Support NeoGAF

[Zen_Arcade]

You're more than likely right.

I'm just going by what I'd like to see and in all honesty the business side of things was not my main theoretical concern.

Well yeah, if we are talking about what we'd like to see I'd be right there with you. I would have liked that to happen with Atari and Sega as well.

Unfortunately with a company that makes creative things the business side of things directly effects the creative side.

 

[Hcoregamer00]

They died because nobody bought them

To be fair, a profitable Nintendo would also be creating more varieties of games along with making new installments of past IP's.

The only reason why was because they had to retract and focus on "big sellers" for the Wii U, which has been a huge sink. If the switch can gain traction, expect to see more variety again, since there is more money to throw as experimental games and games that might not sell as well, but has a dedicated fanbase.

 

[Nanashrew]

No.

The opposite would happen. If you're a super talented basketball player, but you're playing with shoes that are making practice and games difficult, common sense says that when you're given better shoes you're not going to play worse. You're going to be able to move better, react better, and pull off even more tricks on the court.

The belief that Sega's quality in games dropped due to them going 3rd party is just that: a belief. There were a lot of bad Sega games before and after their hardware exit. The sooner you can acknowledge this the sooner you'll realize that Sega went into the Dreamcast with a lot of software weaknesses that ultimately led to them not being able to sustain their hardware business. What happened to Sega's software after the Dreamcast -- for those who care about what really happened -- is that it could not compete with the software being offered by other companies. This is very important to understand in the context of looking at Nintendo going third party. People were not in any whatsoever rush to buy a Sonic game over a Jak/Mario/Ratchet platformer. People were not in any whatsoever rush to buy Shinobi over Devil May Cry/Onimusha. People were not in any whatsoever rush to buy The Typing of the Dead over Resident Evil. People were not in any whatsoever rush to buy Sega Rally over Gran Turismo/Need for Speed/Burnout/Midnight Club. The list goes on. The majority of Sega's developed and published games were not as good as people have led you to believe.

This is why when a Sega game eventually had a PS2/Gamecube/Xbox logo printed on its face, the reception and outcome of the game did not change in the market. When you look at Sega's output in the PS3 generation, it becomes even clearer that Sega -- as a third-party house -- was never going to succeed with their lineup. It's ok if you believe that Sega had the greatest lineup and that Golden Axe and Binary Domain and The Incredible Hulk and Sonic 2006 and AvP were all fantastic unmatched experiences. But at a certain point, you're going to have to function beyond your beliefs. Sega absolutely had and still has a good game or two: Valkyria Chronicles and Yakuza spring to mind. But when you're putting out dozens of games and you're up against hundreds of games, a handful of good games might not cut it.

The majority of Nintendo's lineup is viewed in a favorable light. They do not have Sega's problem. You don't need me to tell you that Mario, Mario Kart, Smash Bros., Animal Crossing, and Pokemon are uncontested in the market. The only Nintendo games that would see a lot of competition would be Zelda and Metroid Prime. And this has nothing to do with their quality; it's more that every RPG is now an open-world adventure game and the first-person shooter genre now has a lot of games with exploration and space gameplay. The majority of their titles however, won't have to deal with this. Mario won't have to worry about Unravel 2, Knack 2, and Yooka Lay-lee. Note: I think Yooka Laylee could turn out great.

The truth is the quality of their known quantities won't drop because of better hardware. It's not like they'll wake up and go "Damn it, we have more RAM." When Nintendo steps outside their creative box, they have demonstrated a capability of making successful IP: Splatoon being the most recent example. What happens when they step outside of their physical box? The quality of what they currently have becomes better, and when they're faced with having to compete with way more developers, it will be necessary for them to step outside of their creative box. This is a good thing.

With all of that said, more power is a good problem to have. A lot of people -- myself included -- love seeing Nintendo games running on powerful hardware. When you look at the gameplay and artstyle that Nintendo can pull off on their conservative/outdated hardware, it immediately becomes apparent that their software talent is immense. I remember the first time I saw screenshots of Wind Waker with all of the bells and whistles and flutes and exhaust pipes. It was like seeing a completely different game! Everything just popped and looked vibrant and unbelievably gorgeous. The gameplay obviously didn't change, but again, better hardware doesn't work against gameplay and mechanic systems. They work together.

