Peacock versus Sculpture

Here is what frustrates me about Nintendo sequels. I want the sequel to be a ‘more perfect’ game, but Nintendo does something else entirely. It is the Peacock versus the Sculpture.

Pictured Above: Most Nintendo sequels…

The peacock is the idea that a sequel needs a ‘new hook’, that it be ‘shiny’, that it have plumage like gimmicks, something. This is because so much focus is trying to get the game to have attention in a crowd. But a sequel already has attention.

A good example of a peacock sequel would be Zelda: Wind Waker. Nintendo decided to go with cell shaded graphics because they thought it looked interesting and focused on animation. What Zelda fans were expecting was a ‘more perfect’ Zelda. They got something completely different. Sales go down.

In fact, Zelda lately has been nothing but peacock games. Zelda-with-touch-screen controls. Zelda-with-train. Zelda-with-motion controls. This isn’t what we want.

Pictured Above: Malstrom at a young age.

When we buy a sequel to a game, what we want is a sculpture. The original game is seen by the consumers as ‘unfinished’ as if it could be carved out some more, that the perfect version of the game is awaiting inside. It is not about making the same game again as it is making a ‘more perfect’ version. We like better graphics not because it adds ‘more plumage’ but because it gives more detail. The game is carved out more.

Have you noticed that the Nintendo sequels that are most loved are those that sought to ‘further explore’ what the original game started? Super Mario Brothers 3 explored Mushroom Land more. Super Metroid and Metroid Prime explored the world of Metroid more. Link to the Past (and Ocarina of Time) explored Hyrule more. Nitpicking aside, these were sculpture sequels. They took the original game, which was a blocky figure, and carved it out to produce a more refined sculpture. Suddenly, there were details we didn’t know. Like we didn’t know about Crateria in Metroid or Giant World in the Mushroom Kingdom. We are very happy that the games were carved out to such a degree that we can see them. Our demand for more sequels is that we want to see them carved out even more.

No game is truly ever finished.

Why did gamers create ‘Game Gods’ in the first place? The ‘Game God’ is the developer who sees the perfect vision hidden within the stone. Only that particular game developer can further carve out the sculpture.

Interestingly, the ‘Game Gods’ saw themselves as masters of creativity and that that gave them license to ‘be totally different’ with a sequel to a beloved game. Yet, the audience doesn’t respond. A fantastic example of this is Sakamoto and Metroid: Other M. What Metroid fans want is a more sculpted Metroid, not something completely different.

“Why do you want to play the same thing, Malstrom?” snaps the reader.

Actually, I would like Nintendo to make new things more often than they do. But when it comes to sequels, there are expectations. I expect a more sculpted game out of the sequel than of the original. Brand new IPs have no expectations. But sequels have the expectations of being a better game than the original.

The Perfect Sequel

Mega Man wasn’t a bad game. It wasn’t sensational either. The game’s difficulty felt uneven. Many parts of the gameplay wasn’t fully polished. The developers wanted to make a sequel to further explore this type of game. Capcom management told them to make a baseball game instead. So they made Mega Man 2 in their spare time, and the world is richer because of it.

Mega Man 1 is a caterpillar as Mega Man 2 is the butterfly. Everything was polished, reworked, and made a ‘more perfect game’. Mega Man 2 did the job a sequel is supposed to do. What Mega Man 2 did not do was act like a peacock. It did not have ‘better graphics’ or some new gimmick to ‘differentiate’ it from Mega Man 1. It was just a better game.

Mega Man 3 also was accepted as successful but just not as big as a leap from 2 as 2 was to 1 (how it could it?).

But as Mega Man games went on, interest in them slid. Was this because entertainment needs new things? The sentiment from gamers is that Mega Man 4, 5, 6 and onward felt more like a ‘cash cow’. Capcom wasn’t trying to carve out a ‘more perfect version’. They were essentially selling the same game over and over again with a new gimmick (mega buster, BEAT, different exits in levels, etc.) In Mega Man 3, things like the Rush dog or the slide felt like they fit. The Mega Buster didn’t feel like it fit since it removed the appeal of using other weapons.

Sequels shouldn’t just be made to popular games. Sequels should be made to games that need some more carving. One of these games was Kid Icarus. The game was very clunky on the NES. Imagine a Kid Icarus on the SNES. Imagine what a polished and fun experience that would be. Instead the Kid Icarus 3DS is a 3d Peacock with no interest in carving out that block of a NES game.

If Super Metroid was never made, no one would know about Metroid today. Metroid would be seen as ‘that old clunky NES game’ and that ‘even clunkier’ Gameboy sequel. But there was a ‘more perfect’ game inside. People began to sense it when they played Super Metroid. The huge response to Metroid Prime was the sense that Nintendo was carving out a ‘more perfect version’ of Metroid. Metroid Prime 2 and 3 felt like peacocks with gimmicks and hooks (multiple dimensions, etc.) that went aside from carving out Metroid.

This is probably why Nintendo is confused about reactions to games like NSMB Wii. They know tons of people like it (which surprised them). But they also feel like they are walking on eggshells and ‘can’t change things’.

The most accurate way to communicate the expectations is that people want a ‘more carved’ version of Super Mario Brothers. What does that mean? That means no one wants Mario games to revolve around a gimmick or hook. They want a ‘more perfect’ Mario game. They want a sculpture, not a peacock. When people complain about the graphics, they aren’t asking for something wacky looking. But they do want to see a more explored environment… not the same exact environment which suggests the knife has not been carving the stone.