Monday, May 23, 2011

Modern War 3 Trailer Teases World War III

A new trailer reveals that the new story "Call of Duty" fans will be skipping entirely on their way to engage in online deathmatches with Ritalin-addled 12 year-olds involves a world-wide conflict.

As the previous game involved full-scale military operations underway in North America, the Middle East and Europe I'm not 100% clear why this is a "new" development; but whatever.


O.T said...

Now dont be like that Bob. My brother spent a good 5 hours on the single player campaign before he spent the next 58 shooting it up with the racist caricatures of west cheating virginia.

It doesnt look bad (not that any of the others have looked "bad" anyway), big, bombastic, polished. Unmistakibly CoD. Its doing what it intends to do, for all that entails.

Honestly, I've always been more concerned with CoD's development cycle. They release an iteration every year, costing multi-millions, to make a billion so they can do it all over again. Its crazy to me that they would put themselves in such a position that if they where to falter even a bit, it could be devestating. Activion is getting so attached to this yearly franchise that I cant see them losing it without serious consequences.

I personally dont care for the series but every time I see CoD, I get scared of how delicate a rope its on. These opinions are probably over-reactions so feel free to set me straight.

Dave from canada said...

@ Bob

Isn't it the same as nintendo showing a mario trailer for a game where the princess will once again be kidnapped for some unspecified reason?

@ OT

Hit the nail on the head. The real problem with COD isn't that it is bad. It's that its stagnant.

Well, I'd argue the multiplayer is an utter noob fest where skill is not nearly as important as gear and luck, playing a skill based shooter like Halo or gears then COD is night and day....but the SP is always good for an afternoon.

The second the shooter audience finds the next big thing (and they will), activision is going to start bleeding money. And they won't be able to stop for at least a year.

It's why I get so distressed at watching nintendo do the same damn thing with their games. I know where this is heading.

I Luv Vietnam said...

1. Do you even know jack shit about the people who play COD? Most, if not all COD players I know have played the single player. It's usually the multiplayer they play first however, as that's the main part of the game.
2. With the idea of WW3, they are obivously implying that multiple countries are at war, rather than just America and Russia.
3. I know for a fact I'm buying this game, why? Because they are bringing back the G36C and MP5, and those were my favorite guns from COD4.
4. Where do you get off saying "online deathmatches Ritalin-addled 12 year-olds? Most COD are decent people. Of course, you wouldn't know that.
5. Why do you say "online deathmatches" as if you're saying that all you do in COD multiplayer is mindlessly kill other players? Just goes to show how little you actually know about COD, the series, the story, and it's fanbase.

Aiddon said...

meh, this series has bored me for way too long. It doesn't help that Activision just puts it on a production line because they know it'll be gobbled up regardless of quality. Say what you will about Nintendo, they at least have SOULS.

Guybrush said...

@I Luv Vietnam

"Yeah COD... Manly.. urr.. favourite guns... yeah... urgh... shooting... yeahh... multiplayer... urghh shooting..."

Sorry lad. Can't take you seriously at all.

Dave from canada said...

@ Aiddon

The 3ds would seem to contradict everything you just said. A console whose only selling point is graphics, to the extent that is kills battery life? Whose killer app is an n64 game?

At least activision releases new games. Nintendo just keeps making remakes.

Make no mistake. Nnitendo fanboys are just as blind as the people who line up for COD every year. Possibly more so, since the latter group likely knows they have other options.

O.T said...

@Canadian Dave

Well Nintendo can get away with all that for a few reasons. Their games dont cost a close billion to make, market, and manafacture. They arent throwing all their eggs in one basket; they have multiple franchises to trot out when needed, (rotating crops per se). The stories of their games also dont rely on real world controversy for added effect.

Nintendo's figured out how to stay in place pretty well. Although who knows how much longer they wil last.

With Activision they definitly know how shooters in the market work, its why they throw as much money at it as they do.

@I Luv Vietnam

Great name there. We all know Xbox live isnt like that most of the time, its just what we like to poke fun at. Act with level head in the future and more people might be willing to listen to you.

akkuma420 said...