Lol, who's making a new Metroid Prime if they have to subsidize and probably get rid of Retro Studios? Who's making a majority of Nintendo's content if they lose partnerships with other companies from leaving the console business? They have a lot of subsidiaries that could easily go or be merged into their own R&D groups if they leave the console business as well.

 

[Mael]

No.

The opposite would happen. If you're a super talented basketball player, but you're playing with shoes that are making practice and games difficult, common sense says that when you're given better shoes you're not going to play worse. You're going to be able to move better, react better, and pull off even more tricks on the court.

The belief that Sega's quality in games dropped due to them going 3rd party is just that: a belief. There were a lot of bad Sega games before and after their hardware exit. The sooner you can acknowledge this the sooner you'll realize that Sega went into the Dreamcast with a lot of software weaknesses that ultimately led to them not being able to sustain their hardware business. What happened to Sega's software after the Dreamcast -- for those who care about what really happened -- is that it could not compete with the software being offered by other companies. This is very important to understand in the context of looking at Nintendo going third party. People were not in any whatsoever rush to buy a Sonic game over a Jak/Mario/Ratchet platformer. People were not in any whatsoever rush to buy Shinobi over Devil May Cry/Onimusha. People were not in any whatsoever rush to buy The Typing of the Dead over Resident Evil. People were not in any whatsoever rush to buy Sega Rally over Gran Turismo/Need for Speed/Burnout/Midnight Club. The list goes on. The majority of Sega's developed and published games were not as good as people have led you to believe.

This is why when a Sega game eventually had a PS2/Gamecube/Xbox logo printed on its face, the reception and outcome of the game did not change in the market. When you look at Sega's output in the PS3 generation, it becomes even clearer that Sega -- as a third-party house -- was never going to succeed with their lineup. It's ok if you believe that Sega had the greatest lineup and that Golden Axe and Binary Domain and The Incredible Hulk and Sonic 2006 and AvP were all fantastic unmatched experiences. But at a certain point, you're going to have to function beyond your beliefs. Sega absolutely had and still has a good game or two: Valkyria Chronicles and Yakuza spring to mind. But when you're putting out dozens of games and you're up against hundreds of games, a handful of good games might not cut it.

The majority of Nintendo's lineup is viewed in a favorable light. They do not have Sega's problem. You don't need me to tell you that Mario, Mario Kart, Smash Bros., Animal Crossing, and Pokemon are uncontested in the market. The only Nintendo games that would see a lot of competition would be Zelda and Metroid Prime. And this has nothing to do with their quality; it's more that every RPG is now an open-world adventure game and the first-person shooter genre now has a lot of games with exploration and space gameplay. The majority of their titles however, won't have to deal with this. Mario won't have to worry about Unravel 2, Knack 2, and Yooka Lay-lee. Note: I think Yooka Laylee could turn out great.

The truth is the quality of their known quantities won't drop because of better hardware. It's not like they'll wake up and go "Damn it, we have more RAM." When Nintendo steps outside their creative box, they have demonstrated a capability of making successful IP: Splatoon being the most recent example. What happens when they step outside of their physical box? The quality of what they currently have becomes better, and when they're faced with having to compete with way more developers, it will be necessary for them to step outside of their creative box. This is a good thing.

With all of that said, more power is a good problem to have. A lot of people -- myself included -- love seeing Nintendo games running on powerful hardware. When you look at the gameplay and artstyle that Nintendo can pull off on their conservative/outdated hardware, it immediately becomes apparent that their software talent is immense. I remember the first time I saw screenshots of Wind Waker with all of the bells and whistles and flutes and exhaust pipes. It was like seeing a completely different game! Everything just popped and looked vibrant and unbelievably gorgeous. The gameplay obviously didn't change, but again, better hardware doesn't work against gameplay and mechanic systems. They work together.

More favorable conditions for subset of users =/= more favorable conditions for the dev team.
Right now Nintendo's team are in an ideal position compared to their competitors as far as dev cycles goes.
I'll add that budgets would plummet too

 

[archreaper93]

Depending on what you mean by 3d fighter, Pokken. I wouldn't be surprised if a stealth game exists too.

