What Has Nintendo Done Right Lately?
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The problem is that you're defining things by what they aren't, which is pretty much the least useful way to do it. Consider for instance, a rock. My rock required no patches and has no game breaking bugs. By the logic you have presented in this thread, my rock is a quality game.the hidden eagle said:
We could go further, you could say that a quality game must fit the typical definition of game, having rules and win/lose conditions. Which would mean that my rock is not a quality game, but "ET: the Extra-Terrestrial" a game released for the Atari 2600 and "Annoying Stick" released for the PS1, largely considered two of the worst games ever made, still meet your requirements for a quality game.
NSMBU and Pikmin 3 also have DLC and Nintendo is making two Free-To-Play games at the moment.Dead Century said:
As for tacked on multiplayer... Maybe the multiplayer modes in Galaxy 1 and 2? I didn't feel they were necesarry at all, which is the main complaint people have when they call multiplayer modes "tacked-on", so I guess it qualifies. Thet's pretty much all I can think of, all their other multiplayer games (that I've played) have had quality multiplayer.
Nintendo has sold 40 Million+ 3DS's, which is fucking amazing when you consider many were calling it dead in the water after its release. A Link Between Worlds sold almost 2 Million units and a majority of reviewers have given it positive feedback.
Honestly, if Nintendo drops out of consoles, it wouldn't be to go third party; it would be to focus on its handheld. That is a much more feasible business strategy.
Honestly, if Nintendo drops out of consoles, it wouldn't be to go third party; it would be to focus on its handheld. That is a much more feasible business strategy.
If you're going to judge publishers based on their past offenses, you might as well add Nintendo's to the mix as well, in which case you lose the argument because they did a lot of nasty stuff back in their NES days (and there was that controversy. Give me something recent (let's say, anything that happened shortly before, during or after 2012, and like I said in my previous post, by someone other than EA and mobile/browser devs).KazeAizen said:
King's copyright antics, yes, that was completely awful, and the other three you mentioned have hade their fair share of evil business practices, but even so, they're far from being "everyone else".
Honestly, if they'd just allow the controller to connect via wifi from anywhere (which it has no reason not to be able to imo), I'd probably buy it at the first opportunity. I think Vita has that option now with the PS4 and is one of the reasons I might get it. I think WiiU controller screen is better though, but not sure.Spandexpanda said:
Arbitrage is a consumer right, so yes, it's anti-consumer.Atmos Duality said:
It's also anti-consumer to lock people out when they don't localize titles.
Also, the latest Pokemon shipped with a save corrupting bug that was extremely easy to hit. (It has been patched, but "Nintendo doesn't ship with bugs" has long been untrue)Riverwolf said:
Ive had Sony and MS consoles but never Nintendos, the games and consoles have never appealed to me. So guess they are doing something wrong because none of their games appeal to me.
I know you aren't responding to me, but you are responding to points that I would make, so I'll provide counter arguments anyways.
The necessity of Rupees in Wind Waker was literally the most shoehorned-in idea that it had, substituting for dungeons that they couldn't finish on time. While rupees matter, they matter solely for the sake of purchasing progression tokens at the end of the game. No one complained when they removed 5/8ths of the total fee from the original game in the HD rerelease. In ALBW, however, rupees purchase equipment with actual function beyond plot progression. In fact, I'd go as far to say that ALBW is the only Zelda game to do Rupees right. In general, there's always something to do with them in buying equipment so you can upgrade it. In contrast, in just about every other Zelda game the player has more rupees than the game knows what to do with after a certain point.
Also, this may be a technicality, but there certainly were other things to collect besides rupees. The Maiamais, for example.
However, I suspect that you are referring to mini-dungeon rewards, and in that regard you're absolutely correct beyond the occasional heart piece. In addition, the Maiamai equivalent in TWW, Treasure Charts, are usually hidden at the end of a puzzle on one of the game's many islands which was a big part of what made the game tick as a sandbox.
