Only realised now why I dont like Nintendo

[chadachada123]

My only argument, I guess, is that when Nintendo milks a franchise, they at least aren't assholes about it, or they'll at least wait several years before taking another squeeze of the utter (see: OoT being released only every couple of years, as opposed to Call of Duty being released every year).

Plus, Nintendo games have massive replay value and, as someone else said, nostalgia attached to it. Despite having very similar mechanics, new games are still just as fun (for the most part) as previous ones, yet with entirely new levels and areas and such. Compared to Modern Warfare, which has a half-assed campaign and the *exact same multiplayer* as the previous iterations...I'd say that Nintendo is the least offensive culprit for IP-milking. Doesn't justify releasing OoT for the 7th time, but it at least makes it worth buying a second or third time (Yes, I think OoT was THAT good of a game, same with Star Fox 64).

 

[Sean951]

They maintain the same formula. Everything else about the game changes. Well, other than Galaxy 1 to Galaxy 2. That was the same game. But we like it that way.

Mario is a platformer that features a variety of powerups and a plumber with a read shirt and blue overalls. Sure, you COULD replace him with a new character, but why? What purpose would doing this serve? The game would still be a platformer with the same mechanics, just different graphics.

A Zelda game without some or all of the main characters (which has been done, Majora's Mask didn't have Zelda or Ganondorf) would still be a adventure/puzzle game with a hero saving a princess utilizing various items scattered in dungeons throughout the land.

Metroid would still be a platformer with shooting, just not one with a bad ass female protagonist (I don't accept Other M).

 

[Xeraxis]

You do realize Nintendo is not the only company that does this, right? If such were to drastically change the formula, people would heavily criticize that the game no longer feels like *insert game franchise here*. If they retain the formula even moderately, then there's criticism of it become stale. Seems like a situation you can't win in. What exactly do you expect such to do?

 

[weker]

I would just like to make the point it is almost 30 years for people to complain about Mario or Zelda bearing the core principles and there is a good reason for this... We like them, We like the characters so much we keep buying their games, and buying them in the bucket load. The Core theme of each game is the same story of go save the princess, but not every game has to be about story (I know there is a few gamers who have an obsession with forcing story into a game no matter what)

I won't moan at Nintendo as they know how to perfectly innovate something to keep it entertaining but leave enough room for the next game. I would like to finally add the only reason a fair amount of developers stop making games is due to the story ending, or continue the story would run it into the ground, that's why with Mario it's not effected, as people don't mind the looping story.

 

[Samus Aran but a man]

Nintendo games may not be original in terms of namesake, but the amount of creativity in a game like Donkey Kong Country Returns or Super Mario Galaxy puts the rest of the industry to shame.

I'm proud to say that Super Mario Galaxy 2 is my favourite game of all time.

Also... of course they're not going to get rid of Mario! He's the mascot for the whole fucking industry!!

 

[Samus Aran but a man]

Until Mario games stop being so fucking good, I don't care how much they innovate. Same with their other franchises.

Sticking to a formula is not a bad thing. That's why formulas exist.

^ this

Merry Christmas, man

 

[fenrizz]

I still love Nintendo.

Love Mario Wii, love Donkey Kong Wii and live zelda still.

May they never stop making them!

This basically ammounts to the old "Nintendo only makes Mario, Zelda and Metroid!" Argument...

*Ahem*
Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Kirby, Smash Bros, F-Zero, Pikmin, Fire Emblem, StarFox, Advance Wars, the Mario RPGs (those are different), Donkey Kong Country, Pokemon, Warioware, Kid Icarus, and this is just after two minutes of thinking

In this list alone, we have a company that makes a bunch of 2D and 3D platformers, 2 separate Turn Based Strategy games, a racing game, an two adventure series, 2 RPG series, a minigame collection, a flight combat series and whatever the hell Pikmin is.

All critically loved. All publicly acclaimed.

Most other companies can make one, maybe 2 or if they're really good, 3 genres. Valve only makes FPS games. Bioware only makes RPGs. Not only can Nintendo make a wide variety of games (which EVERYONE is more than happy to ignore so that they can say "Wah, Nintendo only makes Mario, Zelda and Metroid!), but they make GOOD games of all these types. There are barely any other games of these type anywhere in the industry.