I think I'll probably pick this game up.
I think I'm one of the very few people left on this planet that buys FPS games for the campaign and not the online.
I don't really much care for the online, gets to competitive for my taste... I really like the Campaigns though.
Lots of action, explosions, guns, epic disaster scenes... sounds like a fun game to me.
I totally get why people hate COD though... no need to explain it to me. I just think there decent games and with the COD franchise you always know your going to get a pretty decent game for your money... regardless if it is more of the same or not.

Chris Cesarano said...


Activision's strategy was to have multiple annual franchises, and I think they even want to do the same with Transformers considering War for Cybertron last year and the film-based game from the same company this year. If there's a sequel to War for Cybertron (HOPEFULLY using a wider array of voice actors) next year, I wouldn't be surprised.

But seeing as Tony Hawk, DJ Hero and Guitar Hero all failed, Call of Duty is their last big money maker.

Thing is, I feel a bit divided. I loved the first MW, and while MW2's story was flawed there were a few things it did well. I love the concept of an all out world war setting (I'm not much a "GUNS! FUCK YEAH! BEER!" sort, but there's just something about playing pretend soldier...and I do mean soldier versus invincible bad ass), but the original Infinity Ward founders are gone, and a bunch of their team with them. MW2 was hardly as good as it could have been specifically because Activision rushed them. How can I have faith in this one even if it is Infinity Ward?

I actually agree with Bob, though. I go to a community filled with a LOT of competitive shooter types, and in the end they don't really discuss the campaign. It's either a thumbs up or thumbs down, but then everything is the multiplayer. And despite I Luv Vietnam's protestations, the kids are elitist pricks. They're stereotypical jocks, but with a controller instead of a football. In fact, most of the jocks I knew in high school were more kind-hearted people, so maybe now the stereotypical asshole is the gamer instead.

It's just so disappointing, and most of the rest of the industry is so desperate for their dollar even though the number of games they purchase new versus used is abysmal. It's so fucking backwards.

Aiddon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aiddon said...

@Dave from Canada

And those so-called remakes still have more originality and heart in one level than most "original IPs" have in their entire playtime.

Dave from canada said...


Yes, clearly a title like mass effect which builds an entire universe of sci tropes and deconstructs the lost of them while carrying your individual choices form each game over the 3 titles in the series all building to an epic conclusion has NOTHING on Z targeting.

I'm not disparaging nintendo's achievements back when they gave a damn.There's NOTHING original about OOT3d or pretty much any 3ds title. Hell, you'd be hard pressed to find any originality in any modern nintendo game. Since they are all remakes of each other it kind of cuts down on the creativity required. Yes yes, I know I'm besmirching nintendo and forcing you to confront the harsh realization that not everything form your childhood is perfect forever, but its grown up time.

Cameron said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aiddon said...

@ Dave from Canada

Dear GOD, you're a boring, joyless shell of a man.

Cameron said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cameron said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cameron said...

Huh, looked like fun. I might be interested in playing this one.

Never played against any "Ritalin-addled 12 year-olds" and I kinda doubt Bob has either. Most people I played with or against didn't talk, the ones that did were either in-chat or just called the enemy's position.

@ Dave from Canada

Why are you arguing with (what really does seem to be) a Nintendo fanboy? You should know better.

Dave from canada said...

@ Aiddon. yes, the fact that I am currently juggling 4 critically acclaimed games your choice in brands won't even be physically capable of running for a decade or more is clear ewvidence of how miserable I am.


Same reason I argue against anyone. For the benefit of people on the fence who may be watching. You aren't going to change anyone's mind on your own oveer the internet with direct confrontation. Once they can't take the argument further they'll either start going in circles or leave. But you can make sure the proper answers are out there for those who care.

Philbo said...

@Dave from Canada

You sir are my hero. Willing to debate with Bob and his most fervant supporters when you feel an issue needs to be raised, but not like Tim who seems to just want to disagree with Bob over everything.

Chris Cesarano said...

