The Nintendo Wii U does not appear, on the surface, to be leaving much of a legacy. With the code-name NX console slated for next year, the door is set to close on Nintendo’s eighth generation console. Its current claim to infamy: the Wii U (to date) is the worst-selling Nintendo home console, at 12.8 million units (the previous title owner was the Gamecube at 21.7 million units). Yet I believe history may show a silver-lining for the Wii U. In many ways, its unique, ambitious, and ultimately underutilized controller concept has prototyped the way that the industry may play in the immediate future. In a lot of cases, the Wii U controller screen was used like a virtual reality (VR) headset.
It is no secret that Nintendo has seen better days. While the company is far from in trouble financially, the Wii U and 3DS have not matched the high profitability of the Wii and DS. Part of this is the normal rise and fall of the video game industry (think Xbox-Xbox 360-Xbox One). Yet there is another sign that the Big N might be in trouble that is actually far more worrisome than lackluster hardware sales.
Nintendo is a rarity in today’s video game climate. It is a company that survives largely without the support of third-party developers. Want to play Grand Theft Auto, BioShock, Star Wars Battlefront – buy another system. This absence would doom most video game console developers, but Nintendo has been able to fire back with the likes of Mario, the Legend of Zelda, Super Smash Bros., and Pikmin. They are a company that carries itself on its first-party (in-house) software library.
In short: if Nintendo first-party games don’t sell, the company hasn’t got a chance. So far this hasn’t been a problem, since Nintendo games usually gather near-unanimous praise from gamers and critics alike. This past year, however, has seen a disturbing trend. Several first-party games have been released to less than stellar reviews, some of them coming from Nintendo’s most prominent series.
Mario Tennis Ultra Smash
Beginning on the Virtual Boy, the Mario Tennis series went big with its Nintendo 64 entry. Since then, the series has been a staple of fun sports games done well. While it never rose as high as Mario Kart, the series enjoyed success on the Gamecube, the Gameboy Advance, the Wii, and on the 3DS. Yet the Wii-version was just a redone Gamecube release and fans could not wait for the next console entry to continue the series’ high standard.
They’re still waiting.
Mario Tennis was a series that prided itself on its variety of modes and diverse game types, features that were completely missing in the lackluster Mario Tennis Ultra Smash. The result was immediately seen in the critical response. On Metacritic, while previous games averaged a 77, Mario Tennis Ultra Smash manged only a 58 (5.2 out of ten user score). This is a dramatic drop, and not just in review score. In its first month, Mario Tennis Ultra Smash sold just 18,000 copies (compared to Yoshi’s Woolly World at 97,000 which only debuted a few weeks prior). Mario Tennis had a reputation, and it was severely damaged by this lackluster entry.
Animal Crossing: Amiibo Festival and Happy Home Designer
How do you follow-up the surprising success of Animal Crossing: New Leaf on the 3DS? Apparently, Nintendo opted for a mediocre handheld game (which many critics said felt more like a mini-game) and a console release that convinced many gamers that amiibos were the stuff of gimmicks.
While New Leaf received near-universal praise (88 on Metacritic with a 8.7 user rating), Happy Home Designer managed only a 66 (6.7 user score) and Amiibo Festival was worse at 46 (4.4 user score). In two games, Nintendo was able to erase nearly all the goodwill established with New Leaf. Now, when the next Animal Crossing game is released – customers will likely check to see if it is an actual new game, or another gimmick trodden out to pad game release numbers.
To look at the units sold, it’s even worse. New Leaf sold a strong 8.87 million units. Happy Home Designer has only sold 2.83 million, and Amiibo Festival has yet to break a million (at this point it is unlikely that it will). Ouch.
The Legend of Zelda: Tri-Force Heroes
While this game did not receive the negative reviews of the others, it is worth mentioning because it is a Zelda game. Specifically, I believe that this game features the lowest average review score of any Zelda game made by Nintendo (these don’t count). The Legend of Zelda: Tri-Force Heroes earned only a 73 on Metacritic (user score was 75). To put that in perspective, the average of the other Zelda games, just on page one, was 92. Again, that is a large drop off in quality (far down from A Link Between Worlds, which earned a 91.
To look at units sold, Tri-Force Heroes sits currently at just over a million, whereas A Link Between Worlds is just under three million. Again, it is not incredibly troubling, but to release even an “okay” Zelda game damages the brand of one of Nintendo’s biggest franchises.
