• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Nintendo partnering with Universal to make attractions.

1HAPPYGHOSTHOST

Well-Known Member
It’s AR, not VR. This is more convincing than just screens
Not really. sometimes it worse than a screen because you have a real background with a damn fake cartoon looking character. I want to be in the world of Mario not watch a Mario cartoon on some Roger Rabbit hybrid ride.
 
Last edited:

Disneyhead'71

Well-Known Member
AR looks like holding animation cells in front of your face. Sure, the drawing could be pretty detailed and realistic, but it's still clearly superimposed over the real world.
Thus the name "Augmented Reality".

Because I don't care about rides also being a game. The "game" in this instance is far worse than the one I have on my Switch. A ride should present an experience that is unique to theme parks, not try to reproduce home entertainment on a large scale.
Ummm, you are aware that Nintendo is a video game company, right?
 

Loopsie

Member
Ummm, you are aware that Nintendo is a video game company, right?
The land itself is already a giant real life video game though.

Why did the rides have to be interactive when the land itself already achieves interactivity in a more unquie way?

Mario Kart turned into a shooter where you don't battle other human players and only use one item. It's also very slow (even within the AR, the characters are crawling until Rainbow Road) it doesn't use Item Boxes, no drifting, its a team battle (most casuals who play Mario Kart probably didn't even know team races existed) and couldn't even find a creative context as to why AR is being used.


Yoshi's interactivity isn't even worth mentioning.

These rides didn't need interactivity in my book (and Mario Kart should have just been a completely different concept).
 
Last edited:

Disneyhead'71

Well-Known Member
These rides didn't need interactivity in my book (and Mario Kart should have just been a completely concept).
Except for the fact Nintendo wanted everything interactive and part of a larger land wide game. Supposedly in the app linked to your band you get different character stamps for completing different tasks including Yoshi.
 

Tom Morrow

Well-Known Member
Thus the name "Augmented Reality".


Ummm, you are aware that Nintendo is a video game company, right?

What @Loopsie said. Also, I'll add that every. single. ride that also tries to be a video game is mediocre at best. The exception I suppose would be Men in Black, which feels more like interactivity than a video game.

For whatever reason, the theme park decision-makers are gung-ho for these things, I suppose because "interactive video game ride" is easy to market. But in the end, they'll always be the Smuggler's Run to Rise of the Resistance.

In this case, Nintendo pushed heavily for interactivity everywhere, but I do believe that Nintendo is a company that somehow manages to continually fail upwards by occasionally hitting absolute home runs but mostly striking out.
 

Loopsie

Member
Except for the fact Nintendo wanted everything interactive and part of a larger land wide game. Supposedly in the app linked to your band you get different character stamps for completing different tasks including Yoshi.
Oh no, I know that. They have the achievements and stamps that share heavy similarities to the Miiverse stamps used in the original version of Super Mario 3D World.

But that doesn't mean I think it was a good idea. Cool digital stamps aren't going to fix the creative clusterfudge that is Yoshi's Adventure.
 
Last edited:

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
What @Loopsie said. Also, I'll add that every. single. ride that also tries to be a video game is mediocre at best. The exception I suppose would be Men in Black, which feels more like interactivity than a video game.

For whatever reason, the theme park decision-makers are gung-ho for these things, I suppose because "interactive video game ride" is easy to market. But in the end, they'll always be the Smuggler's Run to Rise of the Resistance.

In this case, Nintendo pushed heavily for interactivity everywhere, but I do believe that Nintendo is a company that somehow manages to continually fail upwards by occasionally hitting absolute home runs but mostly striking out.
Video games are the big thing in entertainment. Themed entertainment as an industry is stuck in this inferiority complex where too much of the industry believes they have to be imitating other storytelling mediums. For decades now it has been movies but the “next” thing is seen as video games. You had movie theme parks and movie theme parks rides so now we need video game theme park experiences. Heaven forbid themed entertainment be its own unique thing.
 

BasiltheBatLord

Well-Known Member
The issue with the interactivity is that it isn't truly interactive in the way you would expect of an actual game of Mario Kart, which is what the ride is supposed to be emulating.

- The item boxes are scripted, you always get item refills at the same points on the track (this was really confusing to me on my first ridethrough)
- The only items available are shells, nothing else (you "get" a Starman at the end but that doesn't actually do anything so doesn't count)
- You can hit other racers with the shells but it doesn't have any effect on anything beyond giving you coins and showing an animation when the racer gets hit. The number of coins obtained by each player supposedly influences who wins the race at the end (Mario or Koopa)

As far as I'm aware that's the full extent of the interactivity. There are moments in the ride meant to emulate being on the receiving end of items (for example Blooper ink and lightning bolt), but these are scripted and happen every time.

I'm not knocking Universal for trying to integrate items because they're definitely an essential part of Mario Kart, but people trying to argue like it's some kind of high benchmark of interactivity is a little odd to me. If the ride is truly AR-powered and interactive then you would expect it to be more like the actual games, but instead it's in this gray area where it's sorta interactive but mostly scripted. I think it would've been a better experience if it was all or the other.
 

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
In this case, Nintendo pushed heavily for interactivity everywhere, but I do believe that Nintendo is a company that somehow manages to continually fail upwards by occasionally hitting absolute home runs but mostly striking out.