@Aiddon and @Dave from canada,

You're both right, really. Nintendo heavily relies on established franchises and proven gameplay design and does a Hell of a lot of recycling. However, they do continually try to innovate as well. When you get right down to it, they're all over the place.

The problem in terms of the 3DS is the one original IP people were excited for, the evolution of Kid Icarus, is far from being the first major game on the 3DS platform. Considering what I got to play at PAX East, this is no surprise. The game simply isn't ready and needs some improvement. I think that's where Aiddon is coming from when he says "soul". Nintendo takes this very seriously.

However, there's a reason Nintendo always makes a profit each year (even when they "did horribly" during the N64 and GameCube eras). They know their business, and even though the ports of Ocarina of Time and Star Fox 64 aren't going to be cheap, they're going to sell simply due to nostalgia. Two beloved game franchises having what fans claim to be the best in each series remastered for a platform with TRUE 3D? How can it NOT sell?

I confess, despite my attempts at integrity, I shall buy those games anyway.

At the moment, though, I don't think it is fair to really judge them as we don't know what major releases they have in store for 2011, or what they'll be doing with their new console. E3 is right around the corner, though, and it is possible we'll get some excellent new titles. And even if Kirby's Epic Yarn was retreading old side scrollers, it did it, well, with heart. They played around with the ideas so as to provide some innovation. Donkey Kong Country Returns may not live up to its predecessors, but it reminded us that we don't need three dimensions to have a challenging game that just pulls you in.

Nintendo understands that games should be fun, and they've endorsed interesting concepts in the past (Chibi Robo was published by Nintendo, wasn't it?). But they also know what will roll in pounds and pounds of dough.

Nintendo is a bit like Willy Wonka, only Asian and a lot more happy to sell your childhood for a fee.

Aiddon said...

Cesarano, that's precisely what I was trying to say. Yeah, sure, relying on the nearly dozen franchises they have COULD be recycling at face value. The thing is within those big franchises they innovate more than most other people who continually recycle. Seriously, they have more quality and innovation in their established titles than just about 80% of most other devs. As for the 3DS, I was fully aware of the launch lineup being lackluster (though I DARE anyone to actually tell me the last time a launch lineup for any system was GOOD) but bought it because I'm not so impatient

Dave from canada said...

@ aiddon

Except they don't. What was the big innovation with SNMBwii? Other M?Donkey Kong? What truly innovative titles have they put forward in the last 4 years?

Nintendo USED to have the innovation you speak of.Key phrase: USED to. Since their fanbase seems populated largely by spineless yesmen who take ANYTHING they dish out they haven't bothered to innovate in years. Even Mario galaxy was essentially Mario 64 with gravity puzzles.

the issue with the 3ds lineup isn't that it is lackluster, it is that it is bad by launch standards. The 360 launced with cod2, pdz and kameo, as well as PGR and geo wars. that's decent. The ps3 had RFOM. The wii had zelda.

The 3ds has a series of ports, and its next big killer app is a game that most of us already own.Twice. hell, it is a game that many of us got as a preorder bonus for Wind waker.

@ Chris.
I don't have to judge them on 2011. I can judge them on previous years. I remember back in the 90s Nintendo games were generational leaps over their competitors. But they haven't really progressed since then. And in fact they have regressed, selling sidescrollers whose only differntiating factor between virtual console games are the better graphics.

but because it is nintendo, graphics apparently are more important than gameplay.

Chris Cesarano said...

I think "innovation" is one of those things people like to throw about, and even I used to, but in this past generation I think we've learned that innovation comes in small packages. I'd say Mario Galaxy is a pretty innovative game for this generation, even if it's also a very refined version of its predecessor.

Likewise, Metroid: Other M captures an interesting aesthetic. It doesn't feel like a side-scroller, but it's not your traditional style of 3D game either. They also managed to prove that you can use only a handful of buttons to create some surprising depth in a game.

