Mass_Pincup
Banned
Double the amount is irrelevant when we're talking about variety.
When 8 of your games are Platformers another 8 or something are party games and then you have like 5 puzzle games that's not really varied.
If Nintendo went 3rd party, would the quality of their games drop?
- Thread starter Doosi
- Start date
Double the amount is irrelevant when we're talking about variety.
When 8 of your games are Platformers another 8 or something are party games and then you have like 5 puzzle games that's not really varied.
Better back that one up.
LordRaptor
Member
When you say "a PS4", you mean an active platform with a userbase of more than 50 million owners?
Because....
Come on man, you are straight up lying to our faces.
Really ? You either have to look at Nintendo's output or just inform yourself better about third-parties. From the top of my head, the only third party that could be compared, in term of variety, would be Ubisoft.
I mean, just from this year, one that could arguably be one of the worst years of Nintendo, they managed to release two party games, one social application, three 2d platformers, one 3D arcade shooter, one tower-defense, one action-adventure game, five JRPGs, one rhythm game, one FPS, one vs-fighting game, one remake, one tactical-RPG and a freaking drawing-learning tool for kids.
And I'm only counting retail games here.
Who exactly has a more diverse output than Nintendo ?
Well, my post above apply to you too then.
PdotMichael
Banned
A third party Nintendo will not limit itself with just mobile games.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
Party games:
The 2 Mario and Sonic
Animal Crossing Amiboo Festival
Mario Party 10
Nintendo Land
Wii Party U
Sing Party
Platformers:
Super Mario 3D World
New Super Mario Bros WiiU
New Super Luigi U
Yoshi Wholly World
Donkey King Tropical Freeze
Kirby and the Rainbow Curse
Super Mario Maker
Puzzle Games
Game and Wario
Pushmo World
Captain Toad
Tipping Stars
Mini Mario & Friends: Amiibo Challenge
So yes everything I just said was true.
Neoleo2143
Member
In what universe is Pikmin a platformer lol?
LordRaptor
Member
LMFAO
James Scott
Banned
Their output would change, definitely. Maybe fewer low quality titles but fewer titles all together.
I imagine Pokémon would go to mobile as most of their efforts. Zelda might stay on console, tho.
They'll need to adapt to multiplatform development and expand their dev teams rapidly unless they stick to mobile.
Polish will be lost since they're not focusing on one system as well.
I imagine Pokémon would go to mobile as most of their efforts. Zelda might stay on console, tho.
They'll need to adapt to multiplatform development and expand their dev teams rapidly unless they stick to mobile.
Polish will be lost since they're not focusing on one system as well.
Your VR example actually proves their point. Most of the major players in the tech sector started making VR hardware after the buzz around Oculus, and Microsoft and Sony also jumped on the bandwagon. Even their approach is similar to how they handled motion controls - Sony straight up made their version of the Rift (just like their own Wiimote in the PS Move) while Microsoft adopted a slightly different approach on the same concept in Hololens (Kinect).
I could make lists just as bigs with JRPGs, action-adventure games and shooters.
So yeah, they're making more platformers/JRPGs/Action-Adventures/Shooters/Puzzle games/party games than the others kind of games. So what ? They're still the only publisher that manages to publish so many different kind of games.
Also, Pikmin is not a platformer, it's a STR (another kind of game that very few publishers release), Game & Wario is not a puzzle game.
James Scott
Banned
Could've saved himself if he said Pikmin 3DS, but yeah. Guess he didn't play it
Mass_Pincup
Banned
Yes Game and Wario is in the wrong category and Pikmin 3 is a mistake.
Care to actually engage in the discussion or shitposting is more of you style?
I never said you couldn't though. We're talking about variety. You're the one who said that Nintendo published more then 40 games on the WiiU, here we can see that about half of that are ranging in 3 types of games. Hence why number of games released as very little to do with variety.
LordRaptor
Member
DON'T NEED TO BE INFORMED TO LIST WARZ BRO
You're being overly reductive specifically to stifle dissent to your hypothesis, so what is there to actually engage?
CaviarMeths
Member
Other companies that went 3rd party like Atari and Sega all had their output drastically reduce in both quality and quantity. But the cause for that isn't that they went 3rd party. It's that they were hemorrhaging so much money that they had no choice but to go 3rd party. Their companies were in such terrible financial shape and that reflected in their publishing.