This is a different conversation, but I'm not sure this represents their current generation at all.

Almost every one of their franchises has recently had one of the best entries in years (or in many cases ever). They don't fail upwards, they just march to the beat of their own drum constantly and have a hard time following expected convention. Or more annoyingly for many, their own precedence.
 

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
The issue with the interactivity is that it isn't truly interactive in the way you would expect of an actual game of Mario Kart, which is what the ride is supposed to be emulating.

I think you nail it beautifully. If the goal was to build an interactive ride, maybe they could have started with actually something that mattered to the franchise... you know, like steering...

Autotopia is a more successful Mario Kart theme park attraction. This really isn't an interactive ride in the echelon of attractions.
 

Tom Morrow

Well-Known Member
This is a different conversation, but I'm not sure this represents their current generation at all.

Almost every one of their franchises has recently had one of the best entries in years (or in many cases ever). They don't fail upwards, they just march to the beat of their own drum constantly and have a hard time following expected convention. Or more annoyingly for many, their own precedence.
True, but they're still really weird about giving people what they actually want. They literally have a license to print free money by porting so many classic games from their library to Switch, but instead, ehh... here's one or two a year. They succeed anyway, because of their legacy and their smash hit tentpole releases like Breath of the Wild and Mario Odyssey.

Us: "We want a console that isn't 5 to 10 years behind on specs."

N: "No. Here's a tablet that's about as powerful as a Wii U" (which was already underpowered in 2012 when it debuted)

Us: "We want the classic 3D Mario games ported to Switch."

N: "Fine, here you go, but we won't bother to remaster them or even run Mario 64 at 60 FPS / widescreen, also its only available for 6 months."

Us: "We want the GOOD 3D Zelda's ported/remastered to Switch!"

N: "No. Here's Skyward Sword." (the worst one by far)

Us: "We want characters we care about in Smash, no more anime sword characters no one has heard of."

N: "No, here's 10 more anime sword characters."

Us: "You have so many franchises that you are ignoring, like Metroid. Why?"

N: "We don't want to make TOO much money!"


And so on, so forth. And now, it seems they have mistakenly asked for a kiddie theme park land, as if they somehow don't know that people of all ages play their games and some people have had them as a part of their lives for almost 40 years. I would like to know who is more to blame for Mario Kart being the type of attraction that it is, Nintendo or Universal.
 

Sharon&Susan

Well-Known Member
True, but they're still really weird about giving people what they actually want. They literally have a license to print free money by porting so many classic games from their library to Switch, but instead, ehh... here's one or two a year. They succeed anyway, because of their legacy and their smash hit tentpole releases like Breath of the Wild and Mario Odyssey.

Us: "We want a console that isn't 5 to 10 years behind on specs."

N: "No. Here's a tablet that's about as powerful as a Wii U" (which was already underpowered in 2012 when it debuted)

Us: "We want the classic 3D Mario games ported to Switch."

N: "Fine, here you go, but we won't bother to remaster them or even run Mario 64 at 60 FPS / widescreen, also its only available for 6 months."

Us: "We want the GOOD 3D Zelda's ported/remastered to Switch!"

N: "No. Here's Skyward Sword." (the worst one by far)

Us: "We want characters we care about in Smash, no more anime sword characters no one has heard of."

N: "No, here's 10 more anime sword characters."

Us: "You have so many franchises that you are ignoring, like Metroid. Why?"

N: "We don't want to make TOO much money!"


And so on, so forth. And now, it seems they have mistakenly asked for a kiddie theme park land, as if they somehow don't know that people of all ages play their games and some people have had them as a part of their lives for almost 40 years. I would like to know who is more to blame for Mario Kart being the type of attraction that it is, Nintendo or Universal.
Not using their mountains of IPs is far from exclusive to Nintendo. Capcom, Sega, Namco, EA, Square Enix, and of course Konami just have tons of popular franchises that they haven't touched in decades while continuing to milk their cash cows.

The rise of cost and time to make video games in general have caused these companies to make overall less games and take less risks. Why make a new Darkstalkers when a new Street Fighter would probably sell 5X as much?

And releasing a new handheld when their handhelds have outsold their own consoles for over the last two decades is just a smart decision.
 

some other guy

Active Member
True, but they're still really weird about giving people what they actually want. They literally have a license to print free money by porting so many classic games from their library to Switch, but instead, ehh... here's one or two a year. They succeed anyway, because of their legacy and their smash hit tentpole releases like Breath of the Wild and Mario Odyssey.

Us: "We want a console that isn't 5 to 10 years behind on specs."

N: "No. Here's a tablet that's about as powerful as a Wii U" (which was already underpowered in 2012 when it debuted)
iirc Nintendo's approach of doing things on the cheap goes back decades before they got into video games, like I've seen them credited with the innovation of cheap RC cars that only can do "forward" or "turning reverse"
by any accounts I've heard the Famicom wasn't any powerhouse under the hood, either
 

Tom Morrow

Well-Known Member
I guess I'll dial back my complaints about Mario Kart a bit after seeing how absolutely dire the new Spider-Man Webslingers ride is at DCA. Though I still think there were many clearly misguided choices in the creation of Mario Kart, at least there's some inspiration and innovation behind it. Webslingers is complete bottom of the barrel, low effort, tone-deaf, pandering trash.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom