Why do most of nintendo's main franchises have such repetitive/shallow gameplay?

Zelda - Extremely simplistic/repetitive combat with no depth behind it, not to mention nintendo hasn't changed this formula at all since OOT and LTTP for the handheld games, until SS drops of course.

Donkey Kong - Same thing shallow/repetitive combat with no depth.

Mario - Same as DK

Brawl - Shallow and nintendo further try to casualize it by making things random

Mario Kart - Shallow and nintendo further casualized it by making things random

Kirby - Same as mario/DK

Pokemon - One of the exceptions amongst the main franchises.

Metroid - Another exception amongst the main franchises.

Anyone else agree? Most of these games have good level design masking simplistic and repetitive combat, which makes me wonder how people considered nintendo to be up with the times in terms of gameplay.

Good luck buddy.. You're gonna need it. *hides*

Because they don't. They are known for having state of the art gameplay mechanics.IronBass

Deleted my first post to clarify now on to this. How so? I mean alot of these games reuse the same shallow combat from their originals, how can that be "state of the art". GD1551

[QUOTE="GD1551"]Deleted my first post to clarify now on to this. How so? I mean alot of these games reuse the same shallow combat from their originals, how can that be "state of the art". IronBass

So CoD, Uncharted, God/Gears are deep right?

i........good luck my friend your going to need it

Spoken out of every cliche Nintendo hate thread ever made on this forum.

Simple gameplay doesn't mean shallow and repetitive. I think that firing on a hoard of enemies with varieties of guns is shallow and repetitive (but still fun sometimes).

Platformers are usually simple games, with simple mechanics, so that picking up the game is easy, but using those same mechanics over incresingly difficult stages is the challenge (with different powerups).

Erm how could it be state of the art if it's from 10+ years ago.. which is what I'm referring to. GD1551

Something being old isn't an indicative of its quality, either.

Secondly the gameplay in the games I listed is shallow and repetitive, there isn't depth anywhere and you basically play them the same way from start to finish, like a campaign for a shooter, the games don't evolve into more at all.GD1551

You already said that in your OP, I already know you find them shallow. That doesn't change that a lot of people don't, and that's why they are still used.

But.... they aren't shallow and repetitive.

Zelda - Extremely simplistic/repetitive combat with no depth behind it, not to mention nintendo hasn't changed this formula at all since OOT and LTTP for the handheld games, until SS drops of course.

Donkey Kong - Same thing shallow/repetitive combat with no depth.

Mario - Same as DK

Brawl - Shallow and nintendo further try to casualize it by making things random

Mario Kart - Shallow and nintendo further casualized it by making things random

Kirby - Same as mario/DK

Pokemon - One of the exceptions amongst the main franchises.

Metroid - Another exception amongst the main franchises.

Anyone else agree? Most of these games have good level design masking simplistic and repetitive combat, which makes me wonder how people considered nintendo to be up with the times in terms of gameplay.

GD1551

If Zelda changed teh formula, many fans would b**** about it, and besides they change alot of other things outside the forumla. Wind Waker felt like a very different experience from OoT, even Majora's Mask felt like a very different experience from OoT. And besides, I'm willing to bet people will b**** about Skyward Sword BECAUSE it's changing the formula. It will happen and I will laugh my LMAO at the hypocrisy.

And what's wrong with Mario, DK, and Kirby? They're not very deep, no, but so what. Most of the games in these series are well-made, enjoyable experiences; not everything has to be SUPER DEEP and COMPLEX to be good. There's nothing wrong with simplicity.

As for Brawl, assuming you aren't playing with items on, the only thing that makes it more random than the previous two games is tripping, and while it's a nuisance and was a terrible addition, but even then it typically doesn't significantly alter a match. Or if you are using items in brawl, then I fail to see why you're complaining since ALL SSB games become more random with items turned on.

just because its simple does not mean its shallow, yeah mario all you do is jump on your enimies, but that does not mean the game play is shallow or bad. its simple and easy to pick up and play. EmperorZeruel

[QUOTE="GD1551"]Erm how could it be state of the art if it's from 10+ years ago.. which is what I'm referring to. IronBass

Something being old isn't an indicative of its quality, either.

Secondly the gameplay in the games I listed is shallow and repetitive, there isn't depth anywhere and you basically play them the same way from start to finish, like a campaign for a shooter, the games don't evolve into more at all.GD1551

You already said that in your OP, I already know you find them shallow. That doesn't change that a lot of people don't, and that's why they are still used.

