Support NeoGAF

[Touch fuzZy. get BizZay]

Nintendo still make great games, though I do agree that they are not as amazing as they were in earlier, more pioneering years of gaming when they led the pack. Now that gaming is more like a technical arms race, the little toy company that could is having a hard time getting support.

I definitely don't look down on them the way a lot others in this thread do though. Yeah I'm old and I've seen it all before now, and that makes me enjoy nintendo games somewhat less... To the exact same extent that it makes me enjoy all other games less. The other systems are not non franchise milking, anti-sequel creativity boxes by any stretch of the imagination. I loved Arkham Asylum. I liked Arkham City. Now I think I'm just barely interested enough to get Arkham Origins.

I'm just hard to make games for. But I wouldn't miss a nintendo system and the quality exclusive content I can't get anywhere else over that, not until I decide I'm done with gaming completely.

 

[Alison]

Oh that massive game of the year candidate Sonic Generic Racer. My bad, clearly Nintendo are influencing the best the industry has to offer.

 

[Lumyst]

They used to make games like Metroid Prime, which at the time was a big, generation defining game. Now they make games like Mario 3D Land because being low budget and simplistic is more important to them than using the power of the hardware to create new experiences.

I think that what Nintendo was aiming for was "involved multiplayer" (in essence, the "party" feel). Look at Nintendoland, Sing Party, NSMBU with the gamepad being used to assist the other characters rather directly with the press of the finger on the screen. If the WiiU took off with the more social, casual audience I can see why raucous multiplayer would be attractive (and in the case of SM3DWorld, rather hectic with players barking at each other "DON'T JUMP! YOU'LL FLIP THE PANELS AND WE'LL ALL FALL!" and then somebody jumps at the wrong time, they all fall, and everybody's laughing...) As I said, I respect that Nintendo wants to get people playing together and having fun together, but as sales show, perhaps that isn't what people want to do? Maybe the home game console isn't the device to do that?

 

[mstevens]

Oh that massive game of the year candidate Sonic Generic Racer. My bad, clearly Nintendo are influencing the best the industry has to offer.

You don't think Mario Kart influence the game? Really?

What does the quality have to do with where it draws its inspiration from? If it was crappy, it might be influenced by someone, but if it's great then it's not? That makes absolutely no sense.

"Hey I bet you can't name a recent game that was influenced by Nintendo!!!... Wait, that doesn't count it turned out too good!"

I'd be glad to have a meaningful conversation but I don't see it happening. The bottom line, it's completely okay for you to not like Nintendo games. No one should ever try to force you too. Enjoy what you enjoy.

 

[Alison]

I think that what Nintendo was aiming for was "involved multiplayer" (in essence, the "party" feel). Look at Nintendoland, Sing Party, NSMBU with the gamepad being used to assist the other characters rather directly with the press of the finger on the screen. If the WiiU took off with the more social, casual audience I can see why raucous multiplayer would be attractive (and in the case of SM3DWorld, rather hectic with players barking at each other "DON'T JUMP! YOU'LL FLIP THE PANELS AND WE'LL ALL FALL!" and then somebody jumps at the wrong time, they all fall, and everybody's laughing...) As I said, I respect that Nintendo wants to get people playing together and having fun together, but as sales show, perhaps that isn't what people want to do?

People want to play online. You don't need to be a genius to work that out. The difference is novelty experiences like Wii Sports, where the act of playing with people is what gives the illusion of fun. Multiplayer Mario isn't "better" locally. Asymmetric gaming isn't something people want, as shown by Wii U being a failure and developers struggling to come up with meaningful uses for it.

 

[Hubble]

Agree with OP. Used to a huge Nintendo fan but started losing it since the Wii. Owned every Nintendo console since the Wii, which I ended up selling realizing it was gimmicky. I just feel they are out of touch with gamers and focused more on gimmicks. I feel Nintendo is not being contemporary with consoles at all for all the obvious reasons. Also that the Wii U gamepad is obscene and overly large to play with. I used to love Nintendo but just not nomore.