Forgot about Pokken. Yeah, I count that as a 3D fighter.

The problem with this post is the majority of the games/franchises are dead. Historically they have every genre covered, but their last console was basically the platformer machine with sprinkled in gems like Xenoblade, Bayonetta, Splatoon and some Zelda remakes.

After Kid Icarus jumping from the NES to the 3DS, I don't think we can say any Nintendo series is 100% dead.

And 1st party Nintendo is more likely to revive them than 3rd party Nintendo.

They died because nobody bought them

This too.

 

[Hcoregamer00]

Lol, who's making a new Metroid Prime if they have to subsidize and probably get rid of Retro Studios? Who's making a majority of Nintendo's content if they lose partnerships with other companies from leaving the console business? They have a lot of subsidiaries that could easily go or be merged into their own R&D groups if they leave the console business as well.

Good point, Retro studios exists because they want to make more high selling games to appeal to western gamers (while selling well in Japan). The long dev cycles and tumultuous behind the scenes drama means that Retro would probably be broken apart or would be forced to be making Mario #211

 

[AntMurda]

Lol, who's making a new Metroid Prime if they have to subsidize and probably get rid of Retro Studios? Who's making a majority of Nintendo's content if they lose partnerships with other companies from leaving the console business? They have a lot of subsidiaries that could easily go or be merged into their own R&D groups if they leave the console business as well.

If Nintendo wanted to make games for the XBOX / PS audience, there would be a good shot of them testing Metroid Prime on that market. As opposed to the sometimes niche and significantly smaller Nintendo console audience.

 

[Oersted]

Maybe not a mario game, but it surely had mario in it

Might as well call Sonic Lost World a Yoshi game

No.

The opposite would happen. If you're a super talented basketball player, but you're playing with shoes that are making practice and games difficult, common sense says that when you're given better shoes you're not going to play worse. You're going to be able to move better, react better, and pull off even more tricks on the court.

The belief that Sega's quality in games dropped due to them going 3rd party is just that: a belief.

Practically noone is arguing about that. Since the first post, the discussion was about variety.

 

[AniHawk]

i think people are of a mindset that nintendo of today would go third-party tomorrow and be able to keep up with the quality they've been known for. super mario run would be the kind of thing you should expect in that case since it has all the people responsible for nintendo's historic success elsewhere.

considering however that nintendo, even when using mobile to help raise awareness for their total brand, is essentially a first-party developer interested in strongly pushing their own hardware, the reality of them going third-party would happen at the very bitter end of a long series of failures that would result in less and less interest in what they do and the franchises they've made. in this case you would have something closer to sega. at first, a company putting out reasonably high-quality games - because they were titles that probably started while they were a first-party or the structure of the first-party company is still there even though they lack the income to support the old way - that quickly devolves into a company struggling to keep their head above water in a super competitive marketplace.

in reality, i don't think a third-party nintendo goes to microsoft or sony, where it's stupidly expensive to compete and where family games (aside from minecraft) go to die. instead, i assume that if/when this happens, they would be a mobile/pc developer, focused on developing their own brand through apps and digital services. the best case scenario here would be them essentially still being a first-party through pc, where they develop their own version of steam. worst-case scenario is that they simply are on steam.

in short: valve is super ahead of the curve, the real 'one console future' and i for one welcome our new valve overlords.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

I dont see any scenario where they make the metroid game that you guys are wanting.

Its a niche franchise and their is a better chance of a niche franchise being made by a console manufacturer.

 

[leroidys]

First we would see a reduction in variety that others have mentioned. Then we would see a reduction in quality as these franchises get more annualized and serialized.

 

[KooopaKid]

They could lose talent fast.

 

[Mael]

If Nintendo wanted to make games for the XBOX / PS audience, there would be a good shot of them testing Metroid Prime on that market. As opposed to the sometimes niche and significantly smaller Nintendo console audience.

Retro would do nonstop Donkey Kong and Metroid would be deader than dead.
DKCR sold more than twice as much as Metroid.
Nintendo would never Metroid Prime for xbox or ps audience anyway.

