neurosyphilis
Definitely not an STD, as I'm a pure.
Exactly, but that's hardcore Nintendo fans in a nutshell. They really don't care at all. They think creating new IP or diversifying equals making "dark" games.
Nintendo has been making the same games since the 80s
- Thread starter skypunch
- Start date
Red Arremer
Member
I think you didn't read OP beyond the title.
the thoroughbred
Member
No
I could give a really deep and point-by-point argument against. But it just isn't worth it. One could argue that their Orwellian ways are the foundations of computer games and distractions of narrative are a redundant embellishment when the core is at such a high value.
The bells and whistles aren't needed when the core is so sound.
I could give a really deep and point-by-point argument against. But it just isn't worth it. One could argue that their Orwellian ways are the foundations of computer games and distractions of narrative are a redundant embellishment when the core is at such a high value.
The bells and whistles aren't needed when the core is so sound.
Just FYI, I'm not a fan of Naughty Dog or Heavy Rain or God of War.
Neff
Member
Only if one thinks up reasons not to play Nintendo games, whatever they may be.
Otherwise, there's no component of Nintendo's output which excludes due to age or gender, save for their mature titles.
packy34
Member
Why does it have to affect the main story to be deep mechanically? That's a weird goal post to set. The settlement builder could be its own game and stand on its own merits, simply because it has that kind of depth.
Captain Europe
Member
You mean like Xenoblade? That's deeper than Fallout and The Witcher combined.
No we don't and that is ignorant.
Fantastapotamus
Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
If it's not supposed to be a joke I have to assume he/she didn't even read my post.
"Deep" is an incredibly meaningless term. Just sayin'
Red Arremer
Member
They are clearly just on a crusade against the awful awful Nintendo fans who hate innovation.
Why everybody is so negative? I think they should create 1-2 new ips that cater to this group, a western rpg will do pretty good and creating recognazible new characters like nathan drake would help them and especially when 3rd party support its non existing.
Of course i m not saying to change all of their games but some games per generation and some 3rd party exclusives or collaborations targeting this demografic it would provide more deversity to their catalogue and i dont think its a bad thing.
Of course i m not saying to change all of their games but some games per generation and some 3rd party exclusives or collaborations targeting this demografic it would provide more deversity to their catalogue and i dont think its a bad thing.
Jonneh3003
Banned
Literally the same game!
Nintendo franchises have evolved a lot but if your point is the core gameplay has remained intact you may have a point. Arguably Nintendo perfected the concept of Mario, Zelda, Metroid and other franchises in the 80's and later went on to perfect the execution. As others have pointed out there have been many new IPs in the last decade if your sick of their usual franchises but Nintendo certainly have not been making the same games since the 80's. There have been a ton of innovations and evolutions.
You used examples of The Witcher 3 and Fallout 4, I would argue Xenoblade has a more compelling narrative than both of them and Xenoblade X has a better designed open world structure. Its all personal preference but I can't understand your initial argument. So to quote the first few posters "no".
the thoroughbred
Member
Games with a long story have been very funny. Something I can say few games/developers ever achieve. Paper Mario TTYD, and Mother series come to mind.
I mean even within itself it doesn't do much. Stuff doesn't cascade onto other things, there's no goals with the settlements beyond "do the thing because you do the thing". There's no reason to play the game beyond virtual dollhouse stuff - which is fine, of course, the Sims does that (though the Sims is more of a social game than a builder I'd argue).
/edit wrong terminology - it's more a game about *the Sims* than it is about the buildings you make, despite Will Wright's original design.
Dark_castle
Junior Member
I just wish Nintendo brings back classic turn-based JRPG that aren't about Mario. Bring back Mother. 
Red Arremer
Member
Nathan Drake, recognizable? lmao.
Nathan Drake is the most generic possible character ever. You show me a picture of him I couldn't even tell him from the 50 other lookalikes in modern games.
Fantastapotamus
Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
Nobody says it would be a bad thing. But it's also not a necessity. I would personally love a more "western" Nintendo game. But if it doesn't happen, so what? I'd also love to see a FromSoftware Sci-Fi game or Warcraft 4.