 

[Tabris]

I am just tired of the same franchises being used without a break. Revolutionary gameplay iterations or not, they are still just iterations to a formula that's been around forever. Let alone that it's the same setting / characters / theme, without any semblance of story.

There has just been too many Mario games, and too little new IP's. This is the first generation I have ever decided not to buy a Nintendo console (I've complained before but would always buy it as I couldn't live without the Zeldas and Marios).

Combine that with the last 2 generations of gimmicky control and underpowered hardware.

 

[Alison]

You don't think Mario Kart influence the game? Really?

What does the quality have to do with where it draws its inspiration from? If it was crappy, it might be influenced by someone, but if it's great then it's not? That makes absolutely no sense.

"Hey I bet you can't name a recent game that was influenced by Nintendo!!!... Wait, that doesn't count it turned out too good!"

I'd be glad to have a meaningful conversation but I don't see it happening. The bottom line, it's completely okay for you to not like Nintendo games. No one should ever try to force you too. Enjoy what you enjoy.

Of course Mario Kart influenced that game. But how is that applicable? The biggest games in the industry, be it commercially or especially critically, are no longer being influenced by Nintendo. Their role as the great innovators pushing gaming forward is over. The company who made Mario 64 is no longer pushing things forward. Sega ripping off Mario Kart doesn't change that.

 

[Gsnap]

I'm talking about meaningful aspects of game design. Games like modern GTA couldn't have been done on N64 because of their ambition and scale, while still having great gameplay. When you play a Nintendo game the only thing that won't feel like a console game from 10-15 years ago is the graphics will be slightly better.

They used to make games like Metroid Prime, which at the time was a big, generation defining game. Now they make games like Mario 3D Land because being low budget and simplistic is more important to them than using the power of the hardware to create new experiences.

So your definition of the "meaningful aspect of game design" is the same thing but much bigger? Modern GTA is the same as last gen's GTA, just bigger and with higher quality PRESENTATION. What you DO in the game was still possible on last gen's hardware. Nothing wrong with that, but it's absurd to point to Nintendo and say they don't do anything meaningful with game design and to then point to the rest of the AAA industry and say that they do.

 

[Freezie KO]

I think that what Nintendo was aiming for was "involved multiplayer" (in essence, the "party" feel). Look at Nintendoland, Sing Party, NSMBU with the gamepad being used to assist the other characters rather directly with the press of the finger on the screen. If the WiiU took off with the more social, casual audience I can see why raucous multiplayer would be attractive (and in the case of SM3DWorld, rather hectic with players barking at each other "DON'T JUMP! YOU'LL FLIP THE PANELS AND WE'LL ALL FALL!" and then somebody jumps at the wrong time, they all fall, and everybody's laughing...) As I said, I respect that Nintendo wants to get people playing together and having fun together, but as sales show, perhaps that isn't what people want to do? Maybe the home game console isn't the device to do that?

If they're going to focus on multiplayer experiences, they need to embrace online. Period. There's just no excuse for how this company drags their feet on certain issues.

 

[mstevens]

People want to play online. You don't need to be a genius to work that out. The difference is novelty experiences like Wii Sports, where the act of playing with people is what gives the illusion of fun. Multiplayer Mario isn't "better" locally. Asymmetric gaming isn't something people want, as shown by Wii U being a failure and developers struggling to come up with meaningful uses for it.

Like I said, you're entitled to your opinion. My opinion on this is very different. I can think of countless experiences I've had with local Mario (NSMB, Kart, Party, Smash Bros) that wouldn't have been nearly as fun if I was playing online instead of playing with friends and family in the same room. However, I DO think that online play is fun and I hope they add it as an option,but if I had to choose I'd pick local every time.

 

[Alison]

So your definition of the "meaningful aspect of game design" is the same thing but much bigger? Modern GTA is the same as last gen's GTA, just bigger and with higher quality PRESENTATION. What you DO in the game was still possible on last gen's hardware. Nothing wrong with that, but it's absurd to point to Nintendo and say they don't do anything meaningful with game design and to then point to the rest of the AAA industry and say that they do.