Most of all, though, I think it is a perfect example of how one should tackle the camera in a 3-D third person non-shooter game, though I didn't realize it until playing a demo of Epic Mickey. In Mickey, the camera was constantly getting caught on walls or other objects in the environment. Yet Metroid: Other M doesn't have this problem. The difference is simple: Metroid decides where the camera is going to be and then builds the room around that. Mickey does the tried and not-so-true method all platformers do, which is to build the level and then figure out how to wrestle with it.

It actually made me think of how film directors may often build shots completely with the camera in mind. A film that uses this in the most obvious fashion is Lord of the Rings, where it gave the illusion of Ian McKellen looking taller when, in fact, he was further into the foreground. Other films may purposefully have two versions of a set. For example, let's say you have someone walking through a house. In most shots a hallway looks normal sized, but when you later have the character tip-toeing to where the murderer supposedly is, you may use a completely new set with a much longer hallway to help build tension and suggest the character's emotions.

While video games aren't going to be building environments with the same concept (most of the time), it's a good idea to reapply for the practical purposes of development. Figure out what KIND of room you want to build, then figure out where you want the camera to be. I haven't played Super Mario Galaxy in a while, but if I recall most of the levels stuck the camera in specific areas. As a result, you are never really wrestling with the camera (except maybe to find some secrets).

Which is what I mean by subtle innovation. Nintendo DOES know what they're doing, and is willing to make some major advances. Unfortunately, it's a lot easier to notice gratuitous TRASH like "Shake Wiimote to blow flowers" (DKC Returns) than "Holy crap, this camera is so awesome and out-of-the-way that I don't even realize it!"

That said, Nintendo themselves have changed, and their attempts at innovation are more focused on the hardware than the software. Considering what happened with the Wii and its success, though, who is to blame them?

Dave from canada said...

@ Chris

If all you care about is that they make money, then noone. But then noone should blame activision. I mean, given how well COD is doing, can you blame them for not doing anything else?

But I think you'll find that people don't do that. It's ok for nintendo to do something but not ok for another company to do the same thing. Look at this post, with bob complaining about MW3 being not different enough from its predecessor. You think we'll ever get a complaint that NSMB3das is too similar to mario 3?

Despite the protestations that nintendo IS part of this console generation, noone seems in any hurry to judge them by the same standard.

Aiddon said...


Indeed, innovation has quickly become a cheap term that Yahtzee wannabes toss around without knowing the depth and weight of what it's supposed to mean. Truly big innovations that shake the industry are once in a generation, if that.

akkuma420 said...

Nevermind... Activision has just started to kill another one of there biggest franchises.

Check this link out...

For those of you to lazy to cut and paste... It's basically saying that all of the stuff from MW1 and up will be in the game... BUT, if you want the "special Premium" stuff for online play... you now have to pay for that as well.
No word as to what this "Premium" stuff is yet, or if it's a one time purchase or a monthly fee.
Not to be confused with DLC, this stuff is already there, it just sounds like you have to pay to unlock it.
I really don't understand how a game like COD, which has been the BIGGEST money maker in the history of videogames is going to FORCE you to pay for features that are already on the disk.
Bunch of greedy GREEDY fucks over at Activision.
It's going to be interesting to watch people's reactions once they realize that the initial 60+ dollar purchase was only the beginning of it.

Chris Cesarano said...

The difference, Dave, is that we're not seeing annual releases of, say, Metroid, or Zelda, or even Mario.

Though when it comes to change and innovation, that becomes a double-edged sword. The initial reaction to Wind Waker was "What the fuck?", and Miyamoto himself was dumbstruck and asked "Why aren't they clapping?" after the big E3 reveal. I remember thinking "Nintendo doesn't understand their fans" and going into my whole teenage angst mode of loving M-Rated games because it was "cool".

The truth is people just didn't get Nintendo or the fact that they were doing something interesting. Years later people look back fondly on Wind Waker, but originally it was viewed as a sort of embarrassment.

The point is, I don't know if it's that gamers don't want change (considering Wind Waker had stealth elements and a completely different style of open-world, there certainly was plenty of that) or strictly Nintendo fans don't want change. It could be that Nintendo made yet another business decision.