MatrixMan.EXE
Member
I don't think they do. There's a large part of the market that they're not appealing to, which is why the Wii U flopped and why 3rd parties won't touch their systems. Children and Japanese videogame fans isn't 'everyone'.
Captain Europe
Member
Just responding to the OP with his own term.
Xenoblade X is probably the most complicated game I've played in years.
Sir Ilpalazzo
Member
The next question would be if they're actually capable of making a large-scale game in that genre - both in terms of design and resources (since games like those are hugely expensive and would assuredly draw plenty of resources away from other potential projects).
It is a damn shame you forgot BOX BOY! If there is any game that proves the Less is more mantra, it is this little gem.
Easily last years GOTY for me ( over XBCX as well) and cannot wait for the sequel.
So 3 new IP
NinjamicWZ
Banned
Their 80's console games aren't even steeped in traditional arcade design. SMB, Zelda, Metroid, Mother etc are nothing like most arcade archetypes. They're antithetical to a lot of the single screen game loops, quarter munching trial and error difficulty, non-standardized control methods and so on... they're made to be owned rather than patronized. They essentially were leaders in defining what works best at home.
They also brought new ips like F-Zero, Smash, Star Fox, Mario Kart, Kirby, Fire Emblem, Pokemon and more in just the 90's, which is after the 80's. Still more in the 00's, and then in the 10's.
Thinking things goes hand in hand with knowing things.
OrbitalBeard
Member
the thoroughbred
Member
Neff
Member
I wouldn't point to Wii U's poor performance as an indicator of lack of diversity in Nintendo's output, particularly when it hosted three mature titles co-developed by Nintendo.
Wii U had pretty much the same breadth of software as a whole bunch of greatly more successful Nintendo systems. It failed because it was a poorly conceived, badly timed, atrociously marketed system.
Prisoner KSC2-303
Member
If you don't mind OP, I'll tackle each part separately, as you raise some interesting points:
I think that's a reasonable statement. Nintendo have arcade DNA in many ways, and simplicity has always been at the centre of that type of game design. I'd say the games evolve as much as any other genres with their origins in the eighties - variations on a theme - but I understand when others don't agree.
But that's already a crowded field. Nintendo have managed to remain relevant, because they failed to move into what others consider a more mature area, not in spite of it. This has left their output looking relatively unique. To change would be to vacate an area that not only mirrors their design philosophies, but has also proved lucrative.
I love strong narratives, in fact, I'd often rather play a poor game with a good story than vice versa. However, I simply look for that itch to be scratched elsewhere. In the same way I don't play The Walking Dead for fun moment-to-moment gameplay, I don't wish for Nintendo to weave in thought-provoking narratives.
I'm the opposite. I'm increasingly turning to Nintendo titles because of the reasons you listed. It seems everyone loves the Souls series - deep, rewarding, "mature" - but I see a slog and a maudlin, oppressive atmosphere. Fans always find the variety in a series, and those outside always see less. The consistent art style of, for example, the Mario franchise often lulls people into thinking those titles haven't evolved, but they have, and significantly. Depth comes in many forms, and it doesn't always lie behind character interaction or impenetrable lore.
They make games that are universally accessible; so the games are for everyone, however, this isn't the same as thinking their total output was ever intended to be varied enough to please all tastes.
On a side note - and this certainly isn't aimed at you OP, but the topic as a general theme - I always think of this quote from C S Lewis when people start questioning Nintendo for not offering adult or mature titles, so I'll just leave this here:
I think that's a reasonable statement. Nintendo have arcade DNA in many ways, and simplicity has always been at the centre of that type of game design. I'd say the games evolve as much as any other genres with their origins in the eighties - variations on a theme - but I understand when others don't agree.
But that's already a crowded field. Nintendo have managed to remain relevant, because they failed to move into what others consider a more mature area, not in spite of it. This has left their output looking relatively unique. To change would be to vacate an area that not only mirrors their design philosophies, but has also proved lucrative.
