I actually really liked the Gamepad the way it is, but this still seems interesting.
I'm just really curious about how good the NX will actually be.
The problem with that saying is that Nintendo tends to take it to the extreme. More often than not, they like to keep things largely the same instead of really innovating much or daring to change things up, aside from smaller tweaks here and there.
I think that is why Splatoon has become such a phenomenon so quickly, because it is something new and fresh and completely new for Nintendo.
Nintendo relies too much on what was successful in the past, which is why nostalgia and Virtual Console have been such a major part of their gameplan for the past few years.
Back to your point though, I do agree that button-wise, they should keep things the same way. Trying to be radically different just for the sake of being different isn't exactly a good thing.
I was talking about their controllers, not the games they make. I don't think they should rely too heavily on fancy controllers. The DS and the Wii were successful because they were something very new at the time. The Wii U on the other hand hasn't had that type of success. Part of that I think might be due to Nintendo themselves not having enough games to justify the Gamepad's existence. The Wii-U has great games, but how many of them are truly benefiting from the Gamepad from a design stand point? I think Mario Maker and Rhythm Heaven are the only ones where it uses the screen to a great degree. Though I might be forgetting a few examples. So forgive me on that.
The DS I think, does a great job of this. Games like Wario Ware, Pokemon, Elite Beat Agents, Nintendogs and even Mega Man ZX(which was alright, but not the best MM game)use the touch screen either extensively or in interesting and convenient ways.
I can understand their mentality to make something very different from MS and Sony though. It's a situation where they have to ask themselves, "what can we offer the consumer that stands out from the competition."
I do think they should take more risk with their first party franchises. But I understand why they don't do it so often. Familiarity is a guarantee in sales of some kind. But innovation is risky. It paid off for Splatoon. But I think that's because it's a new IP. It might be hard to take risks with something like Mario, Zelda or Metroid, because not everyone will like these changes. Look at the reception of the Wind Waker(initially) or Federation Force(which hasn't show off much gameplay). That said a bad game in a usually good franchise didn't help in Metroid's case with Other M messing things up. People were bound to skeptical anyway.
I think if Nintendo is going to see more success with the NX than the Wii-U or even Gamecube, they do need third party support of some kind. Obviously the first party titles for the system are going to be the biggest draw, but third party games seal the deal easier. Getting Sega or Capcom to make games for them has happened in the past. So doing so again shouldn't be impossible. With series like Resident Evil, Mega Man, Sonic, Bayonetta and Monster Hunter they can build a library similar to the GCN or even the SNES.
And cash cows like Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed could pull some of the general gaming audience. Which is never a bad thing in terms of sales. For a lot of these devs, they won't be working with Nintendo directly, so having hardware that's easier to manage(i.e similar controllers)would be ideal.
Either way, I'm excited to see what they will do.
Sorry for late, and long as hell replay.
Count Papyrus.
was revealed. It's friggin' AMAZING!