Star Fox Zero
I include this last one with an *. As of now, Star Fox Zero has not been released to the public yet in North America, but reviews are coming in. Currently, it is a 72 on Metacritic, which is not terrible (currently above Star Fox Assault). That said, Star Fox Zero was the first game since 64 that directly involved legendary creator Shigeru Miyamoto – so expectations were a little higher.
Time will tell exactly how well this new Star Fox sells and is received by fans. Star Fox Assault, the last console Star Fox game, sold just over a million units, so that is the number to beat.
It is no surprise that higher review scores translate to higher sales numbers. In a world that is overloaded with games, it is tough to make a case to own any game that is less than good. Nintendo has survived on its brands and will continue to do so. Every misstep is costly. Series like Legend of Zelda will no doubt recover from Tri-Force Heroes, but when will we see another Mario Tennis game? To give a comparison, Rogue Squadron was a staple Star Wars franchise… that is until Rebel Strike came out.
The damage done by lackluster games cannot be understated. Here’s hoping that Nintendo rightens the ship before it is too late. Perhaps they are saving all their big ideas for the NX.
So Jurassic World is out, and despite fears expressed by this writer… the movie has been a phenomenal financial success. Seriously, look up how much freaking money this movie is making. It’s insane. Well now, as with any successful project in this day and age – time for cash-ins. A film like Jurassic World calls for something very specific: I want a sequel to the 2003 video game, Jurassic Park: Operation Genesis.
For those not in the know, Operation Genesis is a park simulation video game (similar to Theme Park and Roller Coaster Tycoon… just with dinosaurs). You play as the one person to run Jurassic Park the right way – or the wrong way; it is left to the player to decide. Build the park, build the attractions, make the dinosaurs, watch the dinosaurs devour people, drive the car – everything from the first three movies is in this game… except the pterosaurs.
But that’s just it: first three movies. Now there’s four. $$$$ time.
Jurassic World introduced several new features that would be perfect additions to the game. The first is obvious:
Jurassic World showed what the first three movies never did: a successful park. Operation Genesis had to guess what that would look like. Sure they took the obvious, like the car tour, from the movies but really – that was it. The rest of the rides you could build were guesswork, with some working better than others. The balloon tour was neat and the viewing platforms made cool… but restaurants with dinosaurs on them and generic gift shops? Kinda lame.
Jurassic World brings new ideas such as more interactive attractions. A petting zoo and feeding exhibits come to mind. The SeaWorld inspired Mosasaurus would be a lot of fun. And for the love of all that is good, Jurassic Tennis. It has been mentioned in two films and I have no idea what it is. What makes it Jurassic? I want it in the game.
Was Indominus Rex dumb? Absolutely – but she was also fun. Jurassic World also teased the idea of other genetic hybrids, and the player should be able to make them all. Another issue raised in the fourth film was authenticity. As Dr. Wu mentioned, this is not what dinosaurs actually looked like. It would be an innovative option to be able to create more scientifically accurate dinosaurs while attempting to battle public reaction. It would create a lot of dynamic game experiences (such as mixing “real” dinosaurs with fake ones and watching how they interacted).
As Chris Pratt showed, even the mightiest beast can be tamed with the right handler. Bringing in handlers and introducing the idea that how a dinosaur is raised mattered would be another exciting way to add depth to the game. A good trainer would help yield more docile creatures and help keep the park fatality rate down. A bad trainer would, well, make things interesting.
In general, it has been twelve years since Operation Genesis was released. What was the PS2 and Xbox have transformed into the PS4 and Xbox One (and Nintendo still makes consoles too evidently). It should not be too hard to top what was done twelve years ago. Look at how easily Jurassic World topped Jurassic Park III. More dinosaurs, more interesting dinosaur behavior, more ways to build and destroy – it wouldn’t be too difficult. Heck, there’s so many dinosaurs, the DLC creates itself.
Have we gotten other games since then? Sure, things like Jurassic Park III: Park Builder and Jurassic Park: Builder exist, but players want something more in-depth. Surely this would be money better spent than Jurassic Park: the Game.
In short, please make this game. Heck, you can even just call it Jurassic Park: Operation Genesis if you’re worried that gamers won’t buy anything with a number after it (like Doom 4 clearly is). We’re running out of mods to play. Please people with money, make a game we want… so we will give you more money. Sound fair?
Or a new Trespasser… that might work too.