People keep harping on Nintendo...

[Ishal]

This thread... this fucking thread.

It's a sad day when fun is relegated to a fast food comparison, and thought to contribute just as much. This is the future of gaming. What on earth happened. We need Nintendo now more than ever.

 

[Fox12]

This thread... this fucking thread.

It's a sad day when fun is relegated to a fast food comparison, and thought to contribute just as much. This is the future of gaming. What on earth happened. We need Nintendo now more than ever.

...

The company that rehashes the same formula year after year? The one that yells at those Lets Play kids to get off their lawn? The one that split Fire Emblem into two parts in order to make bank? The one who ran out of new ideas years ago?

If the future of gaming is Bloodborne, Dark Souls, Persona, The Last of Us, and The Witcher 2, then I say good riddance. The futures pretty bright from where I'm standing.

 

[Ishal]

The company that rehashes the same formula year after year?

There have been numerous times the formula has been rehashed. There have also been numerous times where it has been switched up. The new Zelda being open world spring to mind. But that really is neither here nor there. Funny that you mention Bloodborne, I'm glad you did. Because right now that is the only reason to buy a PS4. Despite there being ~ 500 games available. Otherwise, the console is just a glorified PS3 remake machine. There are two places to play games in the current market. One is PC, the other is Wii U. PC needs no explanation. The WiiU has good polished exclusives, which is the only reason to buy a console in today's market. Whether they are rehashed or not, people are still buying them.

The one that yells at those Lets Play kids to get off their lawn?

You'll hear no argument from me here. It is a draconian and stupid practice. Doesn't factor into their games though.

If the future of gaming is Bloodborne, Dark Souls, Persona, The Last of Us, and The Witcher 2, then I say good riddance. The futures pretty bright from where I'm standing.

Bloodborne and Dark Souls are the pinnacle of where I think gaming should be going. They offer a lot in terms of how they are designed, but they still follow one basic tenet. They are fun. They are unapologetically gamey. More fun than the other titles you listed, to be blunt. But that's going to fall under different strokes for different folks.

I know where you're standing, Fox. You want the medium to be elevated. You want it to be respected. You want what so many others want. I see it all the time. I used to be that way, too. But I'm of a different opinion now. I don't think games should be trying to ape aspects from other mediums. In a desperate and sad bid to be seen as art. I think they cheapen themselves every time they do it. However, if they want to pursue other methods of storytelling, then so be it. They had just better make sure they are fun. If not, they have failed, and can take a hike.

captca: no regrets

None since ME3, and I've never looked back.

 

[Fox12]

snip

To be completely fair, I actually like Nintendo. I love my 3DS, it's got some great titles. Furthermore, I think Nintendo is passionate , as a company, about what it does. And that's important. My only issue is with people who refuse to accept criticisms of them (not that you're one of them). Nintendo is good. It could be a lot better. Constructive criticism is important.

Yes, you're right, I want gaming to grow. I love crazy stupid fun, like Saints Row 3. Those games are important, and their a joy to play. But I don't necessarily think games are obligated to be "fun." Neither are books or films. I wouldn't call Silent Hill 2 "fun," knowing full well that that's a subjective term. But it's one of my favorite games of all time, and I'm grateful that I got to play it. Games should be able to explore difficult or controversial subject matter in a way that's unique, and different from other mediums. I think we can agree that Dark Souls probably does this best, at least recently. I don't turn my nose up at fun titles. I think they're great. I just want a diverse range of games.

As for the PS4 just having remakes, that's just temporary. The 3ds and WII U have plenty of those as well, and if you remember just a short while ago people were complaining about how the Wii U didn't have any titles. Now it's loaded, but that only happened around the end of last year, within the last six months. I think the PS4 has been picking up steam since then. Honestly, the only console that's under performed for me is the Xbone, but that's because of the emphasis it puts on multiplayer shooter titles.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I don't think games should be trying to ape aspects from other mediums. In a desperate and sad bid to be seen as art. I think they cheapen themselves every time they do it. However, if they want to pursue other methods of storytelling, then so be it. They had just better make sure they are fun. If not, they have failed, and can take a hike.

