That doesn’t make sense if you think about it for a second. The entire game is designed around the destructible environments. One of the reasons it’s so good is that they use the interior of the landscape. And the gameplay loop is absolutely different.
But Nintendo also gets credit for Super Mario Galaxy; you’re right about that.
It’s a meaningful difference, but it’s still, at its core, “go into level, do little challenges to find a thing and progress the story”, except this time it’s banana instead of star.
I’m not saying you can’t enjoy the game but it’s not that different from Super Mario Odyssey. Its from the same development team, and you can clearly see they have a certain design that works.
And I’m not saying you do have to enjoy the game. I’m just saying that you’re starting with the opinion “Nintendo bad” and trying to backfill the reasons, because saying Donkey Kong Bananza isn’t innovative just doesn’t line up with reality. And saying that Nintendo as a whole isn’t innovative is just ridiculous.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let’s Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates.
(Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources.
If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
Donkey Kong Bananza just came out.
Mario and Zelda games are constantly innovating.
Your complaint doesn’t align with reality.
Bananza is pretty darn similar to the studio’s last Mario game. Same gameplay loop at its core, but with a DK and map destruction skin thrown on top.
That doesn’t make sense if you think about it for a second. The entire game is designed around the destructible environments. One of the reasons it’s so good is that they use the interior of the landscape. And the gameplay loop is absolutely different.
But Nintendo also gets credit for Super Mario Galaxy; you’re right about that.
It’s a meaningful difference, but it’s still, at its core, “go into level, do little challenges to find a thing and progress the story”, except this time it’s banana instead of star.
Next you’ll tell me they both have jumping!
I mean that’s all really high level stuff.
I’m not saying you can’t enjoy the game but it’s not that different from Super Mario Odyssey. Its from the same development team, and you can clearly see they have a certain design that works.
And I’m not saying you do have to enjoy the game. I’m just saying that you’re starting with the opinion “Nintendo bad” and trying to backfill the reasons, because saying Donkey Kong Bananza isn’t innovative just doesn’t line up with reality. And saying that Nintendo as a whole isn’t innovative is just ridiculous.
I like how no one mentioned watered down donkey Kong rockband.
Anyone arguing against the fact that they’re milking dust out of their financial cow is delusional.
So I think what’s going on here is that you’re actually just a hater.
A little lol
wait, they made a portmanteau of bonanza and banana? HA! I have to play this game