So maybe Nintendo could avoid that if they went 3rd party. They're not in any sort of financial trouble. Could they transition to 3rd party and retain consistent quality and quantity in their output? Maybe. But then the question just becomes "but why would they?" Downsizing your company when you're not losing any money is just dumb.
So maybe Nintendo could avoid that if they went 3rd party. They're not in any sort of financial trouble. Could they transition to 3rd party and retain consistent quality and quantity in their output? Maybe. But then the question just becomes "but why would they?" Downsizing your company when you're not losing any money is just dumb.
Thru already kinda do that. I refuse to acknowledge BotW as innovative or risk-taking, for example. That's just them catching up to a decade of open world game design.
Its a formerly dead franchise that only recently got a new game.
I keep forgetting about Last Hope. Then again I think I can be forgiven as I'm sure everyone forgot about Last Hope.
CaviarMeths
Member
It's had one entry per generation since the SNES. Is Super Smash Bros. a formerly dead franchise?
What do you think happens to the software when the hardware bombs?
So they make big parts of their revenue with hardware - who would have thought?!?
The problem is Revenue != Profit.
As crazy as it sounds companies don't sell or close divisions to make more revenue.
Neoleo2143
Member
Catching up, putting their own spin on it and refining it to be more precise. Open world games in general are risky ventures so I can't agree with that and I haven't seen physics used in such a free form way for puzzle solving in an open world either usually it's just games like Deus Ex that do that. Open worlds tend to use only a couple systemic designs like NPC AI routines or Fire Propagation and sometimes both (such as with Far Cry) with the rest being relatively simplistic mechanics such as Watch Dogs' OP stealth. Zelda uses like 5 or 6 major systems that all impact gameplay.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
Arguing that the number of game released as nothing to do with variety isn't being reductive, it's a fact.
But keep mocking people who have a different opinion then you, seems productive enough.
LordRaptor
Member
If you were as broad in your categorisation of your Such Variety Much Wow Vita titles, you'd boil your entire list down to basically Third Person Action / Shooter / Party game
e: Congrats on the derail btw
You could range half of these in 3 types of games, and the other half in more than ten different type of games. As I already said : yeah, they're making more games from certain types of games, like every publisher does (because they tend to sell more), but Nintendo is the only one that, overall, manage to cover so many different type of games.
That is variety.
But you are being reductive in trying to argue number of games released then by trying to "reduce" the number of your opposing argument's games into only three genres, as if that entire list only counts three times.
It's a classic list wars tactic used and honestly undermines your whole point.
ProgenitorCastle
Banned
2nded this
ArkhamFantasy
Member
Third party publishers diversity is almost laughable right now.
James Scott
Banned
Any reason you only included their Wii U output? You know they had another system right? Might help with the variety thing if you didn't cut it out.
Your list also counts on the notion that a game like Kirby and the rainbow curse and Super Mario 3D World are very similar which I don't think they are
I don't think their output is perfect and they could have more variety, but they do put out a ton of different games every year with most big publishers putting out considerably fewer.
Yes. Budgets would rise, income would fall (have to pay fees, instead of raking in fees, no hardware sales). This would lead to less variety, less chance, say, Metroid comes back, and less quality.
Also, they'd probably go phone before PS/XBox. Nintendo cares about gaming in Japan. If they go third party, that means portable gaming is dead there. What would be left? Mobile. That's where they'd go to be relevant to Japanese consumers.
Also, they'd probably go phone before PS/XBox. Nintendo cares about gaming in Japan. If they go third party, that means portable gaming is dead there. What would be left? Mobile. That's where they'd go to be relevant to Japanese consumers.
It's really strange to see how persistent the argument of how Nintendo's third party-developed games don't count remains even now. Ignoring the fact that they do often feature Nintendo's own IPs in some form and that they do have fairly significant development support from Nintendo themselves, how is the act of funding the games to exist in the first place not sufficient enough to give them their proper due among Nintendo's own output? No one in the universe does this for Sony, and they have three significant collaborators in Insomniac Games, From Software and Quantic Dream, among others.
yes.
no one goes third party willingly. Shit would have to be mighty fucked up for that to happen...which means the cash flow has dried up which means less experimentation (and even if you think that's already happened....imagine it worse then).
Yeah they aren't Sega or Atari....but if they ever do go thirds party they'd probably be a lot closer to that than people think.
no one goes third party willingly. Shit would have to be mighty fucked up for that to happen...which means the cash flow has dried up which means less experimentation (and even if you think that's already happened....imagine it worse then).
