The Future of Lost Continent

[Mike S]

I still want it all at Epic.

That doesn’t change anything.

All that would do is keep them under an unneeded artificial restriction. Once Mario and presumably Zelda are open what do they do? Never expand? Take over Dark Universe if there’s future leadership that thinks that land is “underperforming?” As far as we know right now Pokémon is set for Islands and nothing for USF at the current time. I wouldn’t be surprised if that changes before 2030 and they think of something to put there even if it’s just a single attraction and not a whole land.

 

[Blue]

Which is smart.

Much prefer all Nintendo to be at Epic versus a Potter situation.

There’s not enough room for Mario, Zelda, and Pokémon at Epic. Besides, they’re three separate universes that just happen to be from the same company. Not similar to Potter at all.

And to be fair… I do think Epic/USF would’ve benefited more with Ministry staying at USF and something else taking over its land at Epic.

 

[SkiBum]

There’s not enough room for Mario, Zelda, and Pokémon at Epic. Besides, they’re three separate universes that just happen to be from the same company. Not similar to Potter at all.

And to be fair… I do think Epic/USF would’ve benefited more with Ministry staying at USF and something else taking over its land at Epic.

I don't know. Diagon Alley is at USR and, while that doesn't preclude Ministry being in the same park, it makes more sense to have a Potter representation at Epic. Thus, UNI has three parks with three different Potter settings. Same with splitting the Nintendo IP's across multiple parks. While I do think that Zelda could live at the same park as Mario and there should be enough room, it would make sense to have Zelda at Studios, Pokemon at Islands, and Mario at Epic. Though I am not tied to that set-up.

 

[Jake S]

“Pokémon” is not “Nintendo,” though. If Nintendo wants all its IPs attached to Super Nintendo World, that doesn’t preclude Pokémon from going to IOA.

 

[Mike S]

“Pokémon” is not “Nintendo,” though. If Nintendo wants all its IPs attached to Super Nintendo World, that doesn’t preclude Pokémon from going to IOA.

It is and also isn’t. The Pokémon Company is pretty independent but Nintendo also owns enough of it to ensure that you’ll never see Pikachu on PlayStation unless they sell off what they own of the company.

 

[moth]

Wanting Nintendo contained in EU is like wanting Universal's IPs to never leave USF.

"I don't want Jurassic Park at IOA, that's just more Universal and I'm tired of Universal".

Also, unlike Potter which is one IP, Nintendo's IPs have different fan bases. If they decided to announce that Animal Crossing is replacing Simpsons, that's a different crowd than the ones who'd get excited over Zelda at IOA/Epic. Or Kirby. Or Metroid. Or Splatoon. Or Pikmin. Or Star Fox.

Meanwhile if you don't like Harry Potter, well that's three giant lands across the parks you won't really be into, but that's okay, I'm sure Universal puts the same care and effort into things like JP and Seuss like they do HP!

hahaha....

 

[OrlLover]

There’s not enough room for Mario, Zelda, and Pokémon at Epic. Besides, they’re three separate universes that just happen to be from the same company. Not similar to Potter at all.

And to be fair… I do think Epic/USF would’ve benefited more with Ministry staying at USF and something else taking over its land at Epic.

For the record I’m okay with Pokemon at IOA.

I feel it’s a completely separate brand from Nintendo despite their ownership of the company.

 

[Brer Oswald]

For the record I’m okay with Pokemon at IOA.

I feel it’s a completely separate brand from Nintendo despite their ownership of the company.

Mario is no more different of a brand from Pokémon as it is from Zelda. The only major difference is that Nintendo doesn’t have full ownership over the IP meaning they can’t do whatever they want unless the other two parties (GameFreak and Creatures) agree. But the Nintendo Universal deal is also the only reason that land is getting made in the first place.

I’m not inherently against putting Mario, Zelda, Kirby, etc in one large Super Nintendo World. Problem is that they kind of landlocked themselves from doing that idea any justice and it’s not worth losing Dark Universe to achieve that. I think to start, getting a Zelda expansion next to Mario would be cool…but they’d be crazy not to do more Mario, potentially in other parks. Perhaps another park (ie. Studios) could get another “Nintendo World” that couples Mario Galaxy with another IP like Kirby or Metroid.

 

[OrlLover]

it’s not worth losing Dark Universe to achieve that.

I’m a little confused at this idea we have too loose something in order to gain something.

Also in what world is Dark Universe is not successful?

Yea it’s not crazy like SNW but its popularity is definitely understated on social media.

 

[Mike S]

I’m a little confused at this idea we have too loose something in order to gain something.

Also in what world is Dark Universe is not successful?

Yea it’s not crazy like SNW but its popularity is definitely understated on social media.

Because once Zelda goes in there’s zero expansion space for Nintendo at Epic.

 

[OrlLover]

Because once Zelda goes in there’s zero expansion space for Nintendo at Epic.

I understand that.

But the poster is insinuating that Dark Universe is underperforming so executives might describe to scrap the land in order to expand Nintendo.

I’m saying otherwise.