Nintendo: Too Much Recycling?
- Scribbled on March 18th, 2007 by Jonah Falcon
- Filed in Editorial Content, Nintendo DS, Nintendo Game Boy Advance, Nintendo Gamecube, Nintendo Wii
Nintendo Wii Fanboy has posted an interesting editorial positing the question: is Nintendo recycling too many assets too much?
The unreleased Gamecube Kirby looked to be running on the Super Smash Bros. Melee engine. Most of the character art in Super Paper Mario Iooks a whole lot like that of Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door, and we don’t think that’s just consistency in style.
What do you think? Is Nintendo being lazy, economical, or just dealing with a machine that’s comprised of two GameCubes and duct tape? Comment away.
[Update: By "assets", we mean graphic assets, not licensed properties. We're talking about technical recycling, not artistic.]
March 18th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Wouldn’t surprise me, although they are one of the most profitable companies out there. Perhaps this is why we aren’t really seeing too much of a graphics leap…
March 18th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Hmm, not really seeing how this is “nintendo” specific. I think this is industry specific…
GRAW, GRAW 2
CoD2, CoD3
(Insert EA Sports Game here)
GTA (insert subtitle here)
Final Fantasy (certain series)
Need for Speed Carbon, Need for Speed: Most Wanted
Diablo
Total War (first two)
Half-Life
Dead or Alive
Mortal Kombat
DDR
Guitar Hero
Some games utilize the same engine with a new storyline, others utilize new engines with the rest of the game being pretty much the same concept (GTA, Unreal T., Half-Life)
Is this bad? Maybe in some cases, but a) the games sell and b) its familiar.
For games like GRAW, its obviously they’re “continuing” the storyline so do you want the game to turn into an RTS? Maybe a Civilization time game? No, you want GRAW 2. Does it command a 59.99 price tag? That’s debatable for sure.
For Zelda, what exactly do you want it to become? You just love the series so much you want it to be SO MUCH MORE than it really will be?
Some use the same engine, does that discount the game as good right off the top? I don’t think so, I think it might just mean the prices should be a bit less given half the code was already written for ya, but this is the games industry, what do you really expect?
Some games deserve sequels, people command them. Some games could use a fresh new look and style but that doesn’t always go over well (Look at Zelda II compared to the one before and the few after).
Game sequels are not always bad, which is proven in the fact that gamers buy them and many don’t get “1.0″ game ratings.
I don’t think Nintendo is doing anything less than that of Ubisoft, EA, Konami (how many contra’s and metal gears). Do we hold them up to some special light and just don’t see them being “like all the others?”
I think, like Sony, people just want something to bitch about
Sony could cure cancer tomorrow but people would find some way to make it look bad for them.
March 18th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
You miss the point, Derrick. Nintendo’s recycling is from PREVIOUS SYSTEMS.
GBA to DS. GameCube to Wii.
Are you telling me people recycle Xbox to 360? (Well, some launch titles like GUN, but not, say, NBA 2K6…)
March 18th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
I’m fairly certain “Tom Clancy” had a few games on Xbox that were GRAW like. I know Call of Duty existed over there (you kill Nazi’s in all of them in a WWII setting, is that good enough to call recycled)?
Halo 3 is coming out on Xbox 360, Halo 2 existed on Xbox, does that count as recycling?
But considering the Xbox didn’t create any memorable franchise characters besides Halo I don’t see them being real valid scenario.
Nintendo has a long history of previous consoles to recycle. I guess PC games don’t count because you cannot recycle them?
PlayStation 2 to PlayStation 3 titles going to count? I mean, I heard this game called Metal Gear is going to go over there.
So, seems like everyone does it in the Industry, unless you can discount the above examples.
March 18th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Um, Derrick, you’ve completely gone off-topic. We’re not talking about sequels. We’re talking about graphic assets.
We’re talking about Nintendo just reusing Gamecube graphic assets without even increasing the resolution! There’s nothing on the Wii that can’t be done on a GameCube. Can you say the same about the Xbox and 360, or PS2 and PS3?
March 18th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Yeah, I think that what Jonah is pointing out is that the same engines and art assets are being reused across console generations. At least on most next gen ports we are getting newly developed character models and improved engines.
March 18th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
I’m not pointing out anything - it’s the observation by the guys at Wii Fan Boy.
March 18th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
In the end, it comes down to one thing, if you don’t like it speak up.
How? With your wallet.
From what I can tell Nintendo is doing exactly what the customer wants - they’re selling Nintendo DS’s like its going out of style, and beating down both consoles in NPD reports.
Don’t like it? Don’t buy into it. That’s the reality of the situation.
March 18th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Problem is that software sales for the Wii have been feeble, at best. Even the best seller (Zelda) has underperformed.
People are buying the hardware and being satisfied with the installed software (Wii Sports), and generally not buying anything else.
And what incentive is there when Zelda (GameCube) looks almost exactly like Zelda (Wii)?
It’s stagnation. When the initial flurry of Wii sales peters off, what then?
March 18th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
One thing to keep in mind about models is that they’re usually originally built at a super high resolution, then later cut down to fit the needs of the game based on how fast it needs to run. Very often, the high-quality models you see in ads is the exact SAME model used in the actual game, but in the game, the model has had massive amounts of polygons culled, while the ad uses the original full-resolution model. Nintendo could very easily reuse the full-resolution model to create a new game model that contains more polys than the first game model.
In terms of engines: they get reused all the time. Even without rewriting a single line of code, the simple fact that it’s running on better hardware automatically increases it’s capabilities. Add in some rewriting to add new features and, assuming the code base was decent to begin with, you’re good. If you actually think that every time Id (or whoever) releases a new engine is rewritten from scratch, you don’t know how programming works. Doom 4 was a modified Quake 3 engine, which was a modified Quake 2 engine, which was a modified QuakeWorld engine, which was a modified Quake engine. I guarantee that if you’d look deep enough in the Doom 4 engine, you’d find code that hasn’t been touched since 1995. Only a fool reinvents the wheel, and only a complete fool does so every 2 years.
March 18th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Drocket just dominated all of you fools.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Except I said Doom 4. I meant Doom 3. Or Quake 4. Got them mixed up, I guess