I hear this fun argument a lot, usually when it's a Nintendo discussion. Beyond 'fun' being a very broad term that can mean many things to many people, it's like it's constantly getting used as this iron fist that dictates what games should be. And any deviation from it shall be met with scorn. The same as when a game that dares to have cutscenes comes along, and *gasp* even gets praise.

So what is this true fun in gaming? Just the same cartoony Nintendo hijinks over and over? Is that what all games should ever strive for?

The great thing about games, and what gives them a leg up on movies as well as books, is that they can be anything.

 

[Ishal]

I hear this fun argument a lot,

And there is a reason for that. It's not going to go away, sorry to say. Especially if the trends in western gaming continue. But we'll get to that.

So what is this true fun in gaming? Just the same cartoony Nintendo hijinks over and over? Is that what all games should ever strive for?

The fun Nintendo does is not limited to their aesthetic, but to their design philosophy. This is something that is becoming more and more apparent as time goes on. Eastern game design is focused on concepts built around core game mechanics and gameplay. They start there, then branch off. The results are usually extremely well polished games that are focused around the gameplay that drives the experience. Nintendo is brought up in these discussions all the time because they are an eastern dev, and are perhaps one of the oldest ones. People buy Nintendo games because they know they have a very high chance of being good and well polished.

Meanwhile, to quote another poster in this very thread...

Though considering how the market seems to have "changed" right into evolutionary deadends, reckless spending, company after company folding, rampant egoism, and catering to an ever-shrinking market instead of diversifying I can understand why Nintendo refuses to be associated with that kind of crap.

This is the western market, if you haven't noticed. A market where a staggering amount of dev studios have gone under due to reckless spending and ridiculous budgets to make "cinematic games." Games that face a monumental uphill battle to recoup their investment, let alone make a profit. Games that value "cinematic" style and visuals over everything else... despite gamers indicating that they don't necessarily care all that much about it. If they did, how did Minecraft become as big as it is? I keep using the word "Cinematic" for a reason. The effect of Hollywood shouldn't be ignored, and indeed, I don't even think it can be. American publishers are very, very self-conscious of the fact that they are not working in Hollywood. Select Journalists are as well. Even some devs share this mentality and insecurity. More devs interviews are revealing this all the time. In many ways the biggest AAA releases are getting budgets that rival films, and it's absolutely absurd.

You can argue narrative importance in games. But cinematic narrative is a mistake. It's not the right medium, and it's suicidal in terms of budget. In the last ten years there has been a dramatic decline of western developers drowning under the immense cost required to do this.

The great thing about games, and what gives them a leg up on movies as well as books, is that they can be anything.

Can they? I'd say they can be anything in theory, but in reality they can only be what their budget allows, and what return and profit they make. Fun is subjective, of course it is. But it's a universal factor among games. Different types of fun for different people. Different people means variety. Variety means diverse gameplay mechanics. To get diverse gameplay mechanics you need smaller studios being autonomous doing their own thing. Right now, those are found in two prominent places: Japan, and the rising Indie scene. It's there because much of Western AAA is too busy falling all over itself trying to be movies. A good chunk of the western audience is growing tired of this, so their eyes turn east. And when they do, what's the biggest monolith they see? Nintendo.

 

[Saltyk]

Oh, look. It's that totally nonexistent Nintendo Defense Force.

Listen. No one actually hates Nintendo. People hate Nintendo like people hate people hate chocolate. Any actual haters are a minority and everyone else just has certain preferences.

If I go over to my friend's house and he gives me a choice between Halo and Smash, which do you think I'll choose? I'm going for Smash, even though I'm terrible at it. It's still way more fun than Halo ever is (which I am also bad at).

