Whats so great about Nintendo games?

[Bob_McMillan]

The only Nintendo franchise that I bought a game from is Pokemon. I was given a Mario game for the Wii twice (I have two copies), and I think I also had Mario Kart. Do Wii Sports and Wii Fit count as Nintendo games? Beyond that, I have no experience with Nintendo games. I got into gaming relatively late, so when people were running around with the N64 and the original GameBoys, I was reading books and playing football. Anyway, recently Nintendo has been seen as the "winner" of this console generation with the WiiU, and I have no idea why. I've seen some gameplay, and I can't understand whats so interesting or amazing about them. They look almost exactly the same as the old games I've seen. I don't even find Smash, which apparently makes all gamers collectively orgasm in a moment of intense ecstasy, appealing. Is it just nostalgia, or are these games really just that good?

EDIT: When I say "winning", it's in terms of better games and stuff. You know, when the obvious trolls leave comments on YouTube like "#PCandNintendoMasterrace" shit? That's almost all you see on videos relating to consoles.

 

[Lufia Erim]

Well there is your problem. Back when people were getting picked on for playing nintendo games, you were in the coolkids club with the footballers and the cheerleaders. [small] just kidding[/small].

One Part colorful games, one part polish, mostly nostalgia. But the good kind of nostalgia, like watching your child grow up and reminicing of the past.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Pretty much every Nintendo game has a level of charm that I'm sure sucks all of their fans (including myself) in. Mario offers fun challenges in a colorful, imaginative world with still some of the best platforming mechanics around. Zelda always manages to make Hyrule feel like an expansive world we should spend time having an adventure in. Smash Bros. offers a type of chaotic fun not seen in other fighting games. Pokemon offers a child-like joy in collecting stuff. Kirby is...well, Kirby, and if that isn't enough, you don't have a soul.

I could go on and on. The bottom line is, Nintendo clearly puts a lot of care into their games, and it helps each one recapture what everyone loved about the older ones, even as things remain mostly the same. Yeah, nostalgia probably plays some role, but I wouldn't say it is everything. It's more that Nintendo appears to design their games for themselves first and figure that others will enjoy them as well. In fact, I believe Miyamoto at least as said this is the way he approaches game design.

It also helps that their games are full of content, are unbelievably polished, and always manage to feel good to play.

 

[Ratty]

It depends on what you're looking for. Generally Nintendo games are bright, colorful and family friendly. So if you got into gaming primarily with grimdark brown shooters or GTA they might well not be your thing. I'm not a huge Nintendo fan but I do enjoy Zelda and recognize that most 1st party Nintendo titles are very high quality.

 

[Chester Rabbit]

Fun, solid gameplay, always a great art style instead of drab photo realistic visuals. And overall they just all seem to have a tone of heart.

 

[Here Comes Tomorrow]

I have no idea what the attraction to Ninentdo games are.
They peaked for me at Yoshi's Island and A Link To The Past.

In the last 10 years or so they keep rehashing the same properties and games and people still love them and then complaining about CoD being a rehash in the same breath.

I had a PS1 over and N64 (but a SNES before that) so maybe I don't have the nostalgia goggles others have for Metroid or Animal Crossing. Fuck Animal Crossing with a rake btw, that "game" is fucking terrible and I have no idea why people love it so much.

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

They do care about the games they make. There are very few hiccups and shady game sales/DLC practices with Nintendo compared to the average ideology of the industry. Zelda Wii U was just delayed. Even Nintendo's current system could allow them to release the game at the originally planned date and just patch in the cut content or sell it as DLC later. They chose to hold it back so their customers do get their $60 (or [insert your regional price here]) worth. Their games generally also are have the least bugs of any major publisher. Except for their lack of awareness in handling Youtube content and the foolishly small storage options for their systems, Nintendo is seen by many as one of the most customer friendly companies in the industry.

Another thing is, behind the shameless promotion of Mario and Pokemon, the company does have other franchises to their name. Fire Emblem, Star Fox, F-Zero, Paper Mario, Metroid and Pikmin, to name a few. They have plenty of variety to their franchises. Those I named are a tactical RPG, a flight sim/rail shooter, a futuristic racing game, an RPG, a nonlinear sidescroller for 2D/nonlinear first person game for 3D, and an RTS, respectively. Compare that to publisher like Square Enix, who made mostly RPGs until they took over Eidos, or Microsoft, whose only big hitters for their consoles were shooters. Even though Zelda, Mario and Pokemon get the limelight all the time, those other franchises have their own large fanbass. Most of Nintendo's games are quite unique as well.

They also don't punch out sequels like mad. Even the Zelda series (contrary to the belief of some) don't have often releases. Even counting the remakes, original handheld titles, and even the dreaded CD-i games, there has been on average less than one game released a year since the first one hit the NES in 1986. Call of Duty is sitting at around 1.4 a year, since 2003.