However, while the minidungeon design in TWW is better, TWW suffers in its actual dungeon design. Many dungeons had fairly linear paths to dungeon items; For example, Earth Temple, beyond one optional room in the left half is fairly linear in progression up to the dungeon item. It never really feels entirely like you discover treasure when you find a dungeon item, because it's mandatory for progression. Puzzles can only have so much difficulty because the items are mandatory as well. While the items are still rewarding to use for being really well designed and fun, it's not because you solved something difficult to get them. In contrast, the optional dungeon items in ALBW always feel rewarding when you get them. For example, in ALBW Dark Palace, the Master Ore inside is really well hidden, requiring careful observation to catch. When I figured it out, it felt really good, but it would not have been acceptable design had it been for an actual dungeon item.
As an example demonstrating that there is a difficulty limit, consider Paper Mario: Sticker Star. The puzzles in that game were really hard, but it never felt very good to solve because completing the puzzles was mandatory for progression. While I'd feel good that I payed close attention and got the three treasures well hidden in earlier levels to find an alternate route in the desert level, it gave me serious discomfort when the only reward was further progression of the game, no collectible, no anything acknowledging how hard the puzzle was to solve. With optional collectibles, however, hard puzzles work because you know you can quit. You try to solve the puzzle because you want to, not because you have to.
Granted, much of these rewards are present in ALttP, with two optional dungeon items in the red tunic and the blue tunic among other optional items in minidungeons. However, there haven't been many optional unique dungeon items since then. OoT, Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, Skyward Sword, both of the DS games, Minish Cap, all have few optional items with major effect on gameplay to work with. While many of those games have Treasure Charts or Heart Pieces or some equivalent it's really not the same feeling as a new shield, a sword upgrade, or a damage reduction, all of which provide visible changes beyond rupee count or heart gauge.
Zelda as a series before this game seemed to forget that it doesn't need dungeon items to be the sole focus of each dungeon, and this game allows it to remember.
Additionally, for all the open world in TWW, the actual dungeon path is ridiculously linear. If you get stuck at ANY dungeon at any point in time, you cannot progress the game narrative further, period, despite the many wonderful distractions you have at your disposal. This makes speedrunning the game kind of annoying; There's very little interesting routing going on relative to, say, OoT all dungeons, with getting a single item early being the highlight of the route.
(To be fair, this is a little misrepresentative, as Lynels only appear in select sections of the game that are far off the beaten path. If that sort of difficulty lasted throughout the game, it would be a different story; had this had been a few more inches closer to Dark Souls in difficulty, it could have been great instead of merely good. There should have been a normal mode between hero and the current, and the modes really should have been available from the start, but I wouldn't suggest that they shouldn't have tried.)
I struggled with the game, personally, but I can't really comment on the difficulty for anyone else. My B button barely works on my 3DS, which made some things an inexorable challenge, making using the sword properly on certain bosses, say the second Yuga fight, very difficult. As a result, I stopped renting weapons after Lorule popped up, instead restricting myself to only purchasing them out or renting out one or two of a desire to avoid losing too many rupees. I did try save scumming at first but that really ruins the game, making it way too frustrating.
When the game is played that way, it's actually really well-balanced and fun. You can't just go anywhere you'd like, but you collect 2 or 3 items and roll with them and see where you you can go with them, see what treasure you can get with them so you collect more treasure until you have enough to get the weapon that you need for a specific dungeon that you know the location of. In addition, it feels like you're preparing for the dungeons instead of just wandering in, which personally made me feel good about myself even it even if it is quite obvious what you need.
As a fan of TWW, so much so that I even speedrun it, I'm not going to deny the charms of it, but...Grenge Di Origin said:
The necessity of Rupees in Wind Waker was literally the most shoehorned-in idea that it had, substituting for dungeons that they couldn't finish on time. While rupees matter, they matter solely for the sake of purchasing progression tokens at the end of the game. No one complained when they removed 5/8ths of the total fee from the original game in the HD rerelease. In ALBW, however, rupees purchase equipment with actual function beyond plot progression. In fact, I'd go as far to say that ALBW is the only Zelda game to do Rupees right. In general, there's always something to do with them in buying equipment so you can upgrade it. In contrast, in just about every other Zelda game the player has more rupees than the game knows what to do with after a certain point.