That's not to say Nintendo doesn't have problems. It has some. Like:

~Archaic policies.
~They tend to be half a generation behind and this hurts third party support.
~They rely on gimmicks, which also hurts third party support.
~They are terrible about communicating with developers and actively seem to obstruct them at times. Once more, hurting third party support. (Let's just say there is a reason the X1 and PS4 are so similar)
~Youtube. Just everything Youtube.
~They don't really care about NotJapan. At all.
~Amiibos. Need I say anymore on that?

People don't criticize Nintendo because they hate Nintendo. Or to be mean to the Big N. They criticize because they want Nintendo to be better. They want Nintendo to grow. They love Nintendo. And it breaks their heart to see Nintendo not returning that love and floundering. And make no mistake, continued poor performance in the console market will kill Nintendo. They've been a shrinking presence in the market for decades, despite a growing gaming market. They need to turn it around. And they are certainly making plenty of decisions that seem designed to put players off and even make them dislike Nintendo (the aforementioned Youtube policies).

 

[Silvanus]

Listen. No one actually hates Nintendo. People hate Nintendo like people hate people hate chocolate. Any actual haters are a minority and everyone else just has certain preferences.

Not really hate, no, but there's a fair degree of undue dismissiveness-- beyond what the other two get. There's a fair degree of it in this thread.

 

[CommanderL]

ninetendo is a company that exsits to make money
stop fucking defending them

seriously every month there is a new post about people protecting poor little nintendo

 

[JayRPG]

Eh, I generally find the people who dislike Nintendo most are the exact same people who refuse to play masterpieces like Tales of Symphonia or Baten Kaitos because they have cel-shaded graphics.

You know something that cel-shaded graphics do a quadrillion times better than 'realistic' graphics? Age. I can still go back and play the original Wind Waker and it still looks beautiful.

Why do people want 'realistic' graphics anyway? You are well aware while playing that you are actually playing a game, there is no chance of you forgetting and thinking you are actually in the future shooting people with jet packs and Kevin spacey is also there. So what is the point? Why not just make use of interesting art styles and use a less intense graphics engine so you can achieve something above shit-tier 900p/30fps.

Splatoon (60fps) runs better and smoother than any CoD or BF on consoles; and guess what, it isn't an ugly game in the slightest. It's bright, it's colourful, it's art style is fantastic, and they managed to pull off world wide multiplayer with no lag issues.

Realistic graphics are shit, I'd much rather play a cel-shaded or "kiddy" graphics game that is actually fun and mechanically sound (and/or has a good story) like Tales of Xillia or Mario Kart or Eternal Sonata etc etc

 

[Casual Shinji]

I hear this fun argument a lot,

And there is a reason for that. It's not going to go away, sorry to say. Especially if the trends in western gaming continue. But we'll get to that.

Yes, that reason being Nintendo fans constantly using it to prove they're right, when it holds a different meaning to different people. That somehow their fun is more fun than everybody else's.

The fun Nintendo does is not limited to their aesthetic, but to their design philosophy. This is something that is becoming more and more apparent as time goes on. Eastern game design is focused on concepts built around core game mechanics and gameplay. They start there, then branch off. The results are usually extremely well polished games that are focused around the gameplay that drives the experience. Nintendo is brought up in these discussions all the time because they are an eastern dev, and are perhaps one of the oldest ones. People buy Nintendo games because they know they have a very high chance of being good and well polished.

What, you mean, like, Final Fantasy, or Metal Gear Solid, or Silent Hill? All eastern story-first games that are generally well praised for everything but their gameplay.

I won't deny Nintendo games are solid as a rock mechanically, probably the most solid of all games. But this isn't too surprising considering they've been remaking the same platformer and action adventure for ages.