Yeah they aren't Sega or Atari....but if they ever do go thirds party they'd probably be a lot closer to that than people think.
FarFromAnyGame
Banned
What does that have to do with variety ?
Depending on your answer, I may totally reconsider answering your posts or not.
pretty sure Mario only had 2 games this year..... (Color Splash and Run)...which are still very different games.
This has always been a shit argument.
I wish you could tell us that and which argument you are trying to make.
Can you?
Mass_Pincup
Banned
I'm having a discussion with LordKano, the only one derailing the thread is you.
Saying that the WiiU variety would not compare favourably to the Vita isn't a knock on Nintendo is not outlandish or whatever.
That's where I disagree with you I don't found Nintendo lineup of games to be so far above everyone else in the industry. They're at the front, but a company like Take Two, Ubisoft, Sega or even Capcom to a lesser extend most definitely are in that same ballpark in my opinion.
Now if we had 3DS games to the mix they're definitely at or near the top.
I'm not even the one who brought number of released games, I respond to Linkstrikesback question about the game Sony developed for the Vita. And in that same post I said that I wasn't talking about raw numbers but about the variety of game released.
Then LordKano said that it's less then half of the WiiU first party games (which still wasn't what I was arguing) and I said that the number of games doesn't matter when a huge chunk of them overlap in terms of genre.
Seriously, read the thread.
Read above.
Linkstrikesback compared the WiiU and the Vita, not me. I didn't cut anything I followed the argument.
GhostTrick
Banned
There's no way to tell. But what sounds sure is that Nintendo would likely reduce their staff and budget.
As for quality, it already dropped on Wii U for some IPs.
As for quality, it already dropped on Wii U for some IPs.
Because people are ignoring details, often details they don't care about and think others shouldn't either, to make it seem like less of a change would have to occur.
Also Sony has divine right to exist. Nintendo's existence needs to be scrutinized by people who don't care about it in the first place.
KIRBY AND YOSHI GAMES would probably be ignored if Nintendo went 3rd party.
WHO WANTS TO LIVE IN A WORLD WITHOUT KIRBY ?
The saddest one =(
But like it or not it is diversity =P
Mario games released in 2016
All completly different games
missing is Mario Run, who is a completly different genre than any other listed
WHO WANTS TO LIVE IN A WORLD WITHOUT KIRBY ?
The saddest one =(
But like it or not it is diversity =P
Mario games released in 2016
All completly different games
missing is Mario Run, who is a completly different genre than any other listed
FarFromAnyGame
Banned
I just wish Nintendo would introduce more new IP like Splatoon.
They have Mario in most of their games. Which sucks!
CaviarMeths
Member
No, of course not. They expand and acquire divisions to make more revenue.
Both revenue and profit are important though. Profit is a good indicator for the overall health of a company, but revenue is directly tied to spending power. To invest in new projects requires capital. Expansions, R&D, M&A, that all requires cash in hand. That's revenue. It's important for company growth.
Think you're missing the point though. The Wii U is profitable right now. Has been for a couple of years. And that's not to mention the 3DS, which is obviously doing just fine in both hardware and software sales.
To be clear, because there may have been some little confusion with my posts : when I talked about variety and compared them with others publishers, that was counting the whole Nintendo output, 3DS included, because that's the only fair way to compare it to others publishers.
When talking about Vita, I only compared with Wii U (because that was the original point). Wii U first-party output has still a better variety than Vita, largely due to a larger library, but I wouldn't say that the Wii U games in themselves only contain more variety, compared to the others publishers. But that wouldn't be a fair comparaison.
IcyRhythms
Member
Alone, no ... but they make weight when you look at the overall amount of games that the system has and THIS push hardware.
But then again no game ALONE should push hardware in an ideal world =P
LordRaptor
Member
They provide a breadth of experience for a platform, that is likely to make the platform more appealing. Its not like availability of different genres hurt a platforms overall appeal.
James Scott
Banned
The reply chain broke, found the original. My mistake.
I still don't think that variety in Nintendo's output is much of an issue. Wii U had some issues but with 3DS and their output overall was quite good.
LordRaptor
Member
Someone said Nintendos WiiU output is probably stronger than it would have been as a third party on someone elses dying system, and the example cited was to look at Vita software output, which rustled enough jimmies to need to listwar
Boy Wander
Member
I wonder what percent of their work force Nintendo would have to cut if they went third party? Seriously, they'd have to decimate the company.