 

[AntMurda]

Retro would do nonstop Donkey Kong and Metroid would be deader than dead.
DKCR sold more than twice as much as Metroid.
Nintendo would never Metroid Prime for xbox or ps audience anyway.

Step out of the small Nintendo bubble for a second. The point is about funding. Nintendo could warrant the investment of a Metroid Prime game on that audience. Whether Retro Studios, Next Level Games, or a developer for hire is contracted for the game is besides the point. The point is the audience of a PS4/XONE Metroid Prime might entice them.

 

[Stallion Dan]

It has also been said before too, but people forgets that a hardware maker typically "subsidizes" games in that they will fund games that might not sell as well as established works because they are making a calculated risk of attracting more people to buy into the hardware. There is less incentive to create games that aren't megahits if there isn't a hardware and software ecosystem they can buy into.

They not making Metroid anyway so nothing to lose.

 

[Mael]

Step out of the small Nintendo bubble for a second. The point is about funding. Nintendo could warrant the investment of a Metroid Prime game on that audience. Whether Retro Studios, Next Level Games, or a developer for hire is contracted for the game is besides the point. The point is the audience of a PS4/XONE Metroid Prime might entice them.

The kind of games similar to Prime sell badly usually regardless of audience.
The best you could expect is Hunters or Federation Forces.
And the budget would plummet outside of Mario and other MK games.
See Okami if you want a Zelda analog.
Heck Darksiders sell but certainly not at a level to justify Zelda's funding.

 

[Oersted]

Step out of the small Nintendo bubble for a second. The point is about funding. Nintendo could warrant the investment of a Metroid Prime game on that audience. Whether Retro Studios, Next Level Games, or a developer for hire is contracted for the game is besides the point. The point is the audience of a PS4/XONE Metroid Prime might entice them.

Is that the same audience that let Dead Space die?

 

[MisterHero]

I really think the PS audience saveD Street Fighter. It was kept from rhe purgatory and compromise of in app purchases and was the ideal game that should've been made.

 

[DragonSworne]

Microsoft would actually fund Nintendo games we want, so I would expect quality to increase.

 

[Mael]

Microsoft would actually fund Nintendo games we want, so I would expect quality to increase.

Like Halo?

 

[RibMan]

Lol, who's making a new Metroid Prime if they have to subsidize and probably get rid of Retro Studios? Who's making a majority of Nintendo's content if they lose partnerships with other companies from leaving the console business? They have a lot of subsidiaries that could easily go or be merged into their own R&D groups if they leave the console business as well.

This is the first I'm hearing of this. Why would Nintendo probably have to get rid of Retro Studios?

More favorable conditions for subset of users =/= more favorable conditions for the dev team.
Right now Nintendo's team are in an ideal position compared to their competitors as far as dev cycles goes.
I'll add that budgets would plummet too

I actually think the opposite.

I think that Nintendo would be smart enough to realize that investing in more talent would lead to a better competitive advantage, so I think they'd use some of their money -- some of the billions of dollars they have -- into expansion of their workforce. Being in an ideal position is cool, but even Nintendo knows that an ideal position comes to those who create it. A game like GTA can launch at any time/any year because Rockstar have made it into a game that is far and above anything else in the market. Do you think it's impossible for Nintendo to make a multi-platform game that sells 10+ million copies, thus giving their developers more than enough legroom in the market? Let me word that question differently. Do you think Nintendo were worried about Super Mario Run not being in an ideal position in comparison to the trillion other runners out there?

 

[DragonSworne]

Like Halo?

Is that a funding issue or a studio issue?

 

[TheRedSnifit]

This is the first I'm hearing of this. Why would Nintendo probably have to get rid of Retro Studios?



I actually think the opposite.

I think that Nintendo would be smart enough to realize that investing in more talent would lead to a better competitive advantage, so I think they'd use some of their money -- some of the billions of dollars they have -- into expansion of their workforce. Being in an ideal position is cool, but even Nintendo knows that an ideal position comes to those who create it. A game like GTA can launch at any time/any year because Rockstar have made it into a game that is far and above anything else in the market. Do you think it's impossible for Nintendo to make a multi-platform game that sells 10+ million copies, thus giving their developers more than enough legroom in the market? Let me word that question differently. Do you think Nintendo were worried about Super Mario Run not being in an ideal position in comparison to the trillion other runners out there?