This is the western market, if you haven't noticed. A market where a staggering amount of dev studios have gone under due to reckless spending and ridiculous budgets to make "cinematic games." Games that face a monumental uphill battle to recoup their investment, let alone make a profit. Games that value "cinematic" style and visuals over everything else... despite gamers indicating that they don't necessarily care all that much about it. If they did, how did Minecraft become as big as it is? I keep using the word "Cinematic" for a reason. The effect of Hollywood shouldn't be ignored, and indeed, I don't even think it can be. American publishers are very, very self-conscious of the fact that they are not working in Hollywood. Select Journalists are as well. Even some devs share this mentality and insecurity. More devs interviews are revealing this all the time. In many ways the biggest AAA releases are getting budgets that rival films, and it's absolutely absurd.

You can argue narrative importance in games. But cinematic narrative is a mistake. It's not the right medium, and it's suicidal in terms of budget. In the last ten years there has been a dramatic decline of western developers drowning under the immense cost required to do this.

This has little to do with cinematic style and more with AAA publishers feeling the need to supply increasingly bigger and bigger experiences in order to remain competitive (same as movies). And the easiest way for them to do this is to push the graphics, which is different from cinematic flair and story. The Walking Dead games are hardly titles where the choice of going for a cinematic story experience has somehow bankrupted Telltale. Quite the opposite in fact.

You keep using 'cinematic' like it's a dirty word and is something that has only recently crept up, but it's been around since point-and-click adventure games and 2D platformers. The reason people have such fond memories of the old Resident Evil games is because they were cinematic (another eastern game btw). Half of the emotional impact of games like Ico and Shadow of the Colossus was due to the cinematic narrative.

The great thing about games, and what gives them a leg up on movies as well as books, is that they can be anything.

Can they? I'd say they can be anything in theory, but in reality they can only be what their budget allows, and what return and profit they make. Fun is subjective, of course it is. But it's a universal factor among games. Different types of fun for different people. Different people means variety. Variety means diverse gameplay mechanics. To get diverse gameplay mechanics you need smaller studios being autonomous doing their own thing. Right now, those are found in two prominent places: Japan, and the rising Indie scene. It's there because much of Western AAA is too busy falling all over itself trying to be movies. A good chunk of the western audience is growing tired of this, so their eyes turn east. And when they do, what's the biggest monolith they see? Nintendo.

I'm probably going to say something truly disgraceful here, but the majority of indie titles, while generally fun and unconstrained by big business, are no more than nostalgia fests. I can't think of many indies that aren't 2D platformers that cheekily reference old school games. It's not pushing the industry forward anymore than Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed.

And Japan... The only games studios over there worth a damn now are From Software, Nintendo, and maybe Platinum (though all three of them are more or less just rehashing the same game, too). So much for that solid Japanese game design aesthetic.

 

[Doom972]

ninetendo is a company that exsits to make money
stop fucking defending them

seriously every month there is a new post about people protecting poor little nintendo

Pretty much this. People don't have to like Nintendo, and I refuse to name the reasons for it another single time for another one of these threads. Nintendo is a big boy and it can take care of itself.

 

[Ishal]

Yes, that reason being Nintendo fans constantly using it to prove they're right, when it holds a different meaning to different people. That somehow their fun is more fun than everybody else's.

And they are correct. It is likely more fun than everyone else's, because when questioned about the design of the games they find fun, Nintendo puts fun first and everything else second. Whereas other games are busy trying to "push the industry forward" oh, and also be fun. You may disagree, but if it's about fun, Nintendo seems to care more than others.

What, you mean, like, Final Fantasy, or Metal Gear Solid, or Silent Hill? All eastern story-first games that are generally well praised for everything but their gameplay.

While putting story first, they also managed to have solid mechanics in at least some of their games. Some FF games are praised for their party system by several of the oldest western developers around. I'm sure there are other things in the other series, but I'm no expert on any of them.

This has little to do with cinematic style and more with AAA publishers feeling the need to supply increasingly bigger and bigger experiences in order to remain competitive (same as movies). And the easiest way for them to do this is to push the graphics, which is different from cinematic flair and story. The Walking Dead games are hardly titles where the choice of going for a cinematic story experience has somehow bankrupted Telltale. Quite the opposite in fact.

