then it is largely arbitrary that Nintendo is even asking you to buy one.

So the years and millions of dollars they invested on research and development was all an elaborate plan to prey on stupid people with half-assed products?

See, that's you being condesceding again. You're assuming that casual gamers should view gaming the same way you do. Yet they don't give a damn about Zelda or God of War or Halo or . If they did, they already would have bought those games. In fact, it's ignorant to assume their preferences is ignorance. Not liking core games is much of what makes them casual gamers. What is "better" is a matter of perspective. "Better" is whatever someone enjoys more. Nintendo spent a fortune trying to figure out how to reach them because Mario and Metroid sure as hell weren't getting it done. If Nintendo wanted to shit out a bad product, they could have easily done so without the enormous bill. You're not more informed than casual gamers. You just want something very different from them which is fine until you start denigrating others for their preferences.

There are situations where I see it as someone having different tastes.  Like I don't like what they like but I get WHY they would like it.  Then there are times where it seems like someone is getting scammed.  To me the Wii was just Malibu Stacy with a new hat.  It relied on it's target audience to not know that it was effectively just a re-released Gamecube.  That isn't a different opinon on the part of casuals but rather a lack of knowledge.  Nintendo is selling them an apple and calling it a ruby.  It is not a matter of opinion but rather someone taking advantage of someone who doesn't have enough knowledge to know better.  I say "rubes" because I think that that is what Nintendo sees them as.

If you think dirt tastes great and you've never tasted sugar your opinion means nothing.  Your statement would be of ignorance.  I think that Nintendo intentionally preyed on that ignorance.  Preying on ignorance is very common in business so it would not be like Nintendo is out-of-the-ordinary in doing this.

I would say that the Xbox One preys on rubes too, that don't know better about its extreme DRM (or MS is hoping it will).  MS is relying on a large chunk of their customerbase to not be fully aware of the consumer rights they would be giving up.  If I call someone a rube it isn't because I think they have bad taste but that I think they are supporting a company that is intentionally trying to screw them.  It is less of an insult on the "rube" but rather an accusation on the company.

yeah Ian...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm8xRvoQkc0

No need to insult another member like that.

Donkey Kong Country Returns sold over 4 million. Metroid Prime 3 sold around 1.5 million. I think this was a factor.

"idiots" is the wrong word, but the rambling part fits him quite well

Again, you're assuming they should view gaming the way you do. You care about the hardware. Casual gamers do not. They don't care what the hardware is; they care about what it does and it was the only one that let them play Wii Sports. You call it getting scammed, but are you even trying to see it from their perspective? They already looked at core games and decided, "I don't want these." Nintendo was just smart enough to give them something they wanted. If Nintendo knew what they had (e.g. a console that would be constantly sold out for nearly two years), maybe they would have included better hardware.

You insist that Nintendo preyed on ignorance, but there are major holes in that argument. You haven't addressed why they would spend millions in research and development (probably more than they did on Gamecube and Nintendo 64) to do so. People give Nintendo shit for Wii hardware, but they still had to pay IBM and AMD to develop Broadway and Hollywood. If they were really masterminding some devious plot to trick dumb people, they could have just put Gekko and Flipper in there and called it a day. However, the hardware was optimized for everything that was in the console from WiiConnect24 to motion controls. You're vastly understating the amount of time, money and work that went into developing Wii. That would have been a lot of effort just to take advantage of people's ignorance.

Anyway, to bring this back on topic, I wonder if Retro Studios considered making a 2D Metroid game when it came time to decide their next project. And I get the feeling that there are now two teams at Retro Studios and the other was expanded when Mario Kart 7 was completed. /tin foil hat

I can't believe I'm agreeing with this.

I believe DKCR actually outsold the entire Prime trilogy.

When 2 of the Prime games were on the GameCube, where only a few titles ever sold spectacularly well, that isn't particularly hard to do.

In another thread Ian and I were having an argument about the output Nintendo was putting out, I do agree that they need to put out more than what they are doing.

Iwata has said "give the wii u some time"

what I don't understand is how you could have been so unprepared for the generation. All we're asking that they do is have some games that look as good as ps3/xbox 360 games from 4 years ago. Changing the resolution doesn't change the fact that they look like Gamecube games. Sure they are higher resolution, but that just means they are running on multiple SD tvs. They still look like gamecube games. I'm talking ploygons, lighting, and shaders.  Granted they look servicable, but by servicable i mean bland.

now the excuse is being thrown around "we haven't been working on systems this powerful, we're behind the learning curve"

3 problems with that. 1. You could have been making games on hardware the equivelent to this 6 years ago, you didn't have to release it, you just could have had working prototypes, i bet if you go to a Gamecub generation post from myself this would be something I said. 2.You can hire people who can.  3 You can outsource engines workiers.