When was the last Rockstar game?

 

[Oersted]

Microsoft would actually fund Nintendo games we want, so I would expect quality to increase.

*Looks at Rare*

You are weird Dragonsworne

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Microsoft would actually fund Nintendo games we want, so I would expect quality to increase.

Would you say rare was better under nintendo or microsoft?

 

[AniHawk]

First we would see a reduction in variety that others have mentioned. Then we would see a reduction in quality as these franchises get more annualized and serialized.

something that iwata kept at nintendo was a culture of high morale. even when things were super awful and the company was losing money every year, mass layoffs weren't on the table. the workforce did shrink - notably in europe (partly because i think those folks were 'contract' workers but i think it was more of a standard european thing but the japanese and americans probably didn't care anyway and weren't super affected by it: anyway, paradoxical tangent over), but he and the other managers took a pay cut to show solidarity and assure the company that things would turn around.

just out of necessity, i cannot see the same thing happening in this nightmare scenario where a shitload of the workforce has to be cut, and then a ton of programmers and designers have to get used to new pipelines they're not prepared for, and without the sort of looseness of 'sure, let your zelda game take about four years to make - we have time'. the result would likely be games with strong design sense but a lack of polish initially, but then there would be games without polish or really a lot of thought into them that get pushed out afterwards. again, this nightmare scenario is happening on microsoft and sony platforms where there is no audience for the games nintendo makes, so they'd either need to adapt to those platforms or try and find it for themselves. and i know the argument is 'but 50 million playstation owners would buy 40 million mario karts' however the reality now is that there is zero audience on such a platform for such a franchise because no one is trying for it there - likely because others don't anticipate the current owners of that platform buying that kind of game.

this is why i push steam or pc and mobile so hard in my 'nintendo going third-party' scenario instead. valve is a first-party with their own set of rules, but the audience they've cultivated kind of doesn't give a shit so much about graphics or certain genres. steam is basically what the ps2 or ds was. nintendo would be able to support early access, basically keep their same structure (perhaps even a small chunk of their hardware team if they wanted to make peripherals and controllers meant for their games), and not have to worry about marching to the rhythm of another console manufacturer's beat when they decide that you must make all games support a version of your platform even if it turns out it's not the new hotness that was anticipated originally.

 

[DragonSworne]

Would you say rare was better under nintendo or microsoft?

I would say Rare would be just as bad under Nintendo as they were with Microsoft. The signs were there with Starfox Adventures, Donkey Kong 64, and Kameo on GameCube.

 

[LoveCake]

I don't know if the quality would drop, I just think for a lot of the people at Nintendo creating and coding the games, these people start at Nintendo and spend much of their career there, without the game being in their own hardware would their heart be in it as much as it would be if it were on a Nintendo device.

I think that it would take something huge for Nintendo to stop making hardware, could this happen, yes of course it could, but when is a different question entirely.

 

[Nanashrew]

This is the first I'm hearing of this. Why would Nintendo probably have to get rid of Retro Studios?

Supposedly there's been a lot of drama surrounding the company. I don't know the full details but I could easily see them gone or split up after Nintendo goes 3rd party.

Also as Mael says V.

 

[Mael]

This is the first I'm hearing of this. Why would Nintendo probably have to get rid of Retro Studios?

They cost a lot and would need to downsize?

I actually think the opposite.

I think that Nintendo would be smart enough to realize that investing in more talent would lead to a better competitive advantage, so I think they'd use some of their money -- some of the billions of dollars they have -- into expansion of their workforce. Being in an ideal position is cool, but even Nintendo knows that an ideal position comes to those who create it. A game like GTA can launch at any time/any year because Rockstar have made it into a game that is far and above anything else in the market. Do you think it's impossible for Nintendo to make a multi-platform game that sells 10+ million copies, thus giving their developers more than enough legroom in the market? Let me word that question differently. Do you think Nintendo were worried about Super Mario Run not being in an ideal position in comparison to the trillion other runners out there?