I love strong narratives, in fact, I'd often rather play a poor game with a good story than vice versa. However, I simply look for that itch to be scratched elsewhere. In the same way I don't play The Walking Dead for fun moment-to-moment gameplay, I don't wish for Nintendo to weave in thought-provoking narratives.
I'm the opposite. I'm increasingly turning to Nintendo titles because of the reasons you listed. It seems everyone loves the Souls series - deep, rewarding, "mature" - but I see a slog and a maudlin, oppressive atmosphere. Fans always find the variety in a series, and those outside always see less. The consistent art style of, for example, the Mario franchise often lulls people into thinking those titles haven't evolved, but they have, and significantly. Depth comes in many forms, and it doesn't always lie behind character interaction or impenetrable lore.
They make games that are universally accessible; so the games are for everyone, however, this isn't the same as thinking their total output was ever intended to be varied enough to please all tastes.
On a side note - and this certainly isn't aimed at you OP, but the topic as a general theme - I always think of this quote from C S Lewis when people start questioning Nintendo for not offering adult or mature titles, so I'll just leave this here:
SlipperyFishes
Banned
Captain Europe
Member
Well, OP is asking for dark stuff, not Willy Wonka.
Doctor_Thomas
Member
I've always split Nintendo into two differen categories, pre-Game Cube and post-Game Cube.
Pre-Game Cube was my Nintendo. Post-Game Cube is somebody else's Nintendo.
Their games never diminished in quality, per se, but I just don't find them all that appealing any more and, controversially, I think their franchises became significantly worse when they jumped to 3D (not awful, but Ocarina of Time doesn't hold a candle to Link to the Past, Super Mario 64 is nowhere near as interesting as 3 or World and Super Metroid is the pinnacle of that series). Most of their other games? Fire Emblem or Pikmin or whatever? I just don't care about.
So, from a narrative point of view, I don't care one way or the other. Their best games don't have deep narratives anyway. I think making the "same game" is supposed to give younger generations the same thrill I had as a kid and I'm OK with that... but that's not really Nintendo's user base anymore.
Pre-Game Cube was my Nintendo. Post-Game Cube is somebody else's Nintendo.
Their games never diminished in quality, per se, but I just don't find them all that appealing any more and, controversially, I think their franchises became significantly worse when they jumped to 3D (not awful, but Ocarina of Time doesn't hold a candle to Link to the Past, Super Mario 64 is nowhere near as interesting as 3 or World and Super Metroid is the pinnacle of that series). Most of their other games? Fire Emblem or Pikmin or whatever? I just don't care about.
So, from a narrative point of view, I don't care one way or the other. Their best games don't have deep narratives anyway. I think making the "same game" is supposed to give younger generations the same thrill I had as a kid and I'm OK with that... but that's not really Nintendo's user base anymore.
In b4 goalposts.
And then you have reboots/new spinoff branches like Kid Icarus, #FE and Pokken, which I would include. Hyrule Warriors on the other hand is just a Zelda-themed Dynasty Warriors.
It seems that when talking about Nintendo franchises all that is not Mario Zelda Metroid is totally ignored.
neurosyphilis
Definitely not an STD, as I'm a pure.
When did I say that, or what the heck does that have to do with what I said ?
Do you own a 3DS or Wii U?
But Fire Emblem is NES era and only just now got the success it deserved. Also the games you listed that you love are pre-N64 era.
First of all no and secondly, thats what OP suggests.
Herbspiceguy
Member
Nintendo could definitely be more appealing to a western 'mature' audience, but they shouldn't have to be the one to do it. They should continue to create what they excel at.
Nintendo already has the largest software output in the broadest range of genres of the videogames industry. If the rumors are to be believed this should increase with the NX.
The NX just need to be powerful enough to lift on the 3rd party train to get big budget titles like Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 on their system.
They should also moneyhat more exclusives like they did with Platinum on the Wii U. Instead of niche titles, they should focus on exclusives that actually have sales potential in the west. From Software seems like a no-brainer to me.
Alternatvely they could have 3rd party devs reimagine some of their lost franchises, give it a kick in the ass and turn into something that will reignite gamers interest in the west.
Nintendo already has the largest software output in the broadest range of genres of the videogames industry. If the rumors are to be believed this should increase with the NX.