Now it seems to be the case that they are doing that with Smash Bros. The question is why did they decide that making a 3ds port with 4 players was better than making a sequel to Galaxy. At this time Nintendo should be trying to prove they are capable of making a competantly competative game.

I think Nintendo should start showing speculative gameplay footage again. At some point the pros of showing possible in-development games are going to outwiegh the cons of showing games that will never be released. At this point its better to show off....at least SOMETHING more substantial(even if it is all just faux hype). That could keep the stock price up and then they can spend more money and actually release those games.

If I remember correctly, Iwata planned on asking Sakurai to lead development on a Smash Bros. for 3DS or Wii U and Sakurai wanted to do both. And Nintendo isn't even developing either Smash Bros. game. Namco Bandai has some of their best people working on the games and if they're busy with Smash Bros., they aren't making games for competing hardware. Sounds like a pretty good deal for Nintendo.

See to me this excuse isn't acceptable because it was Nintendo's OWN CHOICE to be behind the curve.  That's like saying to your coach "well I'm out-of-shape because I've been sitting on my ass watching TV and eating potato chips."  No one forced Nintendo to be six years behind the rest of the industry or even asked for it.  It's the same with their online stuff.  "Uh we dragged out feet and didn't get to this until years after everyone else" is not an acceptable excuse with that either.  How do you sell this to anyone?  This customer doesn't give a shit what reason you have.  They just see that these guys have X and you don't.

It's especially annoying because when Nintendo decided to stay behind I DIDN'T LIKE IT.  So they're telling me to be patient with them regarding decisions they made years ago that I didn't agree with THEN?!  What is happening right now is exactly WHY I didn't agree with their decision in the first place.

Nintendo can't go back in time and change those decisions, though. Sure, they put themselves in this position, but there isn't really anything they can do to magically fix things right now.

So they're six years behind forever now?  Why should ANYONE give them slack on this when there are competing products that have no such issue?  This is a business and the general public isn't going to just give them a free pass for trying to sell in 2013 what everyone else was selling in 2006.  They have to do something to catch up.  I know they can't time travel but this in 2013 and you have to offer a 2013 product and if you can't, well, you're fucked.  Perm suggests hiring new people who know this stuff or outsourcing the graphics engines and that is what they effectively will have to do.  If they don't do that then the only chance I see of them catching up is if everything stays where it is for a while and Nintendo can catch up at a normal pace while the rest of the industry effectively stands still.  But then the Wii U is pretty much last gen hardware so THAT isn't going to happen either.  At best they'll catch up to is where the PS360 is now.

Right now they don't appear to even try to catch up.  They're just going at the same slow pace like this doesn't matter and they wonder why a glorified PS360 released a mere year before those systems are obsolete with games that look like they're from 2006 is not selling worth a damn.  I can tolerate a Nintendo that is trying to get their act together and isn't doing such a hot job at it but not a Nintendo that doesn't seem to care or even notice the problem.

Iwata has been saying "give us patience" since the day he was put in charge and nothing has improved.  The guy is either a liar or incompetent and either way should be out on his ass ASAP.

My response to this line of argument is that Nintendo knew well what it was doing at every step with hardware strength. They didn't want to pay for crazy HD budgets, and they still don't. I think they have the right idea, given how fragile the industry's looking, but they've obviously taken it too far.

I like the idea of hiring out for a Mushroom Engine that can leapfrog them to a higher level than what we're seeing with 3D World. But even if they have a more robust game building environment, they'd still have to shell out for textures and whatnot. Are they feeling threatened enough to make this kind of move? I doubt it. I suspect they're waiting to see what happens with XBone and PS4. If those don't do much better than the WiiU, Nintendo will probably feel pretty good about itself. If either is a smash hit, then they might have to start rolling the dice.

The thing is, from our level, and the games media level, Nintendo looks like its in critical condition and needs to fix up its shit RIGHT NOW. But from a corporate/shareholder perspective, I don't think they're feeling nearly that kind of pressure yet. Give it a year.