What makes you think that Nintendo would be an attractive place for "better" talent?
What makes you think they would be able to handle going from 1 platform to n platforms smoothly either?
They put the correct care behind Mario Run but something like GTA is something else entirely, unless you think that money is the only reason GTA is successful.

Is that a funding issue or a studio issue?

Because MSFT is known for handling studios perfectly?

 

[OrbitalBeard]

We'd get Metroid, F-Zero, and Advance Wars on PS4 and everyone would be so incredibly happy.

 

[RibMan]

When was the last Rockstar game?

2015 for the PC version of GTA V, right? Their next game comes out next year.

 

[FarFromAnyGame]

I'm gonna have to contest you on that. Like, Nintendo arguably has the most software variety out of all the game companies. They have games in the following genres:

Third Person Shooter (Splatoon).
First Person Shooter (Geist, Metroid Prime).
Character Action (Bayonetta 2, Wonderful 101).
Action-Adventure (Zelda).
Turn-based RPG (Mario & Luigi, Golden Sun, early Paper Mario, Pokemon).
SRPG (Fire Emblem).
Real-time Strategy (Pikmin).
Survival Horror (Eternal Darkness, Luigi's Mansion).
Turn-based Strategy (Advance Wars).
Water Racing (Wave Race).
Board Game (Mario Party).
Minigame Collection (Wii, Warioware, Nintendoland)
2D Platformer (Mario, Yoshi, Wario land, Donkey Kong).
Baseball (Mario Superstar).
Basketball (Mario Hoops, NBA Courtside).
Soccer (Mario Strikers).
Tennis (Mario Tennis).
Golf (Mario Golf).
Kart Racing (Diddy Kong Racing, Mario Kart).
Futuristic/High Speed Racing (F-Zero).
Snowboarding (1080).
Racing (Excite).
2D Fighter (Smash Bros).
3D Platformer (Mario).
Rail Shooter (Sin and Punishment, Star Fox).
Metroidvania (Metroid).
Rhythm (Ouendan/Elite Beat Agents, Rhythm Heaven).
Point-and-Click Adventure (Hotel Dusk).
Boxing (Punch Out).
Puzzle (Dr. Mario).
Action RPG (Super Paper Mario).
MMO-like RPG (Xenoblade).
Fitness (Wii Fit).
Action (Mysterious Murasame Castle).
Simulation (Animal Crossing, Tomodachi Life).
3D Fighter (Pokken).

And I'm sure I'm forgetting stuff.

Like, outside of Stealth, what huge genres are they missing?

And what 3rd parties cover more genres than that? Only 2 I think have a chance are Sega (who used to be 1st party) and Capcom.



Or when people act like Nintendo is a game genre.

I was talking about current Nintendo. Not their whole history.

 

[AniHawk]

I would say Rare would be just as bad under Nintendo as they were with Microsoft. The signs were there with Starfox Adventures, Donkey Kong 64, and Kameo on GameCube.

microsoft didn't know what they wanted from rare, when supposedly nintendo kind of let them do what rare wanted to do and supported them with very harsh and frequent feedback.

there really isn't a scenario where microsoft's indecision about the company would have resulted in a better version versus one with nintendo's actual supervision and support.

i think having a remake of conker's bad fur day, made four years later, is the kind of thing that wouldn't have happened under nintendo.

 

[PtM]

I don't want to find out.

 

[Snakeyes]

If you're a super talented basketball player, but you're playing with shoes that are making practice and games difficult, common sense says that when you're given better shoes you're not going to play worse. You're going to be able to move better, react better, and pull off even more tricks on the court.

Does Nintendo want those supposedly better shoes? Did they actually complain about the shoes making them play worse?

As a platform holder, Nintendo are playing in signature shoes with a familiar feel and where they're involved in the design process with a familiar design team. Did Steph Curry play better in generic Nikes or his own shoes made by a cheap Chinese brand?

 

[Mael]

Does Nintendo want those supposedly "better" shoes?