They are a nostalgia bait company, though. That can be off putting. I am getting tired of Mario games that draw from the NES/SNES era. (I had a Sega Genesis as a kid, though. I didn't get into Zelda or Metroid until the Gamecube came out and never liked the plumber.)

I don't see where the "Wii U is winning this generation" comes from, though. That's either someone talking about their opinion on the selection of games for each system, or obvious fanboys speaking highly of their console of choice. Sony is winning in the sales department, but all three have cost their respective companies. And we probably won't ever know how much those costs are.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

you were in the coolkids club with the footballers and the cheerleaders. .

Pssshh, I meant the real football, not handegg. also kidding

I have no idea what the attraction to Ninentdo games are.
They peaked for me at Yoshi's Island and A Link To The Past.

In the last 10 years or so they keep rehashing the same properties and games and people still love them and then complaining about CoD being a rehash in the same breath.

I had a PS1 over and N64 (but a SNES before that) so maybe I don't have the nostalgia goggles others have for Metroid or Animal Crossing. Fuck Animal Crossing with a rake btw, that "game" is fucking terrible and I have no idea why people love it so much.

Did you restart your account or something? There's no way a Escapist vet from 2009 only has 244 posts. Also, what the hell is Animal Crossing?

 

[Casual Shinji]

I don't know, what's so great about any game?

Nintendo has a record for making brick-solid games that control really well, and just have a very fun loving atmosphere to them. Though you could argue that the reason they're so good at making the games they do is because they've been remaking them for decades.

 

[McMarbles]

Well, for one, they tend to not have huge gamebreaking bugs that you have to wait to get patched.

It's also kinda nice to have an oasis of color in the vast AAA desert of grimdark.

 

[DrOswald]

Nintendo serves a market that is largely under served by modern gaming. They provide highly colorful games where fun and design over all else is the focus. Nintendo is not for everyone, but the overall quality of their games is high.

They also do not do their franchises to death, even at peak Nintendo saturation. Most Nintendo franchises get 1 game per console, 2 on the outside. Take Mario Kart. 8 games over 22 years (and we just got one, so we get one about every 3 years), half of those games on home consoles half on hand helds. Compare this to call of duty (modern warfare forward), with 10 games over 7 years. I personally think releasing new entries in what is supposed to be a deep series more often than once a year is excessive.

For people who really like these sorts of games this is a perfect rate of release. It might be a little much for people who just occasionally want to play a Mario, but for people like me it is perfect. Often enough that we get new content , but not so often that the releases feel rushed or like we are being exploited.

It also helps that Nintendo tries to find a way to keep the old formula fresh. For example, each mario game is typically it's own thing. They all are within the space of the mario style, but mario 64 is very different from galaxy which is very different from 3d world which is very different from sunshine. This would be like golden eye, halo and modern warfare all being part of the same franchise. Each of those games are very different while sharing the same overarching themes.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Also, what the hell is Animal Crossing?

I haven't played it a lot, but it is sort of a "simple-life sandbox" with animal friends. The main focus tends to be on a relaxing experience based on, basically, just living a rather ideal life as you try to get the best house imaginable and pay off the mortgage (which is more fun than it sounds in a game context). Well, that's the in-a-one-sentence version. Someone with more experience could probably play it better.

The reason I don't play much, though, is because it keeps track of data even when the game is turned off, and frankly I just don't have the time to come back every day to make sure things keep running in order. I'd rather play a game like Rune Factory, which has some similar concepts but let's you go at your own pace.

In the last 10 years or so they keep rehashing the same properties and games and people still love them and then complaining about CoD being a rehash in the same breath.

For starters, the people complaining about CoD may not be the same ones praising Nintendo.

Now, for those who are, there are a few things to consider:
-Frequency:

CoD releases a new game every year.

On the other hand, it's been nearly four years since the last main 3D Zelda game. There was a three year break between Kirby Return to Dreamland and Triple Deluxe. There was a four year break between Donkey Kong: Country Returns and Tropical Freeze. There was a six year break between Smash Bros. Brawl and 3DS/WiiU. The last Metroid game was released five years ago and we still have no word on the next one. The last original Star Fox game was released almost ten years ago, and we still don't have a definitive release date on the next one (though it may come this year)!

Simply put, Nintendo doesn't put out the same franchises anywhere near as often as Activision does with CoD. Some of their franchises don't even get more than one game per console, provided they even make it to the console. The only franchise that comes close is Mario, but that's because there are so many different Mario games (between 2D and 3D platformers, various racing and sports spin-offs, and the Mario Party series), that it sort of happens even if there's a few year break between games from each series. It's not because they release a new 2D platformer every year. Well, they did one year (2012), but you know what? People complained, and I believe even Nintendo admitted that they shouldn't have done that.

-Console Releases:

Chances are, each new CoD game will release for the exact same consoles the last one did. It won't take advantage of anything new. Furthermore, you'll have multiple iterations of CoD on the same console.