Though in that regard, Call of Duty is the same, as gamers keep on buying it. At this point, though, I think I have more frustration with the players than the company. I'd like companies, all of them, to keep some level of artistic integrity.

From a business standpoint, such a thing is suicide.

Best I can hope for is that Activision uses whatever profit they get from CoD to start funding interesting projects that may fail instead of trying to make everything another CoD. This is pretty much what Ubisoft does with all their Petz and Imagine games, and one of the reasons I don't mind it during their E3 presentations when they show that stuff off. "Let's see what's going to fund the next original and creative IP like Assassin's Creed!"

Dave from canada said...

@ Chris. Wouldn't the annual release of COD JUSTIFY the lack of major enhancements in each one? Its harder to make big changes in a year. Nintendo releases their big titles with far less frequency...and they are still largely unchanged from the mid 90s. Which brings up another point. For all my hate of activision, they are improving off a game from 07. Nintendo are improving off games from 95. And we are still seeing more forward momentum form COD. IN fact we are seeing active RERESSION from nintendo with their focus on sidescroller than on any modern console would be 15 dollar downloadable titles taht would ironically have more features and probably last longer.

I'm not saying that innovation and change are necessary all the time, but nintedo promised them as a trade off for the lack of power and online network features. And they aren't delivering. They aren't even delivering by the standards of the gamecube by and large. The wii library is by a wide margin the weakest on all modern consoles. It doesn't have as many quality games, in as many different genres and the number that actually take advantage of its unique abilities is very small. We should be seeing something to balance that out.

You talk about risks being suicide but many other companies manage them. Hell, microsoft is currently reaping the benefits of try to out wii the wii. It may very well be in nintendo's interest to just hunker down and release the same tired games they've been releasing for 3 generations.

But that is not what the old nintendo would have done. And ANYONE who counts themselves as a nintendo fan right now has no recourse whatsoever to criticize a company for doing the exact same thing they are doing.

Activision and nintendo are doing the same thing, essentially. Taking the few franchises they have that sell and pimping them like crazy,regardless of any real creative merit. And if people can live with that that's their business.

But I remember when activision was seen as the 'good company'. And I can easily see a time in the future when people en mass look back at nintendo with the same melancholy.

Chris Cesarano said...

I still believe there is a different corporate mentality as well as reaction to the masses as a whole. And once more, I do believe Other M is a positive step forward for the franchise's gameplay.

I think what we're examining is similar outcomes with different motivations behind them. Nonetheless, even if Zelda: Skyward Sword is similar to Twilight Princess, at least I only spent $100 across the span of what...five, six years? As opposed to $240-$300 on a barely changing franchise since 2007. Especially as the games aren't long enough to justify that much cost (whereas Zelda games are huge) and the multiplayer could just be patched.

A lot of it could also be a PR problem. Kotick tends to be a cock-faucet (he opens his mouth and dicks fly out), which paints a very negative picture. Nintendo has Shigeru Miyamoto, the oldest child in the world, and Reggie Fils-Aime, who looks like he could tear your head off with his pinky.

There's also a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff we're not seeing. Modern Warfare 2 wasn't really ready to hit the market, but Activision insisted on having their annual release schedule and forced it to be packaged up and put on store shelves. How many times was Metroid Prime 3 delayed? Twilight Princess? How many Nintendo games were delayed before then?

Nintendo, like Valve, will not ship a game until it is ready to ship, which means there will be a lot of Quality Assurance going on as well as polishing and other fixes.

Also, sometimes their attempts to tread new ground simply go unnoticed. You mark their biggest sellers, but what about Steel Diver? Not that I'm happy with how that game turned out, but it was trying some new stuff on the 3DS.

At this point I'm not arguing whether one is better or the other, technically. Still, I do lean towards Nintendo. Even so, consider the differences between the first two Mario games (in Japan at least), then the differences between Mario 3 and Mario World. And even though you propose New Super Mario Bros. is just a repackaged variant of the originals, there's a lot of new level design concepts thrown in that were never in a Mario game before.