I agree, but as I said the gameplay does not expand more from the beginning. DMC and Ninja Gaiden are simple games but have depth behind them. Same with RTS like starcraft or warcraft.GD1551

The entire Legend of Zelda franchise has depth behind it. You gain items and progress in the game, but the core mechanic of the game is fairly simple. I don't really see what your point is.

If Zelda changed teh formula, many fans would b**** about it, and besides they change alot of other things outside the forumla. Wind Waker felt like a very different experience from OoT, even Majora's Mask felt like a very different experience from OoT. And besides, I'm willing to bet people will b**** about Skyward Sword BECAUSE it's changing the formula. It will happen and I will laugh my LMAO at the hypocrisy.

And what's wrong with Mario, DK, and Kirby? They're not very deep, no, but so what. Most of the games in these series are well-made, enjoyable experiences; not everything has to be SUPER DEEP and COMPLEX to be good. There's nothing wrong with simplicity.

As for Brawl, assuming you aren't playing with items on, the only thing that makes it more random than the previous two games is tripping, and while it's a nuisance and was a terrible addition, but even then it typically doesn't significantly alter a match. Or if you are using items in brawl, then I fail to see why you're complaining since ALL SSB games become more random with items turned on.

DJ-Lafleur

I agree with you but I just find it hilarious nintendo fans say it's gameplay that counts when the biggest wii games have very simple repetitive gameplay with no depth behind them.

This is a very weak argument and counters nothing I said.GD1551

Nothing you've said needs countering. It's your opinion about a by definition subjective topic. You're free to think whatever you want about any game.

I was answering the question of your thread (why are Nintedo games the way they are? because people like them).

I agree with you but I just find it hilarious nintendo fans say it's gameplay that counts when the biggest wii games have very simple repetitive gameplay with no depth behind them.

GD1551

The same can be said about other things. By looking at the core mechanics only one can say that every FPS is the same, repetitive and has no depth. All you do is shoot and kill and that's that.

Obviously, there is more to it than that.

Why haven't this topic recieved a FAIL pic yet? I am dissapointed GS.

[QUOTE="DJ-Lafleur"]

If Zelda changed teh formula, many fans would b**** about it, and besides they change alot of other things outside the forumla. Wind Waker felt like a very different experience from OoT, even Majora's Mask felt like a very different experience from OoT. And besides, I'm willing to bet people will b**** about Skyward Sword BECAUSE it's changing the formula. It will happen and I will laugh my LMAO at the hypocrisy.

And what's wrong with Mario, DK, and Kirby? They're not very deep, no, but so what. Most of the games in these series are well-made, enjoyable experiences; not everything has to be SUPER DEEP and COMPLEX to be good. There's nothing wrong with simplicity.

As for Brawl, assuming you aren't playing with items on, the only thing that makes it more random than the previous two games is tripping, and while it's a nuisance and was a terrible addition, but even then it typically doesn't significantly alter a match. Or if you are using items in brawl, then I fail to see why you're complaining since ALL SSB games become more random with items turned on.

GD1551

I agree with you but I just find it hilarious nintendo fans say it's gameplay that counts when the biggest wii games have very simple repetitive gameplay with no depth behind them.

You offered little to describe exactly what you mean by shallow/repetitive gameplay, except to say that several franchises by Nintendo have shallow/prepetitive gameplay.

[QUOTE="GD1551"]This is a very weak argument and counters nothing I said.IronBass

[QUOTE="GD1551"]I agree, but as I said the gameplay does not expand more from the beginning. DMC and Ninja Gaiden are simple games but have depth behind them. Same with RTS like starcraft or warcraft.Haziqonfire

The entire Legend of Zelda franchise has depth behind it. You gain items and progress in the game, but the core mechanic of the game is fairly simple. I don't really see what your point is.

You offered little to describe exactly what you mean by shallow/repetitive gameplay, except to say that several franchises by Nintendo have shallow/prepetitive gameplay.

jimkabrhel

I'll use an example... DMC. The combat is simple and most people can get through the game just mashing. However underneath that is a whole layer of depth with the combo system which allows alot deeper and satisfying gameplay.

Yeah it does actually, you still haven't focused on the main point at hand and basically side stepped the issue of whether the gameplay is simplistic and repetitive, you say it's opinion when it really isn't. Me saying uncharted has deep, complex gameplay isn't going to change the fact it doesn't.GD1551

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

You offered little to describe exactly what you mean by shallow/repetitive gameplay, except to say that several franchises by Nintendo have shallow/prepetitive gameplay.