People hate the entire company based on Mario. They're more than willing to ignore every other series Nintendo makes, and even the different things Mario does just so they can make what I now call "the CoD argument". And that's not including all the "ooooh, Nintendo is for kiddies!" arguments that people make.

Regarding the "they drop features" claim, that's interesting, and there's a point to be had there. But not entire true. Yes, some things like certain power-ups and things like FLUDD are there and gone, but honestly, would having the Tanooki Suit in every game make the series better? Would Mario with a water pack from every game from Sunshine onward REALLY have been "evoltion"? The thing about the Mario series is that it's able to experiment. To do all sorts of different things with a solid base formula. To me, that's what makes it interesting.

As for the "they don't do anything new" claim, they do do new things. Just because it isn't successful (glasses-less 3D) or you don't like it (motion controls) or it "seems weird" (the touchscreen on the controller) doesn't mean they aren't doing something new.

Well said, well said.

I agree entierly.

 

[Samus Aran but a man]

This basically ammounts to the old "Nintendo only makes Mario, Zelda and Metroid!" Argument...

*Ahem*
Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Kirby, Smash Bros, F-Zero, Pikmin, Fire Emblem, StarFox, Advance Wars, the Mario RPGs (those are different), Donkey Kong Country, Pokemon, Warioware, Kid Icarus, and this is just after two minutes of thinking

In this list alone, we have a company that makes a bunch of 2D and 3D platformers, 2 separate Turn Based Strategy games, a racing game, an two adventure series, 2 RPG series, a minigame collection, a flight combat series and whatever the hell Pikmin is.

All critically loved. All publicly acclaimed.

Most other companies can make one, maybe 2 or if they're really good, 3 genres. Valve only makes FPS games. Bioware only makes RPGs. Not only can Nintendo make a wide variety of games (which EVERYONE is more than happy to ignore so that they can say "Wah, Nintendo only makes Mario, Zelda and Metroid!), but they make GOOD games of all these types. There are barely any other games of these type anywhere in the industry.

People hate the entire company based on Mario. They're more than willing to ignore every other series Nintendo makes, and even the different things Mario does just so they can make what I now call "the CoD argument". And that's not including all the "ooooh, Nintendo is for kiddies!" arguments that people make.

Regarding the "they drop features" claim, that's interesting, and there's a point to be had there. But not entire true. Yes, some things like certain power-ups and things like FLUDD are there and gone, but honestly, would having the Tanooki Suit in every game make the series better? Would Mario with a water pack from every game from Sunshine onward REALLY have been "evoltion"? The thing about the Mario series is that it's able to experiment. To do all sorts of different things with a solid base formula. To me, that's what makes it interesting.

As for the "they don't do anything new" claim, they do do new things. Just because it isn't successful (glasses-less 3D) or you don't like it (motion controls) or it "seems weird" (the touchscreen on the controller) doesn't mean they aren't doing something new.

Sir or madam, I just slowly clapped at that brilliant response

 

[ThePurpleStuff]

I don't like Nintendo anymore because they forced me to use motion control when I didn't want to in my Zelda games when it could've worked with a controller just fine.

I also don't like them because with their attitude these days with their games, they seem to be hinting and assuming that we're all idiots. We can't figure out things on our own without being told what to do and they hold our hands to do it. I understand you're marketing to children Nintendo but, guess what, not even KIDS are too stupid to figure out your puzzles or problems in your games, shut up and let them figure it out. Remember in your NES Zelda games nintendo? We didn't get a fairy helper shouting "hey! Listen!" Or a robot spirit in the master sword pausing and padding out your game with the obvious that an npc just told us. All we had back then was our wits, an NES and a controller, there were subtle hints from the old man but that's all we needed. We beat Ganon all on our own in your giant maze of a game in the first Zelda.

That's just how I feel, nowadays we don't need in game helper npcs unless they're just for Z-targeting like navi was in OoT, which is why I hated Fi so much in skyward sword, she serves no purpose but annoyance. I figured out what to do WITHOUT her help at any point in the game because it was either obvious or told to me just before she popped out to say it again. She didn't help me during the final boss like Navi, which, looking back, she didn't annoy as much now that Fi came into the picture.

Those are just my opinions, Nintendo's attitude toward their very fanbases makes me hate them and I'm never buying another game from them again because of that and where their technology is going.