As for whether the game is worth $50 or not, I'm not certain. It's honestly a longer game than Castle Crashers or Shadow Complex, and certainly had a larger team than someone like Behemoth could provide. I don't know how large the development team at CHair was when they built Shadow Complex. It could be that NSMBWii should have been $15 despite how large of a game it is. It could be that there's a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff we didn't see that made it as complex and huge a development as a modern $60 game. It could also be that Nintendo knew their market (casuals that could play Mario together) weren't going to buy any other game that year and so $50 was a reasonable price.

As a software developer, I really like Nintendo because they always have a focus on fun. They also treat it as a business, yes. It was their decision to make a random Yarn game and put Kirby in it just so it could sell better. They will always make Zelda games that stick to a working formula because it will sell (though Miyamoto DID say the next Zelda after Twilight Princess would change things...).

But as always, you gotta keep a matter of taste in mind. It could be there are some people that just like what Activision puts out better because it appeals to their tastes. Others like Nintendo's games because, well, no one else is really making games like they are.

I dunno. I think I lost my point and just want to defend Nintendo. I clearly have some bias here.

I Luv Vietnam said...

Well, I can't wait till the game is released. Why the hell are you guys bitching and moaning about this game? What is up with the hypocrisy? Why do people like Bob praise games like NSMB, Zelda, Metroid, Street Fighter, or Mortal Kombat for not changing, while wanting to crucify games like Halo or COD for doing the same thing?

Dave from canada said...

I thin the major difference is that youa re speaking from the perspective of a company and I am speaking from the perspective of the consumer.

If you spent 200 dollars over a 4 year period on games, then you probably found something. If you decide you don’t like COD, you need only wait a year for a new one, which is what people did when infinity ward was still around. How is giving people more choice a bad thing? With Nintendo you need to wait 3-4 years for a new game, and as of late, many f them have been actively regressing. I may not like COD but it is FPS standard. NSMB is not a modern game by any stretch of the imagination.
Regarding the behind the scenes stuff, I don’t care. MW2 still won awards, still sold well and is still played today. Clearly it was good enough for many many people. I don’t care how much a game cost the developers. I care how much it costs me. And there’s no way a game that would cost 15 dollars at most on the 360 should cost 50 dollars on the wii.

“Nintendo, like Valve, will not ship a game until it is ready to ship, which means there will be a lot of Quality Assurance going on as well as polishing and other fixes.”
Except in the cases where they don’t. Like Fire emblem which came with an unfixable bug that makes your save unusable. Or Brawl, whose online play nver worked properly and was shut down after a year. Can you see either of those situations lasting longer than a week or so on any other platform?
“Also, sometimes their attempts to tread new ground simply go unnoticed. You mark their biggest sellers, but what about Steel Diver?”
Metascore 58. That’s what’s about Steel Diver. Trying new things doens’t mean shit if it is really half asses.

Take a look back at how Nintendo used to operate. When people thought single screen games were good enough, they made sidescrollers. And when people adopted that, they let them scroll in 4 directions with Zelda and metroid. And when Sega decided to improve platfromers by making them faster, Nintendo had already opened platformers up by letting you take some levels out of order and skip other while bringing power ups from one level to another. Then in 91, they created a giant overworld with nearly a hundred levels, secret worlds, alternate ending to many stages, a bevy of new powers. When Crash bandicoot was going through tube like levels that only really wnet in one direction and were in fact essentially sidescrollers, Nintendo made Mario an open world game with dozens of moves, and essentially laid the framework for modern sandbox games.

Dave from canada said...

Now? They make sidescrollers. Now they make games they would have been ashamed to make in the 90s. Now they are actively falling behind the curb when they used to be the ones setting it a good year in advance. And they aren’t even alone in that. Peopel are still making sidescrollers, but are doing so to modern desing standards, ending up with better products that are still cheaper.
NSMBW is about 6-8 hours or so. Shadow complex is about 5. Are the extra hours worth paying 50 times as much an d sacrificing graphical fidelity? Hell, look at Splosion man. The game has 50 single player levels and 50 multiplayer levels and online coop. For 10 bucks.