Nintendo, as mentioned above, tends to limit the number of games from a franchise for each console. Very few games ever receive more than two games on the same console. Furthermore, each new game attempts to take advantage, to some extent, of the unique features of the console (though, admittedly, this is less pronounced now that the Wii U basically handles like the 3DS).

-Quality:

The quality of CoD games, though still better than any competition that tries to keep up with their release schedule, has been rather unstable lately. Most of their games release with a ton of technical problems and balancing issues that may or may not get fixed prior to the release of the first DLC.

Nintendo, on the other hand, basically is its own seal of quality assurance. That's not to say that there won't be problems, but you can be relatively sure that the game will be in a stable condition on release and that you won't have to wait around for Patch #373 while they are busy working on Overpriced Map Pack #3.

So yeah, basically, not only is it completely wrong to say that Nintendo follows the new-game-every-year model that CoD does, there are reasons why Nintendo tends to receive praise where CoD doesn't: They actually care about giving us a good game, not just one that needs to fit a rigid money-making schedule.

 

[Pseudonym]

Almost all of their games very visibly have thought and some kind of artistic vision behind them. Ussually, all the mechanics that are there make the game better at what its doing. Apart from some control problems from the time they were switching to 3d. Besides that they have a fairly broad array of games. I also don't entirely agree that their games are all bright and colorful happy places as some people seem to think. Zelda: majorra's mask, which I'm currently playing on 3ds or most of the metroid games for example have some nasty things in them. They have a diverse lineup of games which do different things and are good for different reasons.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

Pure, high-level craftsmanship with zero ego or pretenses. They know EXACTLY what they are and aren't ashamed to show it. To say Nintendo's games are exactly the same is like saying every James Bond film is the same. It is completely disingenuous.

 

[Evonisia]

They are guaranteed to be solid games mechanically, polished by an earnest feeling and some creativity in world building ideas (especially so in The Legend of Zelda's spawn). The story is nearly always light so Nintendo games can never suffer from BioShock Infinite syndrome where the story is so bloated and is thus subject to many cheers and many boos. Nor is it like your typical AAA game affair in which a story is attempted but it's just not worth it.

That's it, really. Though I dare say Nintendo needs to move away from the fucking Pixar plastic aesthetic for the Mario games. I don't care if it's easier on the character design staff. Sonic Lost World uses a similar aesthetic but it has enough tweaks to look fucking gorgeous. Rayman Origins and Legends feature a comparatively unique aesthetic. Little Big Planet did Kirby's Epic Yarn before Kirby's Epic Yarn. Their other, non-platformer series like TLoZ and Metroid have faired much better.

 

[Sentay]

So here's the thing Nintendo kinda made video games as a whole what they are back in the 90's. There's a reason people still say Ocarina of Time, Mario 64, Super Metroid, and Mario World are some of the best games of all time, basically as time has progressed they've taken to making their games more approachable and less... distinct I'd say. Basically I'd recommend looking into the older games that people won't stop talking about and see what caused so much of the industry in the first place.

 

[Casual Shinji]

That's it, really. Though I dare say Nintendo needs to move away from the fucking Pixar plastic aesthetic for the Mario games. I don't care if it's easier on the character design staff. Sonic Lost World uses a similar aesthetic but it has enough tweaks to look fucking gorgeous. Rayman Origins and Legends feature a comparatively unique aesthetic. Little Big Planet did Kirby's Epic Yarn before Kirby's Epic Yarn.

Agreed.

Nintendo used to do different art styles, like going from the first Super Mario Bros., to Mario 3, and from that to Mario World. And ofcourse there's Zelda. And I would assume that's because the advancement of technology (and them following it) allowed them to craft different art styles to express themselves with. Now that they've decided to not pursue any of the current high tech their visual have become rather homogenized. At least, that's the only practical excuse I can think of for why their games have all had this plastic toy aesthetic ever since the Wii. Unless their franchises have become too iconic for their own good, and Nintendo is too fearful to change them even in the slightest.

The new Zelda is looking a bit more refreshing though.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Well I got to askedm which games or franchise do you look up to or which characters you liked the most? Whatever answers you typed is the same when we look up to a Nintendo game or character (yes it also apply to others).

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I think Nintendo peaked around the SNES era, motion control gimmickry notwithstanding. And they succeeded by doing the same thing any gaming company will succeed: by appealing to the widest common denominator and making games that, while easy to learn and easy to master, you can also make as challenging as you want them to be. Accesible to anyone and fun to everyone.

The whole "they make games from the heart" thing is bullshit though. Any fan can say that about the company they like.

They also do not do their franchises to death, even at peak Nintendo saturation.

I'd say that's all they do. There're hundreds of Mario games, let's not pretend like every time they shake up the formula by a modicum of creativity (2D/3D/karting/partying/etc) they're launching a new IP. How different is New Super Mario Bros. Wii from New Super Mario Bros. U, Super Mario 3D World from Super Mario 3D Land, New Super Mario Bros. from New Super Mario Bros. 2 (and so on)?