Awakening sells 390,000 to date in America

[Phoenix Wright]

I feel like I need to say this again: this isn't an argument of business. The business model works in a majority of cases, which is why it's so prevalent in the industry.

I disagree completely both with the assessment of Mario and Final Fantasy. Mario has evolved. It's evolved so many times that there are now three different series (of just platformers) with different styles of Gameplay: (New Super Mario Bros, Mario 3D (64 style), and the 3D area series.

Oh, you mean Mario platformer, Mario platformer, Mario platformer, Mario sports, Mario racing, and Mario party? Yep, lots of evolution and no milking Mario for all he's got here! Mario, without a single doubt in my mind, needs to become more scarce.

And as an FF fan, the only thing I feel FF13 and FF6 have in common is that they are both JRPGs. Everything else is completely different.

What's different about the formula? I notice no differences outside of combat.

edit: I'm also a huge FF fan. That won't stop me from criticizing the series when I feel it needs to be.

I can understand retiring stories. Apollo Justice was supposed to take over for the Ace Attorney if he wasnt so poorly received. Professor Layton is also retiring. And the FE series retires that protagonists after 2 or less games. But gaming at its core is based on the gameplay experience rather than stories, which is Nintendo's trademark philosophy. I think stale or poorly aged gameplay mechanics should be retired, rather than story or franchise focused retirement.

I wasn't intentionally shifting the focus onto Nintendo. It's just that they are guilty of milking everything for as long as humanely possible and then some more than any other company I can name. EA is second, then Activision. A lot of companies are guilty of it.

For gaming most of all I don't think retiring series works. Unlike DVDs or TV series of the past, games are released only for the current consoles. So if a series were to retire, new gamers from the next generation would not be able to experience it. There was a whole generation of gamers who didn't know what Punch-Out was until the Wii revival. There are racing fans who have no idea what of F-Zero is. And there are people who think the star of Kid Icarus is named Icarus. The rise of the virtual console may help alleviate this problem, but VC games aren't necessarily advertised for a new audience.

So? I don't see this as a problem. The notion that my kid won't know who Mario is doesn't affect me at all. The younger generation doesn't need or want to experience the same things the generation prior did. Out with the old, in with the new, my friend.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[amadeuscho]

I feel like I need to say this again: this isn't an argument of business. The business model works in a majority of cases, which is why it's so prevalent in the industry.

Oh, you mean Mario platformer, Mario platformer, Mario platformer, Mario sports, Mario racing, and Mario party? Yep, lots of evolution and no milking Mario for all he's got here! Mario, without a single doubt in my mind, needs to become more scarce.

What's different about the formula? I notice no differences outside of combat.

edit: I'm also a huge FF fan. That won't stop me from criticizing the series when I feel it needs to be.

I wasn't intentionally shifting the focus onto Nintendo. It's just that they are guilty of milking everything for as long as humanely possible and then some more than any other company I can name. EA is second, then Activision. A lot of companies are guilty of it.

So? I don't see this as a problem. The notion that my kid won't know who Mario is doesn't affect me at all. The younger generation doesn't need or want to experience the same things the generation prior did. Out with the old, in with the new, my friend.

I do think Mario releases should be more scarce, but the games are still some of the best on their respective platforms. I do think the Mario's spinoffs do dilute the brand. I would stick to one Mario Kart and one Mario sports title, and maybe a Mario party every once in a while.

I didn't mean that as a compliment for FF. FF13's tone and style is terrible, other than it's shiny graphics. FF needs to take a break and recover the spirit of the games up until FFX.

My point was that the reason that Nintendo retells the same stories is that the story is always second to the gameplay. Even in Fire Emblem, their most story oriented series. Capcom and Activision are the worst offenders of brand abuse. Capcom in particular has killed franchises by stringing sequels along without making major alterations to gameplay.

I do think the new generations of gamers should receive strong gameplay experiences, similar to how we felt. I think franchises generate the best creative spirit out of some developers (like Intelligent Systems) which allow for new gamers to get great gameplay.

On Fire Emblem in particular:

The Franchise still feels fresh to me, since it didn't arrive in the US until a decade ago. I feel like there is so much more of the franchise to experience still, as we missed about half of its releases. I've been a Nintendo guy my whole life, but possible it's greatest series was hidden for the longest time.

Question:

Do you just want the franchise (FE) to disappear, or do you want the game mechanics (turn based strategy RPG) to disappear as well?

Would you be fine if Nintendo released another turn based strategy RPG with a similar tone to Fire Emblem, but called the series the Sol Saga?

[Lanko]

I hope they also put the DLC sales numbers.

I bought all of them, for a total of another $53. Thats more than another copy of FE13!

[Phoenix Wright]

I didn't mean that as a compliment for FF. FF13's tone and style is terrible, other than it's shiny graphics. FF needs to take a break and recover the spirit of the games up until FFX.