“It could also be that Nintendo knew their market (casuals that could play Mario together) weren't going to buy any other game that year and so $50 was a reasonable price.”
The fact that Nintendo KNOWS their audience will buy it does not excuse it anymore than it does activision. Kotick knows people will buy CODand the map packs, and anything else they happen to decide to sell. How does that make Nintendo any different.

“But as always, you gotta keep a matter of taste in mind. It could be there are some people that just like what Activision puts out better because it appeals to their tastes. Others like Nintendo's games because, well, no one else is really making games like they are.”
Thing is, people ARE making games that Nintendo makes. For much, much cheaper. And i’ll take braid, splosion man, limbo and super meat boy over unimaginative leftovers like NSMB any day. And i’ll have 10 dollars to spare.
If all that seperates activision and Nintendo is taste then not only have I made my point, but NOONE who likes Nintendo has any business criticizing activision because they are just as loyal to a company that does the same thing.

Personally, I’d prefer to try and hold both of them accountable.

Chris Cesarano said...

You stick to New Super Mario Bros. a lot, so I'm guessing that particular game's success frustrates the Hell out of you. When it comes to Kirby's Epic Yarn, it seems the game's already received a $30 price drop. I used to joke that first party Nintendo games NEVER get a price drop unless a sequel is around the corner, but within six months of release Kirby's Epic Yarn was dropped down to nearly half.

Which is a shame, because it at least tries for some new style of design in terms of side-scrollers.

To be honest, though, I'm not the greatest fan of a lot of modern side-scrollers. They seem to focus more on being a sort of coffee-house art film than being truly fun. Now, I'm a high proponent of story in a game, but the gameplay MUST be fun as well. Braid and Limbo seem to be trying to sell an atmosphere or story to me and less gameplay. Maybe that's just my taste.

But going back, I still say Nintendo is developing games like no other, and put Super Mario Galaxy forth as an example. Even if it is a lot like Super Mario 64 (and I'm also not a supporter of Super Mario Galaxy 2, but whatever) there still really aren't any other platformers quite like it these days. If people are willing to shell out major dollars for an HD version of Mario 64, well, what other sort of game is there?

In terms of Metroid: Other M, personally I love the game and feel it is unique in its style. Not quite 3-D, not really a side-scroller, but somewhere in between. I loved the gameplay even if the story was crap, and I ended up playing it a second time right after beating it just so I could get more of its unique gameplay.

The same can be said for games like Mario Sports Mix and many of their spin-offs.

I feel like this conversation has and has not hit a brick wall. I'd like to keep it going, but Blogger comments seem a bad way to go about it.

I think, depending on your perspective, any game publisher in this day and age can be viewed as evil or good. I'm more partial to Nintendo than Activision, but as much as I can't stand Kotick I must confess that I did enjoy last year's Transformers: War for Cybertron, so the chances of boycotting any of their products are low.

Dave from canada said...

@ Chris. I bring up NSMB because its the one Bob likes the most. My entire point on this is that Bob has no right to criticize COD for things he outright lauds in the mario franchise.

Making the same game over and over is either bad or good. You don't get to claim it is only good when your side is the one doing it. He, and anyone who likes nintendo's new direction has no business whatsoever criticizing activision.

I can. And do. Just as a criticize nintendo.

And Kirby is not a new style. It's a new asthetic. The gameplay is still the same and the game comes nowhere close to the raw content of Superstar or the off the wall awesomeness of Crystal Shards.

Epic yarn is only new in the most superficial, shallow way. Which (now the kirby franchise has always been a sidescroller. I can accept it simply being a perpetually retro title like megaman.) But I resent nintendo trying to pretty it up and act like this is some grand new thing, especially at retail price. For a company and fanbase that kep insisting that the focus on graphics is bad, they sure seem keen to focus entirely on graphics when they can't come up with anything new in the gameplay department. It's especially annoying when those guys concentrating on the graphics who aren't nintendo? Also making strides in the gameplay department.