The experience of playing GTA5 is nothing like playing GTA Vice City. It's so much bigger and defined in every way. Go back and play the PS2 games and tell me they feel as similar as Nintendo's current games do to their sequels.

 

[mstevens]

Of course Mario Kart influenced that game. But how is that applicable? The biggest games in the industry, be it commercially or especially critically, are no longer being influenced by Nintendo. Their role as the great innovators pushing gaming forward is over. The company who made Mario 64 is no longer pushing things forward. Sega ripping off Mario Kart doesn't change that.

Sega plays a pretty big role in the industry. Sony is a pretty big player too, and they recently ripped off Smash Bros. Indie gaming is also going to play a huge part in the next gen and where do you think they got their influence 90% of the time?

 

[StevieP]

Oh that massive game of the year candidate Sonic Generic Racer. My bad, clearly Nintendo are influencing the best the industry has to offer.

I bet the "best the industry has to offer" involves a brown corridor in which a mindless AI drone goes through predetermined motions. After brutally slaying or shooting said AI drone, a dramatic cutscene plays where you have to mash the square button rapidly to shake another villain off you, which leads into another cutscene where you discover a new corridor with yet another group of AI drones.

 

[Lumyst]

People want to play online. You don't need to be a genius to work that out. The difference is novelty experiences like Wii Sports, where the act of playing with people is what gives the illusion of fun. Multiplayer Mario isn't "better" locally. Asymmetric gaming isn't something people want, as shown by Wii U being a failure and developers struggling to come up with meaningful uses for it.

Yep, that is why there's what Nintendo believes should be, and what the reality of the market response shows. Which I think is unfortunate because that whole "face to face" multiplayer sounds attractive in theory as a differentiator instead of doing things through the internet, but it is what it is. Of course, the casual audience is all about the internet and using it in savvy ways.

edit: Yep, FreezieKO, I agree with you on that, why the hell would Nintendo not think that their future involves robust online experiences? Maybe they do though and things will change regarding that by generation's end. I mean, if they want to be around in 100 years, would the internet not have a bigger role in their business (it's almost ridiculous to think that it wouldn't. Dare I say, it is ridiculous to think that it wouldn't.)

 

[Tabris]

Honestly, this is the generation, where I will no longer support my previously favourite video game companies, Nintendo and Square Enix. I'm done with their antics and stagnant development.

 

[Alison]

Sega plays a pretty big role in the industry. Sony is a pretty big player too, and they recently ripped off Smash Bros.

And that game did nothing. You're not responding to the main point. People may rip off Nintendo games, but the games that do aren't the games being acknowledged as the best the industry has to offer.

 

[Gsnap]

The experience of playing GTA5 is nothing like playing GTA Vice City. It's so much bigger and defined in every way. Go back and play the PS2 games and tell me they feel as similar as Nintendo's current games do to their sequels.

Presentation.

 

[mstevens]

And that game did nothing. You're not responding to the main point. People may rip off Nintendo games, but the games that do aren't the games being acknowledged as the best the industry has to offer.

By who? You? Reviewers? Consumers?

GTAV sold tons and tons of copies. So did Monster Hunter 4. So will Pokemon X/Y. Who's to say that Pokemon X/Y Isn't the best the industry has to offer?

Honestly my two games of the year are Fire Emblem: Awakening and Pikmin 3. Pikmin 3 could easily get replaced by Super Mario 3D World. Who are you to say that those aren't the best games of the year?

Wonderful 101 sold terribly but the people who did buy it swear that it's in their game of the year list. Are they incompetent and not entitled to an opinion because it sold poorly or because YOU don't like the game and think it's too small?

 

[Alison]

I bet the "best the industry has to offer" involves a brown corridor in which a mindless AI drone goes through predetermined motions. After brutally slaying or shooting said AI drone, a dramatic cutscene plays where you have to mash the square button rapidly to shake another villain off you, which leads into another cutscene where you discover a new corridor with yet another group of AI drones.

