Imagine if you were developing a 3D platforming game. If you were given the opportunity to turn it into a Mario game, such that the game was guaranteed probably 10 million sales or more, thus ensuring your hard work pays off, would you turn down that opportunity?
Possibly, it would depend. If I were in the gaming business with hardware and was running an entire ecosystem that sought to penetrate a market of varying demographics by offering and addressing a variety of differing software tastes, the lowest hanging tastiest fruit may appear the most appealing for immediate profit but ultimately may not be the best choice for a long-term, broad reaching strategy as planting a new fruit tree would. Why not grow the market by making a 3D platformer that would appeal to those not already interested in Mario instead of continually harvesting it just because it's extremely safe and profitable? That leaves little room for growth. It's not like Mario's going away, and neither is Nintendo at want for money.
With their talent and resources they could be much more liberal and aggressive in getting brand new IPs out there and trying to push them to the territory that Mario sells. Nintendo are unparalleled in their gameplay innovations and creativity, their talent can support risk, and their bankroll can weather complete failure (the Wii U, a few software bombs here and there would be chump change to them). In light of this, it frustrates me to hear their top developer come out and state that their creative process is largely driven and beholden to properties they already own and that oftentimes new IPs aren't created because of it. And yes, I understand how from a business standpoint they see it as making sense (though I find it to be very myopic and limiting strategy personally), but from someone who enjoys gaming that craves originality in
ALL aspects and not simply in gameplay, it's not something I'd ever wish for, much less ever defend. I find it a horrible philosophy to hold as a game designer/company.
I'm hard pressed to think of a more creative new IP than Splatoon when it comes to gameplay. It's strange how that aways slips people's minds when discussing Nintendo and new IP.
Also what assets that are supposedly already there are you even talking about?
Except that logic would apply to every franchise out there and, even then, it doesn't make much sense. Games like the mainline Mario and Zelda titles always have new worlds, assets, music, characters, and visual styles. Same for many of their other series, like Mario Kart or Super Smash Bros. You're acting as if they copy and paste Super Mario Bros, just change some of the mechanics, and call it a new game when they shifted to 3D
So you think Retro's new game will be full of old assets. Ok.
I think he's trying to argue that every long running Nintendo franchise are just recycling old assets and doing nothing new aside from some gameplay changes here and there
Which doesn't make much sense. I really, really doubt Odyssey or BotW have that many assets from 3DWorld and Skyward Sword.
Let me clear this up.
When I'm speaking about assets I'm not meaning the literal developmental assets that Nintendo has to create for each new game, I'm referring to the underlying universe that all those assets stem from. That which has already been envisioned and created long ago, and that all the games henceforth are simply extensions and variants of it. Oftentimes drastic and much of the time with new inclusions, but they're still predicated on the past largely relying on the already established. Sure they have to create new environments for the Mushroom Kingdom and Hyrule, but they always exist in the Mushroom Kingdom and Hyrule no matter how different they are. Sure they have to create a new Link...but it's always Link. Etc, etc.
Sparing themselves an IP's inception is an immense workload off of them. Envisioning entirely new IPs, new worlds, characters, sounds, music, etc, takes a tremendous amount of effort, money, time and creative energy, and I'd argue a lot more than revisiting and reinventing an already existing property....a property that while, yes, necessitates the creation of new assets and gameplay concepts for every new iteration, nevertheless has a past foundation to look to to lend general direction, tone, and fundamental structure to....no matter how different it may be in the end from its predecessor. That's not to belittle the work they must do within that framework, only to draw contrast for my point.
I was warned for calling Nintendo lazy, so I suppose '
developmentally economical' might be a more suitable, PC fit as to not ruffle any feathers. It's not unreasonable, naive, or ignorant to state that all companies try to look to cut corners whenever and whichever way they can to minimize effort and expenditures while maximizing profit. That's not insulting developers' hard work, it's stating a business reality, and this is what I was meaning to say despite my poor choice of words. Can cutting corners or saving themselves extra work (as choosing not to create a brand new IP but instead using older proven formulas reinvented) be considered as lazy? No I wouldn't say it is, but I would consider it an economic and a market-driven consideration that, IMHO, when combined works to greatly stem the potential of their creative output.
Hope that clarifies a bit.