The NX just need to be powerful enough to lift on the 3rd party train to get big budget titles like Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 on their system.
They should also moneyhat more exclusives like they did with Platinum on the Wii U. Instead of niche titles, they should focus on exclusives that actually have sales potential in the west. From Software seems like a no-brainer to me.
Alternatvely they could have 3rd party devs reimagine some of their lost franchises, give it a kick in the ass and turn into something that will reignite gamers interest in the west.
Jonneh3003
Banned
OP sounds like someone who participated in the focus groups for Shadow The Hedgehog. Nintendo have been sitting on this idea for far too long:
Throw in a dark story, a meaningless open world that hinders structure and progression and NPC's giving you little more than fetch quests and I think we've got something special here.
Captain Europe
Member
Post Gamecube 3D Mario's were the best, Sunshine and 64 are the worst and don't represent where the 3D series is at now.
Kid Icarus: Uprising has great narrative, story, and oozes so much personality! It's now one my of my top favorite series.
MatrixMan.EXE
Member
I disagree. It had nowhere near the same breadth of software as NES, SNES or N64. If you look at the Wii U's software catalogue, it's very much focused on games for Children or Japanese video game junkies.
It's less of a genre problem, and more of a tonal issue. Visual appeal goes along way, and when very cutesy and or Japanese/anime centric visuals are slapped onto nearly every game you make, your audience is bound to contract.
Compare this to the N64 days and you can see that the Wii U is a very safe platform in terms of software. The only games that I'd say were truly creative were Splatoon and TW101. Now that's not to say Wii U doesn't have fantastic games, but the mix of lack of visual/tonal variety etc. clearly effected Wii U's appeal, outside of the fact it's just a badly thought out product to begin with.
This is silly. If they don't make these kinds of games then they can't build a market for said games on their platforms. It's not up to 3rd parties to do that, especially with how Nintendo has handled them in the past. They should absolutely be trying to invest in creating such software, as they did in the pre-Wii era. I think some of your forget how good their output during the N64 days was. A lot of it was thanks to Rare, admittedly, but there's no reason why they shouldn't be investing in western studios to make more diverse content. People talk about Nintendo's warchest but their software continues to be some of the most safe and conservative I've seen in years.
mariosbrother
Member
You're certainly entitled to your opinions.
The same happens with every new system. New Uncharted, new Final Fantasy, new HALO, new God of War, new Gran Turismo, new Forza, etc.
Bucket-o-roadkill
Member
Interesting read in this thread. Nintendo have ALWAYS had undeniable quality apart from very extreme and rare circumstances (virtual boy?), but it's all about marketing and perception. If anyone (like OP) has this perception, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, it's up to Nintendo to change that.
People with other opinions can just say NO and sulk all they like, but the fact is Nintendo need to try and stomp out this view.
The problem nintendo have had in recent years since the Wii is the perception people have. Ensuring the public understand what the product actually IS. So many people I know thought that the Wii U was a tablet screen add on for the Wii. Some still do. Just this past Christmas my sister was shocked to learn the Wii U wasn't a Wii addon. The first thing she said upon realising this was "Why the hell did they call it the Wii U?!". Which is a very good question.
People with other opinions can just say NO and sulk all they like, but the fact is Nintendo need to try and stomp out this view.
The problem nintendo have had in recent years since the Wii is the perception people have. Ensuring the public understand what the product actually IS. So many people I know thought that the Wii U was a tablet screen add on for the Wii. Some still do. Just this past Christmas my sister was shocked to learn the Wii U wasn't a Wii addon. The first thing she said upon realising this was "Why the hell did they call it the Wii U?!". Which is a very good question.
Those are the cash cows so it makes sense. Except Pikmin, it's not a cash cow, and there's literally no other game like it in the world. It's not considered a success or likely to ever hit mainstraim so no one copies it.
Ah! I get you.
Doctor_Thomas
Member
I should reword that, I don't care about most Nintendo franchises in a general sense. I also was treating that as a separate point and more as an aside.
I know. I've played them.They're great games, but I just don't really get on with them. It's more my fault, probably.