You can try and downplay games you don't like all you want. Fact is, the big critically acclaimed game and most the commercially successful games are no longer being influenced by Nintendo. Bioshock, The Last Of Us, GTA, these are the games being celebrated as industry peaks and Nintendo aren't relevant to them in any way.

 

[IrishNinja]

Oh that massive game of the year candidate Sonic Generic Racer. My bad, clearly Nintendo are influencing the best the industry has to offer.

aside: shit is fantastic, don't know why it doesn't get the love it deserves

 

[Alison]

aside: shit is fantastic, don't know why it doesn't get the love it deserves

I'm sure it's fine. I liked Mario Kart. 10 years ago.

 

[Poimandres]

And that game did nothing. You're not responding to the main point. People may rip off Nintendo games, but the games that do aren't the games being acknowledged as the best the industry has to offer.

How does a game get acknowledged as the best the industry has to offer? Review scores and sales, I would wager.

Using that very reasonable metric, Nintendo games are acknowledged as some of the best the industry has to offer. Not all Nintendo games, but something like SMG is one of the highest rated games of all time.

It is easy to argue that nothing Nintendo has done with the Wii U or 3DS is pushing the industry forward, if that's what you're getting at.

 

[SporeCrawler]

Of course Mario Kart influenced that game. But how is that applicable? The biggest games in the industry, be it commercially or especially critically, are no longer being influenced by Nintendo. Their role as the great innovators pushing gaming forward is over. The company who made Mario 64 is no longer pushing things forward. Sega ripping off Mario Kart doesn't change that.

Thats because the biggest games in the industry this gen come from nintendo themselves and nobody dares to copy them in a serious manner.

Look at current gen sales top 20.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Wii_video_games
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Nintendo_DS_video_games

 

[StevieP]

You can try and downplay games you don't like all you want.

This is the most ironic statement in this thread. And that says more than enough.

 

[Gsnap]

You can try and downplay games you don't like all you want. Fact is, the big critically acclaimed game and most the commercially successful games are no longer being influenced by Nintendo. Bioshock, The Last Of Us, GTA, these are the games being celebrated as industry peaks and Nintendo aren't relevant to them in any way.

When Bioshock is being praised as an "industry peak", that's when you know you have an industry more concerned with presentation than gameplay.

 

[Alison]

How does a game get acknowledged as the best the industry has to offer? Review scores and sales, I would wager.

Using that very reasonable metric, Nintendo games are acknowledged as some of the best the industry has to offer. Not all Nintendo games, but something like SMG is one of the highest rated games of all time.

It is easy to argue that nothing Nintendo has done with the Wii U or 3DS is pushing the industry forward, if that's what you're getting at.

I've said many times Mario Galaxy is great. It deserved all the praise it got. But that's just it. That was 2007. And while the game was great, was it influential? Did we get a ton of Galaxy rip offs? Can you feel it's influence in game design like the way Ocarina of Time was influential?

This isn't a case of "Nintendo games suck dduuhhh" it's a case of you looking at the industry at large and seeing Nintendo's influence is diminishing. This isn't necessarily in sales and popularity of their own games, but the type of games successful by other companies. Nintendo live in their own little bubble, they make games their own way and, hey, sometimes they're really good games. But most the time, they're good games that feel very dated because Nintendo haven't meaningfully changed up their franchises since the Gamecube.

This is the most ironic statement in this thread. And that says more than enough.

What it says is you can't argue the point I'm making and so you've given up.

When Bioshock is being praised as an "industry peak", that's when you know you have an industry more concerned with presentation than gameplay.

You can do this "bu bu Nintendo is all about the gameplay" thing all you want; plenty of people have more fun playing Bioshock than playing New Super Mario Bros.

 

[IrishNinja]

I'm sure it's fine. I liked Mario Kart. 10 years ago.

oh, i know! enjoyable genres are so passe, that's why i only play post-VR SHMUP puzzle-FPS's, you've prolly never even heard of em tbh

 

[SporeCrawler]

When Bioshock is being praised as an "industry peak", that's when you know you have an industry more concerned with presentation than gameplay.

Also bioshock is influenced by metroid prime.