Also, this may be a technicality, but there certainly were other things to collect besides rupees. The Maiamais, for example.
However, I suspect that you are referring to mini-dungeon rewards, and in that regard you're absolutely correct beyond the occasional heart piece. In addition, the Maiamai equivalent in TWW, Treasure Charts, are usually hidden at the end of a puzzle on one of the game's many islands which was a big part of what made the game tick as a sandbox.
However, while the minidungeon design in TWW is better, TWW suffers in its actual dungeon design. Many dungeons had fairly linear paths to dungeon items; For example, Earth Temple, beyond one optional room in the left half is fairly linear in progression up to the dungeon item. It never really feels entirely like you discover treasure when you find a dungeon item, because it's mandatory for progression. Puzzles can only have so much difficulty because the items are mandatory as well. While the items are still rewarding to use for being really well designed and fun, it's not because you solved something difficult to get them. In contrast, the optional dungeon items in ALBW always feel rewarding when you get them. For example, in ALBW Dark Palace, the Master Ore inside is really well hidden, requiring careful observation to catch. When I figured it out, it felt really good, but it would not have been acceptable design had it been for an actual dungeon item.
As an example demonstrating that there is a difficulty limit, consider Paper Mario: Sticker Star. The puzzles in that game were really hard, but it never felt very good to solve because completing the puzzles was mandatory for progression. While I'd feel good that I payed close attention and got the three treasures well hidden in earlier levels to find an alternate route in the desert level, it gave me serious discomfort when the only reward was further progression of the game, no collectible, no anything acknowledging how hard the puzzle was to solve. With optional collectibles, however, hard puzzles work because you know you can quit. You try to solve the puzzle because you want to, not because you have to.
Granted, much of these rewards are present in ALttP, with two optional dungeon items in the red tunic and the blue tunic among other optional items in minidungeons. However, there haven't been many optional unique dungeon items since then. OoT, Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, Skyward Sword, both of the DS games, Minish Cap, all have few optional items with major effect on gameplay to work with. While many of those games have Treasure Charts or Heart Pieces or some equivalent it's really not the same feeling as a new shield, a sword upgrade, or a damage reduction, all of which provide visible changes beyond rupee count or heart gauge.
Zelda as a series before this game seemed to forget that it doesn't need dungeon items to be the sole focus of each dungeon, and this game allows it to remember.
Additionally, for all the open world in TWW, the actual dungeon path is ridiculously linear. If you get stuck at ANY dungeon at any point in time, you cannot progress the game narrative further, period, despite the many wonderful distractions you have at your disposal. This makes speedrunning the game kind of annoying; There's very little interesting routing going on relative to, say, OoT all dungeons, with getting a single item early being the highlight of the route.
This game is more a return to form of sorts. It focuses on mechanics over story, and seems to be a study in how to move forward with the series. While I certainly desire that level of charm and personality in later games, I don't mind that they put it aside here becuase it should be OK to focus on mechanics to refine the series, even if they've been on shaky ground in the past.
So the argument is that the people who are having fun and enjoyed the game just suck at it, while people who are great at the game hate it? Bizarre.
(To be fair, this is a little misrepresentative, as Lynels only appear in select sections of the game that are far off the beaten path. If that sort of difficulty lasted throughout the game, it would be a different story; had this had been a few more inches closer to Dark Souls in difficulty, it could have been great instead of merely good. There should have been a normal mode between hero and the current, and the modes really should have been available from the start, but I wouldn't suggest that they shouldn't have tried.)