 

[Kuroneko97]

What I think Nintendo does great is that while they add new features to each game that may come and go, they stick to a formula that works and don't make changes that they may have seen didn't work well in other franchises.

Example time! What's something people have hated about Sega when it comes to Sonic?
They have failed to stick to the "blue hedgehog runs really fast to save sum shit" formula, which has upset and discouraged a LOT of fans.

When people turn on a Mario game, they expect "chubby plumber must save princess because the turtle-dinosaur-dragon kidnapped her again."

When people turn on a Zelda game, they expect "kid who wears a green tunic must save teh world, and usually a princess, from a terrible evil."

And I don't play much Metroid, but I'm sure the formula is "Woman who wears a big spacesuit must save space from aliens."

Nintendo knows hows it works. They innovate enough to interest new players and keep old players interested, while sticking to the formula that old players know and wish to keep to. It's why is called a FRANCHISE or SERIES. And they DO come up with new individual games and new franchises, as another guy listed in this thread. It's just that some people have a stick so far up their ass they never notice it, and they won't play anything they don't recognize, although that's the EXACT thing they're complaining about.

Plus, their games just have a lot of replay value. I once got that Zelda collector's edition and beat Ocarina of Time again. I didn't care that the graphics were a generation behind mine (born 1997) and a lot of shapes looked like a geometry teacher's fantasy. That game was FUN. And it kept me busy for about a month until I finished pretty much anything.

Oh, as for Zelda, you CANNOT tell me they don't come up with mind-blowing storylines at times. Sometimes I think that Nintendo has their Zelda department constantly hopped up on weed and acid-laced water.

 

[RatRace123]

I don't see anything wrong with Nintendo sticking to a similar formula for its big name franchises, and if critical and commercial success is anything to go by, neither do most other people.

If the formula works, and works really damn well, why bother fixing it? I still enjoy every new Mario game.

 

[D Moness]

Snipsters McGee.

Holy hell, every character in that second group of covers is in the exact same pose. That is either a weird coincidence, extremely lazy marketing executives, or the lamest government conspiracy imaginable.

OT: Nintendo could stand with creating more new IPs, but otherwise they can keep going until people get sick of it as far as I care.

Also funny he finds colorful covers gay but praises covers that are gray and look the same(and enforces how a stereotypical guy should look). Honestly i think he has it the other way around

 

[bluegate]

Nintendo games may not be original in terms of namesake, but the amount of creativity in a game like Donkey Kong Country Returns or Super Mario Galaxy puts the rest of the industry to shame.

Amount of creativity in Donkey Kong Country Returns... ?
That game was pretty much a copy and cut up of previous donkey kong games, little to no creativity was put in that game.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the game immensely, but it could have been so much better than what it was ( One thing, for example: NOT HAVING THE ROLL MOVE MAPPED TO A MOTION EVENT !!! Seriously, I want to smack the people that thought that up over the head so hard... If they pull this shit again in the sequel that was teased... ).

 

[D Moness]

So you have a mind that gets easily amused by bright colours? Says a lot about you I suppose.

Yep i do not let my taste influence with what some vocal minority tells me i should like.
It tells me i have my own opinion.
Also trying to insult me on one line might not be that good when you are 1 infraction away from being banned.

 

[josemlopes]

This basically ammounts to the old "Nintendo only makes Mario, Zelda and Metroid!" Argument...

*Ahem*
Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Kirby, Smash Bros, F-Zero, Pikmin, Fire Emblem, StarFox, Advance Wars, the Mario RPGs (those are different), Donkey Kong Country, Pokemon, Warioware, Kid Icarus, and this is just after two minutes of thinking

In this list alone, we have a company that makes a bunch of 2D and 3D platformers, 2 separate Turn Based Strategy games, a racing game, an two adventure series, 2 RPG series, a minigame collection, a flight combat series and whatever the hell Pikmin is.

All critically loved. All publicly acclaimed.

Most other companies can make one, maybe 2 or if they're really good, 3 genres. Valve only makes FPS games. Bioware only makes RPGs. Not only can Nintendo make a wide variety of games (which EVERYONE is more than happy to ignore so that they can say "Wah, Nintendo only makes Mario, Zelda and Metroid!), but they make GOOD games of all these types. There are barely any other games of these type anywhere in the industry.