No, it has everything to do with it. Big budget set piece AAA games meant to be akin to Summer Blockbusters. Not the most refined of films, I grant you. Perhaps I should have specified. But the point remains. The Walking Dead games are not trying to be cinematic. Film is not what they are mimicking. They tell small character centered pieces with low fidelity and graphical quality. Instead focusing more heavily on acting and character writing. This is not film, it's television. Specifically the Netflix and HBO style that has become popular in recent years. It's called episodic gaming, and is sold in "Seasons." This is no coincidence.

You keep using 'cinematic' like it's a dirty word

Yes, it is a dirty word. And not even limited to the context in which I use it. "Cinematic" is what publishers say to excuse their console parity and other reasons their games are locked at 30fps. Films themselves are commonly run at 24-30 fps as the standard. Funny how the excuse they use is one related to film, and how that's somehow supposed to be good. Though I would think clowns like Druckmann would see that as an accolade.

Half of the emotional impact of games like Ico and Shadow of the Colossus was due to the cinematic narrative.

There is nothing cinematic about Shadow of the Colossus. Mere wide encompassing camera angles, epic swelling music, and massive creatures on screen =/= cinematic. The player can at any time change it to make it less so by his actions. The storytelling is in the world, and the world can only tell a story if it's created with a gamer in mind. Someone with agency to move about the world. An aspect that exists in no film whatsoever. The narrative in these games is inferred through the environment. The narrative is geographically inferred. Not created for one single cutscene or on rails section that everyone will witness the exact same way.

I'm probably going to say something truly disgraceful here, but the majority of indie titles, while generally fun and unconstrained by big business, are no more than nostalgia fests. I can't think of many indies that aren't 2D platformers that cheekily reference old school games.

Some other posters might well have jumped down your throat for it, I'm sure. But I won't because there is more than a sliver of truth there. But the degree to which they are considered nostalgia fests is usually quite overblown, especially when applied to the great indie games. Many of the greats, the ones you see on the front page of Steam on sales or just in general are games that can hook with Nostalgia, but offer much more. FTL, Binding of Isaac, Shovel Knight, Nuclear Throne, all these court people in with pixel art and other things laced with Nostalgia, but offer new twists on things, solid gameplay, and sometimes new things altogether. Because of their budgets, they're able to put together really fun and stimulating games. Oh, and come back to make more then they don't go under afterward.

It's not pushing the industry forward anymore than Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed.

This where we differ. The idea and desire isn't to push the industry forward. The idea is to make good, fun games. If they offer more, great.

And Japan... The only games studios over there worth a damn now are From Software, Nintendo, and maybe Platinum (though all three of them are more or less just rehashing the same game, too). So much for that solid Japanese game design aesthetic.

Atlus, Vanillaware, Bandai, Comcept, and other smaller indie studios creating indie titles. Not to mention several others.

 

[Lightspeaker]

I really don't see why people keep feeling the need to defend Nintendo honestly. Last year Nintendo took (by my calculations from the Yen values on wikipedia anyway) over three billion pounds in revenue and has assets worth nearly seven billion with an overall equity of nearly six billion. They absolutely are not a poor little company who needs defending by anyone.

They make decent games which have their own strengths and weaknesses and people have varying opinions on, which pretty much everyone has accepted the arguments about as "just your opinion, man" for years now. What is harder to argue against is that they have terrible business practices, are poor at marketing (especially outside of Japan), are godawful at the supply part of supply and demand and are incredibly bad at adapting to the market (their online components has lagged behind other offerings for years, for example). Which doesn't matter much because they have legions of fans worldwide who will literally accept anything that Nintendo does.

They're not some sinner or saint. They're a company. And a company run by big boys and big girls who I'm pretty sure can all tie their own shoelaces even if they can't quite manage to get their heads around stuff like "lets play" videos being a good thing for them. They can cope with a little criticism.