 

[Alison]

oh, i know! enjoyable genres are so passe, that's why i only play post-VR SHMUP puzzle-FPS's, you've prolly never even heard of em tbh

It's very difficult to get excited about a Mario Kart rip off when I've played...what, 4 Mario Kart games in my life, all of which are mostly the same.

 

[PhantomR]

I'm sure it's fine. I liked Mario Kart. 10 years ago.

Hehe....keep fighting the good fight, warrior.

 

[Codeblue]

And that game did nothing. You're not responding to the main point. People may rip off Nintendo games, but the games that do aren't the games being acknowledged as the best the industry has to offer.

You're moving goal posts.

In any case, nothing that copied Mario 64 or Ocarina could be considered the best because those two games were never topped in that era, and a whole host of 3D platformers and adventure games (largely awful but I guess those don't count) tripped over themselves trying to replicate those mechanics.

 

[mstevens]

What it says is you can't argue the point I'm making and so you've given up.

Acting childish won't give you credibility.

You can do this "bu bu Nintendo is all about the gameplay" thing all you want; plenty of people have more fun playing Bioshock than playing New Super Mario Bros.

And plenty more people have more fun playing NSMB than Bioshock. What's your point?

 

[IrishNinja]

It's very difficult to get excited about a Mario Kart rip off when I've played...what, 4 Mario Kart games in my life, all of which are mostly the same.

we could literally say this about any genre if there were never changes in level design/physics/etc though

like, i don't fuck with COD cause Doom, Quake 2, Duke, CS, ugh done

i see this attitude about fighting games sometimes and it's likewise confusing for me, i guess..."SF IV AE looks hot but im kinda done since Mark of the Wolves"

Spoiler

also this one has the dude from Shinobi, man....Shinobi

 

[SporeCrawler]

I've said many times Mario Galaxy is great. It deserved all the praise it got. But that's just it. That was 2007. And while the game was great, was it influential? Did we get a ton of Galaxy rip offs? Can you feel it's influence in game design like the way Ocarina of Time was influential?

This isn't a case of "Nintendo games suck dduuhhh" it's a case of you looking at the industry at large and seeing Nintendo's influence is diminishing. This isn't necessarily in sales and popularity of their own games, but the type of games successful by other companies. Nintendo live in their own little bubble, they make games their own way and, hey, sometimes they're really good games. But most the time, they're good games that feel very dated because Nintendo haven't meaningfully changed up their franchises since the Gamecube.



What it says is you can't argue the point I'm making and so you've given up.



You can do this "bu bu Nintendo is all about the gameplay" thing all you want; plenty of people have more fun playing Bioshock than playing New Super Mario Bros.

In other words nintendo games are unique because nobody makes similar games while the rest of the industry makes pretty much the same games?

How is that bad?

Also no meaningful franchises since GC?

Just going from sales (since you obviously will dismiss niche games as " lol flop")
Wii Fit?
Wii Sports?
Tomodachi Collection?
Nintendogs?
Brain Age?

 

[Alison]

You're moving goal posts.

In any case, nothing that copied Mario 64 or Ocarina could be considered the best because those two games were never topped in that era, and a whole host of 3D platformers and adventure games (largely awful but I guess those don't count) tripped over themselves trying to replicate those mechanics.

I'm not moving anything. If you look at my original post, I said Nintendo are no longer relevant as influencing the best the industry has to offer. This isn't about me saying "Nintendo can't make good games". I'm saying that when you look at the industry at large, they are no longer the company influencing game design in the games the industry acknowledges as the cream of the crop. You can either agree with that, or you can disagree with it. Your personal opinions on whether or not the games being acknowledged as the best are actually good is irrelevant.

Also no meaningful franchises since GC?

Just going from sales (since you obviously will dismiss niche games as " lol flop")
Wii Fit?
Wii Sports?
Tomodachi Collection?
Nintendogs?
Brain Age?

Like this guy.

It doesn't matter if you like these games; these games aren't influencing the most popular and critically acclaimed games in the industry today.

 

[HORRORSHØW]

Nintendo games always bring a smile to my face. It's been going on for nearly 25 years now, and I don't think that's going to stop anytime soon.