GD1551

I'll use an example... DMC. The combat is simple and most people can get through the game just mashing. However underneath that is a whole layer of depth with the combo system which allows alot deeper and satisfying gameplay.

To me, truth depth would mean that you have to use all your skills to beat the game, not be able to ignore most of them in favor of button mashing. Most action games like DMC or God of War are shallow and repetitive, and while well made, don't stand out very much from the crowd of other action games, except for setting.

I enjoy a good action game when I don't want to think much about combo, and want to just beat some **** up.

The combat is the same from start to finish it's highly repetitive and extremely shallow, god of war has more depth to it and that game is one of the simplest out. The items are too situation specific to add any dimension to the combat most of the time.GD1551

Those two series aren't really even comparble... they're trying to accomplish two different things.

Like others have said in this thread, what you're trying to do is convince people that what you're saying is the absolute truth when it's not -- its completely subjective.

[QUOTE="GD1551"]The combat is the same from start to finish it's highly repetitive and extremely shallow, god of war has more depth to it and that game is one of the simplest out. The items are too situation specific to add any dimension to the combat most of the time.Haziqonfire

Those two series aren't really even comparble... they're trying to accomplish two different things.

Like others have said in this thread, what you're trying to do is convince people that what you're saying is the absolute truth when it's not -- its completely subjective.

I can tell you've never even played a Nintendo game.22Toothpicks

How so? I've owned every nintendo console except the GC and the handhelds.

[QUOTE="Haziqonfire"]

[QUOTE="GD1551"]The combat is the same from start to finish it's highly repetitive and extremely shallow, god of war has more depth to it and that game is one of the simplest out. The items are too situation specific to add any dimension to the combat most of the time.GD1551

Those two series aren't really even comparble... they're trying to accomplish two different things.

Like others have said in this thread, what you're trying to do is convince people that what you're saying is the absolute truth when it's not -- its completely subjective.

It's isn't fact. It's opinion. "Deep" is a subjective term, in this context. A 5 foot deep pool would be shallow to some, and deep to others.

In the case of Zelda, the combat is really simplistic. But the true core of Zelda is exploration and puzzles, which more than make up for the combat. It's a very simple game, but it works well in Zelda's case.

For Mario/DK/Kirby, I just have to ask WTF? Who plays platformers for their combat :? The challenge from platformers comes from navigating hazards quickly and precisely, not from killing everything that crosses your screen.

How about mentioning something other than combat in these games. Nintendo games gameplay is usually not about combat, and games can have good gameplay while having bad combat. Or else Fallout 1+2 would have terrible gameplay.

And no, Pacing is one of Nintendo's biggest strengths. Nintendo games are hardly repetitive.

I can't disagree with you more TC. :P

Also Simplistic=/=Shallow

In the case of Zelda, the combat is really simplistic. But the true core of Zelda is exploration and puzzles, which more than make up for the combat. It's a very simple game, but it works well in Zelda's case.

For Mario/DK/Kirby, I just have to ask WTF? Who plays platformers for their combat :? The challenge from platformers comes from navigating hazards quickly and precisely, not from killing everything that crosses your screen.

Kickinurass

How about mentioning something other than combat in these games. Nintendo games gameplay is usually not about combat, and games can have good gameplay while having bad combat. Or else Fallout 1+2 would have terrible gameplay.

And no, Pacing is one of Nintendo's biggest strengths. Nintendo games are hardly repetitive.

Maroxad

I never called the gameplay bad I said it's shallow and repetitive. Fallout 1+2 has depth because even though the combat may suck, you still have tons of options in the way you do things within the game.

[QUOTE="Kickinurass"]

In the case of Zelda, the combat is really simplistic. But the true core of Zelda is exploration and puzzles, which more than make up for the combat. It's a very simple game, but it works well in Zelda's case.

For Mario/DK/Kirby, I just have to ask WTF? Who plays platformers for their combat :? The challenge from platformers comes from navigating hazards quickly and precisely, not from killing everything that crosses your screen.

GD1551

That you mentioned Sonic suggests that you have never played a Mario game. Sonic is about speed, even more than platforming. Outland and Trine do have interesting concepts, but Trine, despite it's physics based aspects feels less smooth than a game like New Super Mario Brothers.

I played the Outland demo, and while it looks amazing and plays smoothly, the light/dark gameplay aspect doesn't add a lot of depth, no more than a set of powerups for another platformer.

What am I reading?

They dont...

Depends on what you define as shallow. I think most of their games have gameplay relating to what they are trying to accomplish. I find Zelda and Mario to have great varied gameplay as well.

I can't agree with something that isn't true, GD1551.Willy105