People hate the entire company based on Mario. They're more than willing to ignore every other series Nintendo makes, and even the different things Mario does just so they can make what I now call "the CoD argument". And that's not including all the "ooooh, Nintendo is for kiddies!" arguments that people make.

Regarding the "they drop features" claim, that's interesting, and there's a point to be had there. But not entire true. Yes, some things like certain power-ups and things like FLUDD are there and gone, but honestly, would having the Tanooki Suit in every game make the series better? Would Mario with a water pack from every game from Sunshine onward REALLY have been "evoltion"? The thing about the Mario series is that it's able to experiment. To do all sorts of different things with a solid base formula. To me, that's what makes it interesting.

As for the "they don't do anything new" claim, they do do new things. Just because it isn't successful (glasses-less 3D) or you don't like it (motion controls) or it "seems weird" (the touchscreen on the controller) doesn't mean they aren't doing something new.

Hey now, everyone knows that Call of Duty is not a reason to be proud of in terms of new original content lol

But the thing too is that while Nintendo set the bar high years ago they just stayed on that bar forever, its like they arent trying to go further. The quality of the games are great and all but for example, Psychonauts for me was a way of taking platformers to a next level.

 

[deadish]

I dislike them because their hardware is gimmicky and underpowered. They never listen to developers and never put in things that "count".

Nintendo fanboys who think the company can do no wrong and worship them like gods - "worship them platinum" to paraphrase Eminem - aren't helping. They are as annoying as 90s Apple fanboys - who are mostly gone since Apple went mainstream; those hipsters must have "left" because it wasn't "underground" anymore. /rolleyes

 

[Veldt Falsetto]

Snip

Hold on a second, what? I feel like you've done that on purpose how about these incredibly popular wii games?

Do they look "GAY" to you?

Or what about these incredibly popular Xbox 360 and Ps3 titles?

and an unpopular "hardcore" title.

I refute the claims that Nintendo are doing it wrong and Xbox and Ps3 are doing it right. All 3 consoles have their great games and bad games.

I'm also not saying any of the games either of us have brought up are bad...but seriously as someone who ISN'T a Nintendo fan boy, I feel they get way too much hate for...well, very little really.

They're a company that has been around for over 25 years and they STILL make quality games, there aren't that many companies that can say that...not really.

 

[Snoozer]

To me it just seems that all complains about nintendo are: they do the same thing over and over again.
That sais nothing about the games themselves. People still play Tomb Raider, that has been up for years and is also always the same. Or the Assassins Creed series, not that much change here as well, or Halo. Same goes for all series and there are worse examples like Call of Duty, they develop a "new" game in every year and add pretty much nothing new.
Nintendo does nothing other developers don't do themselves and they managed to keep their games intersting over years.

 

[Sean951]

Yes, you have your opinion. Your opinion that the covers showing the protagonist standing firm, resolute, powerful - i.e. exactly the pose a strong hero should be adopting, a pose that is culturally and sociologically signifigant to a great degree and works as visual shorthand - is "gay".

But they all also look like the stereotypical hero. They are large, burly men with tons of training and typically very large weapons. Nintendo's 3 main heroes tend to be the everyman thrust into the limelight due to circumstance. You have Mario the plumber, Link the child in several, and a teenager with rudimentary sword skills in the others), and Samus, the bounty hunter. Samus is the only one that has serious combat training and begins the games with any significant experience. I suppose you could say Mario does, but his games aren't really about combat...

 

[Nomanslander]

Snip

WIth some of those Sony titles there, all they're doing is trying to capitalize on the Nintendo market of gimmicky motion sensor casual games. Let's not forget the Kinnect and PS Move were inspired by the Wii. As for some of the "good" kid friendly games like Little Big Planet you posted. Well part of me thinks its a good thing games are still being made to cater to kids even though if I was still 8 I'd be all over Mass Effect or Skyrim sort even though I barely would understand half the stories and game mechanics. Also I think there should be a bit more "good" games made for kids now. But that's all that Nintendo does now, and they're not really good games they're just Nostalgic. And when they make games like Madworld, The Conduit, No More Heroes, or Red Steel (shitty games). All they're trying to do is cater to the PS3/360 audience and failing miserably at it.