As a platform holder, Nintendo are playing in signature shoes with a familiar feel and where they're involved in the design process with a familiar design team. Did Steph Curry play better in generic Nikes or his own shoes made by a cheap Chinese brand?

From an accounting situation, it's a net loss with no upside.
Nintendo also employs hardware designers that their firing would certainly kill the corporate culture.

 

[axisofweevils]

I don't see why they'd make games for the console audience in that case. Expect lots of IAP riddled mobile games. (As by then, they'd be made purely for profit, not to lead customers to their console.)

 

[Nanashrew]

microsoft didn't know what they wanted from rare, when supposedly nintendo kind of let them do what rare wanted to do and supported them with very harsh and frequent feedback.

there really isn't a scenario where microsoft's indecision about the company would have resulted in a better version versus one with nintendo's actual supervision and support.

i think having a remake of conker's bad fur day, made four years later, is the kind of thing that wouldn't have happened under nintendo.

The whole situation with RARE is still kinda saddening. And while RARE Replay is great, it also leaves a bitter feeling of what they used to be and their excellent output of games.

 

[Oersted]

I was talking about current Nintendo. Not their whole history.

Third Person Shooter (Splatoon).
Character Action (Bayonetta 2, Wonderful 101).
Action-Adventure (Zelda).
Turn-based RPG (Mario & Luigi, Pokemon).
SRPG (Fire Emblem).
Real-time Strategy (Pikmin).
Survival Horror ( Luigi's Mansion).
Board Game (Mario Party).
Minigame Collection ( Warioware, Nintendoland)
2D Platformer (Mario, Yoshi, Donkey Kong).
Baseball (Mario Superstar).
Tennis (Mario Tennis).
Golf (Mario Golf).
Kart Racing (Mario Kart).
2D Fighter (Smash Bros).
3D Platformer (Mario).
Rail Shooter ( Star Fox).
Rhythm (Rhythm Heaven).
MMO-like RPG (Xenoblade).
Fitness (Wii Fit U).
Simulation (Animal Crossing, Tomodachi Life).
3D Fighter (Pokken).


The current gen version

Spoiler

Luigis Mansion as survival horror is a bit lolworthy

 

[Mael]

I don't see why they'd make games for the console audience in that case. Expect lots of IAP riddled mobile games. (As by then, they'd be made purely for profit, not to lead customers to their console.)

Why would want they even want to lead customers to a console anyway?
In that case they would want the most out of the install base and not grow the base.
Look at Ubi, EA or ATVI, they never want to grow the install base they just use it.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

2015 for the PC version of GTA V, right? Their next game comes out next year.

So basically, the last time they made a game was 2013.

That's who we're comparing this hypothetical third-party Nintendo to?

 

[AniHawk]

I was talking about current Nintendo. Not their whole history.

i'll just go back through the last 5 years (since i think we can agree that 3ds is 'modern' enough), and also fit more of these subgenres back into bigger genres (why basketball and soccer and not just 'sports'?). also, in the interest of this list, it's more of nintendo as a publisher, which doesn't really fit in with the concept of their games as it pertains to development - but i think it is fine here to show the breadth of what nintendo's responsible for.

Shooter (Splatoon, star fox)
Action (Bayonetta 2, Wonderful 101)
Action-Adventure (Zelda, paper mario)
SRPG (Fire Emblem)
Real-time Strategy (Pikmin)
Survival Horror (Luigi's Mansion, fatal frame)
Board Game (Mario Party, wii party u)
Minigame Collection (Warioware, Nintendoland)
Platformer (Mario, Yoshi, Donkey Kong, kirby)
Racing (Mario Kart).
Fighter (Smash Bros, pokken)
sports (wii sports)
puzzle (pushmo/crashmo)
Rhythm (Rhythm Heaven, sing)
RPG (Xenoblade, pokemon, tokyo silhouette mirage, mario & luigi)
Fitness (Wii Fit)
Simulation (Animal Crossing, Tomodachi Life)

and yeah, they used to focus on other games in the past, but so did other developers, and i don't think it's worth pointing that out as a detriment only nintendo's responsible for when it's kind of a universal thing. i think the point i'd make here is that nintendo isn't the company with the most variety, but they do support a lot of genres even if it means seeing a lot of the same characters again. it's to the point where i would seriously question where else are certain genres well-represented? because the only places i would consider for basically most of these is the pc market and mobile.