 

[Lumyst]

You can do this "bu bu Nintendo is all about the gameplay" thing all you want; plenty of people have more fun playing Bioshock than playing New Super Mario Bros.

And that is the whole "Nintendo has its ideas of what it wants games to be, the present day market response shows that this may not be where others want it to go." But it can be accepted that the reason Nintendo is doing what it does right now is for the reasons it has said, irregardless of the market response, about coming up with "new things to do" in the same worlds and franchises. Perhaps the market says, "Yes, we do care about presentation" and maybe Nintendo would have to accept that. Or perhaps they'll take the potentially harder path of trying to do things their own way until they elicit a response from the market.

 

[mstevens]

I'm not moving anything. If you look at my original post, I said Nintendo are no longer relevant as influencing the best the industry has to offer. This isn't about me saying "Nintendo can't make good games". I'm saying that when you look at the industry at large, they are no longer the company influencing game design in the games the industry acknowledges as the cream of the crop. You can either agree with that, or you can disagree with it. Your personal opinions on whether or not the games being acknowledged as the best are actually good is irrelevant.



Like this guy.

It doesn't matter if you like these games; these games aren't influencing the most popular and critically acclaimed games in the industry today.

You keep saying this. Define it. Sales? Reviews? Fan reception?

 

[Gsnap]

You can do this "bu bu Nintendo is all about the gameplay" thing all you want; plenty of people have more fun playing Bioshock than playing New Super Mario Bros.

I will do that "Nintendo is all about gameplay" thing all I want. Because Bioshock's gameplay sucks. People have "fun" playing Bioshock because people don't care about gameplay as much as they care about everything else. It's a shame really, but check out some threads about Bioshock. Very few people are talking about anything other than the presentation and the story. The reason Nintendo doesn't "influence" the industry, as you say, is because as far as the industry is concerned, "gameplay" is archaic. The gameplay has to be as non-intrusive as possible so that the masses can blow through the game and see the ending of the B level story being told. Nintendo doesn't influence the industry because the industry is after the "casual" gamer's dollar more than Nintendo was when they made the Wii. The casual "get the latest AAA game, beat it and move on to the next" gamer doesn't have time for good, involving gameplay.

 

[Codeblue]

I'm not moving anything. If you look at my original post, I said Nintendo are no longer relevant as influencing the best the industry has to offer. This isn't about me saying "Nintendo can't make good games". I'm saying that when you look at the industry at large, they are no longer the company influencing game design in the games the industry acknowledges as the cream of the crop. You can either agree with that, or you can disagree with it. Your personal opinions on whether or not the games being acknowledged as the best are actually good is irrelevant.



Like this guy.

It doesn't matter if you like these games; these games aren't influencing the most popular and critically acclaimed games in the industry today.

Who is the industry? How are you measuring this? You're knocking people for bringing subjectivity into this when you offer no reasonable metric for objectivity.

 

[SporeCrawler]

Like this guy.

It doesn't matter if you like these games; these games aren't influencing the most popular and critically acclaimed games in the industry today.

Does it matter? Going by sales they are the most influential games of today and nobody is making clones that are nearly as succesful.

 

[Alison]

And that is the whole "Nintendo has its ideas of what it wants games to be, the present day market response shows that this may not be where others want it to go." But it can be accepted that the reason Nintendo is doing what it does right now is for the reasons it has said, irregardless of the market response, about coming up with "new things to do" in the same worlds and franchises. Perhaps the market says, "Yes, we do care about presentation" and maybe Nintendo would have to accept that. Or perhaps they'll take the potentially harder path of trying to do things their own way until they elicit a response from the market.

Nintendo's idea of what it wants games to be was formed years ago and has barely changed. That's the whole point. By all means; enjoy Nintendo games. You can think Nintendo games are the bestest games in the whole world if you want and you wouldn't be wrong, because you're entitled to like whatever you like. But what you can't argue is that when you look at the industry, and the biggest sellers or most critically acclaimed games, and say that Nintendo is influencing these games or making games anything like them. They exist in a bubble. Maybe you like that bubble. I used to, but quite simply I'm somewhat tired of playing the same games over and over again. But if you love them, that's lovely.