This is what I mean by liking change. I liked FF13. More than 7, in fact (and I just beat 7 a couple days ago). I think the combat system is awesome and I had a lot of fun with it. I also liked more characters from 13, as opposed to 7 (which, imo was blatantly racist and gave tifa big boobs for fanservice. Cloud is also a total douche and is quite boring). Story was sorta interesting. But yeah, FF4-6,8-10 are better than 12/13 in more than a few ways.

My point was that the reason that Nintendo retells the same stories is that the story is always second to the gameplay. Even in Fire Emblem, their most story oriented series. Capcom and Activision are the worst offenders of brand abuse. Capcom in particular has killed franchises by stringing sequels along without making major alterations to gameplay.

Agreed, pretty much. Enough to not raise objections, in any case.

I do think the new generations of gamers should receive strong gameplay experiences, similar to how we felt. I think franchises generate the best creative spirit out of some developers (like Intelligent Systems) which allow for new gamers to get great gameplay.

But this is implying that gamers can't get those experiences now with new, fresh titles. This isn't true. We don't need to cling to the titles of the past; developers will continue to be good enough to bring quality content for decades to come.

Question:

Do you just want the franchise (FE) to disappear, or do you want the game mechanics (turn based strategy RPG) to disappear as well?

Would you be fine if Nintendo released another turn based strategy RPG with a similar tone to Fire Emblem, but called the series the Sol Saga?

I want the brand name to disappear. I want a new IP from IS. But I want it to be the type of transformation similar to Uncharted and The Last of Us. The core is still there (so, it'd still be a TRPG), but virtually everything else is different. The tone, the story (let's face it, every FE story is pretty much the same, just told with differing levels of quality), some of the mechanics, the style, etc. That's what would make FE seem fresh to me.

No way do I want SRPGs/TRPGs to perish. I love them too much (except for FF Tactics A2).

[amadeuscho]

This is what I mean by liking change. I liked FF13. More than 7, in fact (and I just beat 7 a couple days ago). I think the combat system is awesome and I had a lot of fun with it. I also liked more characters from 13, as opposed to 7 (which, imo was blatantly racist and gave tifa big boobs for fanservice. Cloud is also a total douche and is quite boring). Story was sorta interesting. But yeah, FF4-6,8-10 are better than 12/13 in more than a few ways.

Agreed, pretty much. Enough to not raise objections, in any case.

But this is implying that gamers can't get those experiences now with new, fresh titles. This isn't true. We don't need to cling to the titles of the past; developers will continue to be good enough to bring quality content for decades to come.

I want the brand name to disappear. I want a new IP from IS. But I want it to be the type of transformation similar to Uncharted and The Last of Us. The core is still there (so, it'd still be a TRPG), but virtually everything else is different. The tone, the story (let's face it, every FE story is pretty much the same, just told with differing levels of quality), some of the mechanics, the style, etc. That's what would make FE seem fresh to me.

No way do I want SRPGs/TRPGs to perish. I love them too much (except for FF Tactics A2).

In FF7's defense, it's made during a certain era and just hasn't aged well. At the time though, it was great. FF13 may be better than 7, but its nowhere near the league of X and VI.

Didn't really imply that. I was framing it from the developer's side. I never said gamers can't get that new experiences from new IPs. Just certain franchises get the best out of developers. Just look at the Iwata Asks about Awakening or the interview relating to the possible cancellation of the FE series. Gamers don't just love franchises; developers live and breath for them too. Awakening was critical and commercial success because they put everything into it and they wanted the franchise to continue.

The problem with that analogy is that Uncharted 4 is still in development (it hasn't been announced, but we all know its going to be for the PS4). New IPs and Series' endings/cancellation have nothing to do with each other, other than they share the same resources. If the IS team was bigger, or didn't develop so many other titles, we could probably see a newer IP from them. Possible one FE a generation and that new IP. But the cancellation of the FE series wouldn't result in a new IP necessarily. In fact, if it was cancelled rather than ended, there is a good chance that we wouldn't see a SRPG from IS for awhile.

A series' cancellation/ending and new IP's are disconnected, so one would not lead to the other. I can't think of one instance where the cancellation of a series resulted in a new IP, other than when a developer or creator can't use the original IP for some reason.

Like take Prince of Persia and Assasin's Creed. PoP is on pause while AC is flourishing. But AC started before they put PoP on pause. Individual game's that are spiritual successor's like Ico to Shadow of the Collosus are more of two separate tales rather than IP cancellation. Maybe Shemue to Yakuza?

I get what you're saying, but the same could theoretically happen if the series was not cancelled. In fact, it has a better chance without the series being cancelled.

[Phoenix Wright]

I get what you're saying, but the same could theoretically happen if the series was not cancelled. In fact, it has a better chance without the series being cancelled.

Sure. Nice compromise, I suppose.