I struggled with the game, personally, but I can't really comment on the difficulty for anyone else. My B button barely works on my 3DS, which made some things an inexorable challenge, making using the sword properly on certain bosses, say the second Yuga fight, very difficult. As a result, I stopped renting weapons after Lorule popped up, instead restricting myself to only purchasing them out or renting out one or two of a desire to avoid losing too many rupees. I did try save scumming at first but that really ruins the game, making it way too frustrating.
When the game is played that way, it's actually really well-balanced and fun. You can't just go anywhere you'd like, but you collect 2 or 3 items and roll with them and see where you you can go with them, see what treasure you can get with them so you collect more treasure until you have enough to get the weapon that you need for a specific dungeon that you know the location of. In addition, it feels like you're preparing for the dungeons instead of just wandering in, which personally made me feel good about myself even it even if it is quite obvious what you need.
Yes the WiiU beat two ageing consoles at the end of their production run who had their successors waiting in the wings, well done Nintendo. slow clap That's like beating two geriatrics in a 100m sprint in which you proceed to faceplant every ten metres or so.Stealth said:
And then the PS4 dropped in and bettered the WiiU numbers in less than four months. And that's with the PS4 yet to release in Japan, a major Sony stronghold.
If you meant handhelds only then yes Nintendo moved the most stock.
As for 'highest reviewed' that don't mean diddly, sales is what keeps a corporation afloat.
Yo, Ben, you've done well in criticizing the oppressive nature of peoples' childhood memories, but I think you went a little too far here in one paragraph, where you make the flat statement that top-down adventuring and grid-based movement are inherently inferior to their full-3d and free-roaming counterparts. That's silly to say, even though it may be the case in the two games you mentioned.
Going third party also didn't work for Atari or SNK. I think it's fair to say it wouldn't work for Nintendo.Mcoffey said:
Why do people want Nintendo to go third party after ONE failed console? It took Sega and Atari several consecutive failures to drop out of hardware.
A game simply not having bugs being "high quality" is definitely a low standard.the hidden eagle said:
Riverwolf said:
But again, that's so broad as to be meaningless. Most major games are released without game-breaking bugs. If you are to offer examples like SimCity and Battlefield, those are the minority and should not be portrayed as the norm.
So if that's the mark of quality., it brings me back to the question I've been beating around: so what? If it's something so easily achieved, it no longer has any beneficial meaning. So while I'll concede I can't name a Nintendo-published title in the last decade or so that's as broken as SimCity was, I have to ask, so what? Aside from Steam's marketplace, I'm hard pressed to name five games like that, period.
Arbitrage is a behavior of Supply, not Demand. So no, it isn't.Thanatos2k said:
Only if you assume Free Market rules, which don't apply when you have disparity between markets.
EDIT: Only because I don't want to bump this again...
*sigh*
Arbitrage is where a "middle man" buys out a weaker, cheap market en masse, and resells it in a stronger, more expensive market. It has nothing to do with consumers' rights; it's just a behavior that exploits disparity between markets and it's performed, overwhelmingly, by suppliers.Thanatos2k said:
(individual consumers rarely carry the clout to perform arbitrage at a larger economic scale. In practice, in a multiple-market scenario, consumers are only concerned with their own market; it's almost always a firm or other supplier that performs arbitrage at that scale where possible; usually a competitor)
Region locking is not designed just as a restriction for consumers; it's a restriction for other suppliers.
With multiple markets, "Optimal" is different for the consumers in each market. You can't treat a multi-market scenario as being "one consumer population" because there isn't just one.
Eventually, due to unchecked arbitrage, the consumers in the weaker economy have no "consumer's rights" to speak of because their market effectively won't exist. Because some middle man will have bought it out and resold it elsewhere.
Which is why a moral argument citing arbitrage as some sort of consumer's right is not only completely ignorant of the concept, but condemnation for its prevention is downright foolish.
If a supplier knows they can make a profit (however small) in a given market as long as arbitrage doesn't take it away, that's an overall benefit for the market as a whole.
Bottom line: Arbitrage is BAD for the market as a whole, because it fucks with both Supply and Demand.