 

[jman2050]

Every single indie platformer worth a damn (and there are a lot of them) borrows heavily from Nintendo design sensibilities and mechanics and is largely why they are good in the first place. Pokemon on its own has inspired an entire genre of collectibles-based RPGs that you can argue have formed the basis for the entire mobile F2P market as it is currently constructed today. This is just off the top of my head.

 

[SporeCrawler]

Nintendo's idea of what it wants games to be was formed years ago and has barely changed. That's the whole point. By all means; enjoy Nintendo games. You can think Nintendo games are the bestest games in the whole world if you want and you wouldn't be wrong, because you're entitled to like whatever you like. But what you can't argue is that when you look at the industry, and the biggest sellers or most critically acclaimed games, and say that Nintendo is influencing these games or making games anything like them. They exist in a bubble. Maybe you like that bubble. I used to, but quite simply I'm somewhat tired of playing the same games over and over again. But if you love them, that's lovely.

If you have a unique selling point thats usually a very good thing.

 

[Gsnap]

I used to, but quite simply I'm somewhat tired of playing the same games over and over again. .

So you must be tired of the entire industry, huh?

 

[Alison]

Who is the industry? How are you measuring this? You're knocking people for bringing subjectivity into this when you offer no reasonable metric for objectivity.

It's very simple. Top selling franchises today are games like Last Of Us, COD, GTA, Bioshock, even games like Saints Row. In terms of what is critically acclaimed, theres a similar list. Do I doubt Pokemon is going to sell a billion copies? No. Do I doubt that Pokemon is going to influence game design in the industry? Yeah, I doubt that a lot. Nintendo used to be a company where you'd say they as much as anybody else were pushing things forward. From the NES to SNES and N64 they were leading the way in an era of great change. Now, they basically exist to remake the games they've made before. And sure, those games may be fun, and they may be successful commercially, but they are not, by any means, pushing things forward. They are not influencing anybody. Thats what I mean when I say their relevance in the industry is declining.

So you must be tired of the entire industry, huh?

To an extent, yeah. But at least there's 5 years between GTA4 and GTA5. There's only so many times Nintendo can dangle a new Zelda or Mario in front of me before I get bored.

 

[Codeblue]

Nintendo's idea of what it wants games to be was formed years ago and has barely changed. That's the whole point. By all means; enjoy Nintendo games. You can think Nintendo games are the bestest games in the whole world if you want and you wouldn't be wrong, because you're entitled to like whatever you like. But what you can't argue is that when you look at the industry, and the biggest sellers or most critically acclaimed games, and say that Nintendo is influencing these games or making games anything like them. They exist in a bubble. Maybe you like that bubble. I used to, but quite simply I'm somewhat tired of playing the same games over and over again. But if you love them, that's lovely.

You're a broken record. The way you framed your point makes it indefensible. I hope you realize that at some point and cut out all the condescension.

 

[Alison]

You're a broken record. The way you framed your point makes it indefensible. I hope you realize that at some point and cut out all the condescension.

I'm a broken record because people keep bringing things like "but the games are fun" and "but Nintendo's games sell" in to the argument like it's relevant to what I'm saying.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

Once again, you're talking about presentation. You're talking about how the games "feel" rather than talking about how they play. Nintendo is constantly making games that PLAY wonderfully. Their games, in general, give the player more agency than an Assassin's Creed or an Uncharted. Not to mention the ways they attempt to evolve gameplay with their new input methods.

The industry is in a rut when it comes to gameplay. It's same old same old across the board. This affects Nintendo as well, but they certainly try harder than the rest of the industry to try new or unique forms of gameplay.

No, he isn't.

Galaxy felt like it had a pretty big sense of scale compared to Mario 64.

GTA V has a bigger sense of scale than VC. Skyrim than Oblivion.

etc.

They certainly aren't pushing boundaries as much anymore. And that makes me sad, because I know that they have the talent to do it.