 

[MoonFrog]

Do people really think higher budgets, higher risk productions, lower income (from getting royalties to paying them, no more hardware income) is good for Nintendo?!

That is being completely ridiculous and shortsighted. Or it is only wanting 2D Mario, Mario Kart, Pokemon, Animal Crossing, Smash, and maybe a vanity Zelda project.

Wii U is already Nintendo pushed to the brink and relying on heaviest hitters (and yet still trying to revive StarFox, funding Bayonetta 2, Wonderful 101, funding Monolith, etc.). I want them to grow out of that niche, not be locked into it, which is what going third party would do.

If you want Metroid, 3rd Party is not the answer.

 

[pswii60]

Hypothetical question ofc, we all know the switch is coming

I am just wondering if we would see a drop in quality similar to Sega's when they went to 3rd party.

Sega's drop in quality was a result of the major restructure and cut in budgets. Their Xbox OG third party games were completely of first party quality... Panzer Dragoon, JSRF...

Nintendo isn't in a financial crisis, they wouldn't need to disband their teams if they went third party.

 

[Mael]

Sega's drop in quality was a result of the major restructure and cut in budgets. Their Xbox OG third party games were completely of first party quality... Panzer Dragoon, JSRF...

Nintendo isn't in a financial crisis, they wouldn't need to disband their teams if they went third party.

If they're pushed to be 3rd parties they would certainly be in a financial crisis, why do you think they would go in a direction where they would fire a large part of their workforce?

 

[Nanashrew]

Luigi's Mansion I consider to be a supernatural comedy like the Ghostbusters. It's not really horror but it can contain some of the tropes of one.

 

[RibMan]

They cost a lot and would need to downsize?

What is the cost of running Retro Studios vs the cost of running their other studios?

What makes you think that Nintendo would be an attractive place for "better" talent?

It's because we haven't heard anything about people not wanting to work at Nintendo due to horrific work conditions or a Crytek-like labor compensation system. Unless of course you know something that we don't know about Nintendo's treatment of employees that has had an effect on turning away talented people from the company.

What makes you think they would be able to handle going from 1 platform to n platforms smoothly either?

I have faith that Nintendo has enough talent and enough money to port a game. Also, I'm confident Bluepoint Games wouldn't be incapable and or opposed to handling a Nintendo game on a different platform.

They put the correct care behind Mario Run but something like GTA is something else entirely, unless you think that money is the only reason GTA is successful.

GTA is as big as it is because it is the best in its class. Watch_Dogs, Saints Row, Sleeping Dogs: all games that have a following that's big but not GTA big. Back when Nintendo had an installbase, they were able to shift over 36 million copies of Mario Kart. I don't think people on other consoles and PC would be opposed to playing the best kart racing franchise with the highest selling racing game of all time, the best platformer with the highest selling platforming game of all time, the best pet fighting game with the highest selling pet fighting game of all time, etc. The care in Nintendo games won't go down due to a higher market. If that were the case, then people would be actively freaking out about the Switch combining their console and handheld market, creating a pool of potential Nintendo fans that is bigger and deeper than ever before. Are people concerned about the Switch affecting the 'care' behind Nintendo games?

 

[ScientificPizza]

If Nintendo wanted to make games for the XBOX / PS audience, there would be a good shot of them testing Metroid Prime on that market. As opposed to the sometimes niche and significantly smaller Nintendo console audience.

???

 

[MisterHero]

Sega's drop in quality was a result of the major restructure and cut in budgets. Their Xbox OG third party games were completely of first party quality... Panzer Dragoon, JSRF...

Nintendo isn't in a financial crisis, they wouldn't need to disband their teams if they went third party.

Sega's other big issue was splitting IPs between XB, PS2, and GC. A Sega fan wanting their favorite company's output would have to spend MORE than they used to.

Do you guys really want Nintendo to split their IPs between available platforms? Or would you rather just have one (or +a handheld, or mobile)?