Malstrom’s Articles News

Email: Hardcore <3 the GC?

seanmalstrom
Advertisements

Really? Because I remember those days vividly. I had a Gamecube, and the hardcore hated it. Manchildren would mock you for owning one. I remember a particular manchild in my office declaring that the GC’s version of Madden was “kiddie,” despite being identical to the PS2 version, because the discs were small. The only appropriate consoles for the “hardcore” to own were the PS2 and Xbox.

 
Different issue: What do you think about the idea that annual sequels burn up creative capital? For example, this most recent Call of Duty is the ninth game in the main series, which started in 2003. I don’t think Nintendo has made nine of anything yet. Here’s my thought—if you change things too radically, you will alienate fans of the series. There’s a reason the game has fans in the first place. But when new games come out every twelve months, fans don’t digest content as fast as it’s coming out, and so the next release is no longer anticipated (the other COD fans I know aren’t tired of MW3 of BlOps1 yet). Then it’s no longer bought. Then your series no longer becomes a money-maker for you. For EA, this happened to Rock Band, Medal of Honor, Need for Speed, and Burnout, which has left them almost entirely unable to make a profit. What’s left for them? For Activision, it’s happened to Guitar Hero & Tony Hawk, and once people tire of Call of Duty, if you look at their stable of IP, they have NOTHING. Their company is literally Call of Duty + kids’ licensed movie games.
 
Contrast this with Bethesda’s Elder Scrolls. The games in the series have released in 1994, 1996, 2002, 2006, and 2011. That’s often enough to keep interest in the series alive, but infrequent enough that every release from Daggerfall onward has been a major event. In between major releases, they publish other games and expansion packs. And of course, most of Nintendo’s main series have been “once or twice per console” affairs. While this might not bring in as much revenue in immediately, it seems to be a much more stable, long-term approach.They hated the Gamecube from 2000-2006. Starting in 2006, a ‘romance’ began to blossom for the Gamecube. In 2013, the hardcore have hot, hot passion for the Gamecube and think it is the best console of all time.

“That is contradictory!” you say. But I say it is hardcore being hardcore.

Part of me suspects viral marketing of competing console companies are intentionally giving Nintendo bad advice. Why is it that the ‘great games we need more of’ are always the games that were disasters for Nintendo? Luigi’s Mansion was a disaster. Why do we need more of it? Pikmin 1 and 2 didn’t do anything for the Gamecube. Why do we need a Pikmin 3? 3d Mario has never helped Nintendo, yet we always need more 3d Mario. Every now and then, I see someone try to start a love train for Metroid: Other M and how we need more games like that but not even the hardcore will swallow that one.

And likewise, the games that are attacked, that Nintendo should “stop making immediately” are games that DO sell the hardware. It would be games like Mario Kart, Smash Brothers, 2d Mario, Wii Fit, and Wii Sports.

While some may say, “This is conspiratorial thinking!”, I respond, “Well, this is a billion dollar industry.” It doesn’t cost anything for viral marketers to post garbage on the Gaming Message Forum or on webpage comments. I’d be surprised if it is NOT happening.

The reason why we have so many sequels is for the business side to not have to work.

Consider the sequel versus the non-sequel and their impact on the creative game developers and the business side of marketers.

Which is easier? The sequel or the non-sequel?

The original title is very fun for the creative game developers. There are also no expectations they have to meet.

However, the original title is VERY HARD on the marketers. They have to work their ass off.

The sequel is not very fun for the creative game developers. They have to meet and surpass expectations. Many of these expectations are clouded in nostalgia.

However, the sequel is fun for the business side. The marketers don’t have to work hard as the franchise is already known. There is a built in installed base so it is easy for the business side to sell the game.

I see the Game Industry wanting sequels as the business side trying to leverage the game developers to work harder so the business side doesn’t have to. I do not think a game’s success means condemnation for the developer to only make sequels of it for the rest of his life. If that developer fails in other original titles, maybe then he should stick to sequels for his hit game.

Advertisements

Advertisements