There's actually an official answer to this question. I remember an old interview with Miyamoto during the Wii era where he said that typically new Mario games are made because of advances in hardware and this was sort of a soft rule with the series. Super Mario Bros was for the Famicom, and Mario 2 was because of the disk system which opened up more possibilities. Mario 3 was because of how advanced the cartridges had become thanks to mappers, which allowed them to make a much bigger game. World was for SNES, and 64 for 64. Sunshine for the Gamecube, and Galaxy for the Wii.Nintendo never tried to make a direct sequel/expansion to the original with even a ride-able Yoshi.
We have an in-house port of 64 onto the DD that they made as a test, so maybe that could have been the basis for something?There's actually an official answer to this question. I remember an old interview with Miyamoto during the Wii era where he said that typically new Mario games are made because of advances in hardware and this was sort of a soft rule with the series. Super Mario Bros was for the Famicom, and Mario 2 was because of the disk system which opened up more possibilities. Mario 3 was because of how advanced the cartridges had become thanks to mappers, which allowed them to make a much bigger game. World was for SNES, and 64 for 64. Sunshine for the Gamecube, and Galaxy for the Wii.
I'm not sure if this soft rule is still in effect or not (maybe it stopped with Galaxy 2 and that was why he even mentioned it?), but based on that it would seem that the reason we never got a proper followup on the 64 is because there weren't any big breakthroughs in the tech that warranted a sequel like what had happened on Famicom. Perhaps if the 64DD had been successful than we might have seen a new Mario game for that.
The game you're looking for was drowned, covered in filth and dunked back into the ocean before rising from the depths; an abomination.I mean the original was ground-breaking and while Banjo, Crash and Spyro got sequels on the same hardware Nintendo never tried to make a direct sequel/expansion to the original with even a ride-able Yoshi.
Ocarina of Time has had three direct sequels already.Well maybe they make it in switch 2! I think Mario 64 and legend of zelda ocarina of time deserve a sequel. I really wonder if they make a remake for them what going to happen. I really like to see Mario64 and legend of zelda completely dubed. I wonder who will talk as Happymasksalesman.(I hope Mr myamoto himself) but just imagine criss Pratt and.....well no need to Mario 65!
Majora's Mask, Wind Waker and Twilight Princess? Or ALTTP if you want to take the timeline into account.Ocarina of Time has had three direct sequels already.
Yeah those three are direct sequels.Majora's Mask, Wind Waker and Twilight Princess? Or ALTTP if you want to take the timeline into account.
Technically it was the other way around:Yeah those three are direct sequels.
ALTTP, etc. were thrown into a made up timeline long after the fact, and while Phantom Hourglass, etc. are sequels to the sequels, I think we might be stretching the word "sequel" at that pointMore like an "entry" in the LoZ series.
Good point on OoT starting as a ALTTP prequel. I guess you could say ALTTP past is a sequel, then. I wouldn't, but I couldn't argue with someone who did.Technically it was the other way around:
Ocarina of Time was made as a prequel to A Link to the Past, it only became incidentally the downfall timeline after they've made Majora's Mask and Wind Waker, two entries that created a split in the timeline as they've established the Hero of Time never returning in the future of OoT after he defeated Ganon.
There was an in-house timeline created by Nintendo before Hyrule Historia as I've heard (which may not even be the one shown in that book).
It's interesting how each entries got their direct sequels for the first six games: Zelda II Adventure of Link for Zelda 1, Link's Awakening for ALTTP and Majora's Mask for Ocarina of Time.
Technically it's still a sequel but not in the same timeline. Sure there was a retcon (the "Wise Men" being replaced by "Sages" so the GBA port changed the text) but it doesn't mean that the game became non-canon.Good point on OoT starting as a ALTTP prequel. I guess you could say ALTTP past is a sequel, then. I wouldn't, but I couldn't argue with someone who did.
Minish Cap is indeed a Fourswords prequel. On the other hand we still didn't get a game with the "Hero of Men" that Minish Cap's intro talked about.In actuality there are fewer non-sequeled/sequel Zelda games than otherwise. Zelda 1, ALTTP, OoT, Wind Waker, Minish Cap (or is 4 Swords a prequel?) Breath of the Wild compared to just Twilight, Skyward, and Echoes (for now).
That's right, so Minish Cap is the sequel.Minish Cap is indeed a Fourswords prequel. On the other hand we still didn't get a game with the "Hero of Men" that Minish Cap's intro talked about.
BotW is a bit of a "spiritual sequel" to Skyward Sword in some of the ideas. Echoes of Wisdom is set after ALBW/TFH as I've seen on the site.
I'm wondering why we didn't get a sequel to Adventure of Link or Spirit Tracks.
Well some one ate I all the copies so this isn't weird!He ate glue.