 

[Casual Shinji]

There is nothing cinematic about Shadow of the Colossus. Mere wide encompassing camera angles, epic swelling music, and massive creatures on screen =/= cinematic. The player can at any time change it to make it less so by his actions. The storytelling is in the world, and the world can only tell a story if it's created with a gamer in mind. Someone with agency to move about the world. An aspect that exists in no film whatsoever. The narrative in these games is inferred through the environment. The narrative is geographically inferred. Not created for one single cutscene or on rails section that everyone will witness the exact same way.

There is literally a cinematic button in the game. The one you hold down to focus on the enemy and create a powerful view of him towering over you. As you ride on Agro you get pushed to the side of the screen so it grants you a more interesting lay of the land. A cutscene of your defeated foe crumbling to the ground accompanied by emotional music... That's cinematic.

Yes, it is a dirty word. And not even limited to the context in which I use it. "Cinematic" is what publishers say to excuse their console parity and other reasons their games are locked at 30fps. Films themselves are commonly run at 24-30 fps as the standard. Funny how the excuse they use is one related to film, and how that's somehow supposed to be good. Though I would think clowns like Druckmann would see that as an accolade.

Wait, who besides Ready at Dawn and Ubisoft have ever used the '30fps is more cinematic' excuse? And it is funny you should mention Druckmann, since he's one of the few who simply confessed to Uncharted 4 likely not being 60fps, because "it's really fucking hard".

Yes, that reason being Nintendo fans constantly using it to prove they're right, when it holds a different meaning to different people. That somehow their fun is more fun than everybody else's.

And they are correct. It is likely more fun than everyone else's, because when questioned about the design of the games they find fun, Nintendo puts fun first and everything else second. Whereas other games are busy trying to "push the industry forward" oh, and also be fun. You may disagree, but if it's about fun, Nintendo seems to care more than others.

...

No, they aren't.

Some people find board games fun, or playing ping pong. Both of which are designed to be "fun". That doesn't mean everyone will find it fun. All games are designed to engage the player and grab their attention, and no one can claim their choice of games is somehow more engaging than anyone else's, since it's entirely subjective.

 

[CaitSeith]

I hear ya man -- if it wasn't for Bloodborne and The Witcher 3, and the dozens of titles I feel like replaying on my PS3 and 360, I'd most definately be playing my Wii-U as well. Afterall, it has so many great games, that's why I'm currently not playing it.

Isn't that contradictory? It has many great games, but you're busy with other games you feel like playing and replaying? Don't get me wrong. I'm in the same situation. Because I've been replaying the Mass Effect trilogy (playing as a Vangard in ME3 hardcore is really fun) and trying to finally finish Dark Souls, I had no time to play Bayonetta 2, Hyrule Warriors and several other titles that are waiting me in the Wii U.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I hear ya man -- if it wasn't for Bloodborne and The Witcher 3, and the dozens of titles I feel like replaying on my PS3 and 360, I'd most definately be playing my Wii-U as well. Afterall, it has so many great games, that's why I'm currently not playing it.

Isn't that contradictory? It has many great games, but you're busy with other games you feel like playing and replaying? Don't get me wrong. I'm in the same situation. Because I've been replaying the Mass Effect trilogy (playing as a Vangard in ME3 hardcore is really fun) and trying to finally finish Dark Souls, I had no time to play Bayonetta 2, Hyrule Warriors and several other titles that are waiting me in the Wii U.

Spoiler

It has many games (now), unfortunately a dreadful few are to my liking. I don't care about fighting games, racing games or Platinum games, which leaves Mario and Zelda. And while Wind Waker HD and Mario 3D World are great, it's unfortunate that those are the only games I'll be probably be playing on it till the new Zelda comes around.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

Trying to defend Nintendo is like people defending Apple. There is no point, this is a giant hive-minded company that does some shady shit along with making products you like. Don't really think there's a Nintendo/Apple branded internet filter that picks up every mention and gives you discounts for jerking them off.

People like different things and their product of choice fits the bill of what they want, the sooner you stop giving a shit about what some nothing on the internet says the sooner you'll be happy. Ignorance is bliss.