Whats so great about Nintendo games?

[StreamerDarkly]

There is an interesting phenomenon I've noticed with regards to how Nintendo games are rated by critics and players.

To put it simply, not only are Wii and WiiU games generally rated higher than Xbox, PlayStation or PC games, but there is less of a gap between the critic and user scores. Normally, user ratings are considerably lower than critic ratings. Not so with Nintendo games.

One possible explanation for this is that Nintendo has a higher concentration of casual gamers who are easily impressed.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

Extremely tight controls, good quality control (very few bugs unlike most games released nowadays), actually colorful in this current ugly industry, charming gameplay, character, art style. Really good level design, good music, similar games with always different core mechanics. They tell the little story through the gameplay rather than forcing it through a million shitty cut scenes.

Pretty much the only platforming game is Mario, only worthwhile party games are Nintendo games, only kart racer is Mario Kart, one of the few action adventure games is Zelda, pretty sure that the only metroidvania game that doesn't suck nowadays is Metroid (well, other M and shit, but... hopefully it's over with that?). Soon we will be getting Splatoon which seems to be a charming third person shooter that isn't cover based but actually has some strategy, color and isn't rated M for "hardcore" gamer.

So, what's there not to like about Nintendo games when you like the genre they cover? Solid games with solid support in genre that are almost dead without them. That and the fact that they do DLC right 9 out of 10 times.

One possible explanation for this is that Nintendo has a higher concentration of casual gamers who are easily impressed.

Or... and I know this will sound unbelievable but stay with me... they make good games. Nah, everyone else is at fault.

 

[StreamerDarkly]

Or... and I know this will sound unbelievable but stay with me... they make good games. Nah, everyone else is at fault.

So game critics are unreasonably harsh on Nintendo games relative to games on other platforms? In my personal opinion, no they are not.

 

[Ieyke]

There is an interesting phenomenon I've noticed with regards to how Nintendo games are rated by critics and players.

To put it simply, not only are Wii and WiiU games generally rated higher than Xbox, PlayStation or PC games, but there is less of a gap between the critic and user scores. Normally, user ratings are considerably lower than critic ratings. Not so with Nintendo games.

One possible explanation for this is that Nintendo has a higher concentration of casual gamers who are easily impressed.

You seem to be listening to the wrong critics.
In my experience, people don't know their shit and will praise all sorts of stupid crap, while the good critics are much more harsh and give lower scores.
And the BEST critics refuse to use scores at all, since numerical scores are actually ineffective nonsense.

 

[Dragonbums]

Or... and I know this will sound unbelievable but stay with me... they make good games. Nah, everyone else is at fault.

So game critics are unreasonably harsh on Nintendo games relative to games on other platforms? In my personal opinion, no they are not.

I mean, what exactly are you getting at here? If critics and fans alike were artificially inflating the review scores of Nintendo games because they are "easily impressed" then they would of been caught in this game quite a long time ago by people who are "disillusioned" by Nintendo. Nintendo has had a few stinkers in their history and reviews reflect that. Hardly any critic is praising Other M, or Starfox Adventures, Yoshi's Island 3DS, or Sticker Star- which are their more recent 'not so hot' games I can think of off the top of my head.

But for the most part the only critics of Nintendo either tend to be not all that interested in their flagship IP's anymore, or it just isn't their thing. Aside from maybe complaining about motion controls, rarely are you going to hear people say a fundamental Nintendo game is inherently a load of shit. Unless of course you REALLY don't like the kind of stuff Nintendo does by default.

 

[Sleepy Sol]

They give me warm fuzzy feelings inside that many other games can no longer give.

I have to admit that a part of my love for Nintendo comes from nostalgia, but they still make plenty of goddamn excellent games. And I'd much rather support the direction they're going in than the ones Sony or Microsoft are going most of the time, if not all of the time.

Nothing else in gaming quite like playing Super Mario 3D World with your best friend, trust me. Enjoyable and hilarious trying to screw each other over, and the game is excellently crafted.

 

[StreamerDarkly]

I mean, what exactly are you getting at here? If critics and fans alike were artificially inflating the review scores of Nintendo games because they are "easily impressed" then they would of been caught in this game quite a long time ago by people who are "disillusioned" by Nintendo. Nintendo has had a few stinkers in their history and reviews reflect that. Hardly any critic is praising Other M, or Starfox Adventures, Yoshi's Island 3DS, or Sticker Star- which are their more recent 'not so hot' games I can think of off the top of my head.

But for the most part the only critics of Nintendo either tend to be not all that interested in their flagship IP's anymore, or it just isn't their thing. Aside from maybe complaining about motion controls, rarely are you going to hear people say a fundamental Nintendo game is inherently a load of shit. Unless of course you REALLY don't like the kind of stuff Nintendo does by default.

I don't say that critics necessarily overrate Nintendo. There isn't such a wide disparity with game ratings on other platforms to support that. Actually, even if there was, it would be difficult to prove that it wasn't a natural result of superior quality.

The observation was that players rate Nintendo games higher relative to critics than on other platforms. In other words, if the typical user score on Metacritic is 10% lower than the typical critic score across all consoles and PC, for Nintendo it is just a 3% difference. Those aren't exact numbers, just an example. The result is based on aggregate statistics over a large number of titles, so it obviously doesn't apply to each and every game.

But how to explain it? Why are players more satisfied than critics with Nintendo compared to other platforms?

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Extremely tight controls, good quality control (very few bugs unlike most games released nowadays), actually colorful in this current ugly industry, charming gameplay, character, art style. Really good level design, good music, similar games with always different core mechanics. They tell the little story through the gameplay rather than forcing it through a million shitty cut scenes.

Pretty much the only platforming game is Mario, only worthwhile party games are Nintendo games, only kart racer is Mario Kart, one of the few action adventure games is Zelda, pretty sure that the only metroidvania game that doesn't suck nowadays is Metroid (well, other M and shit, but... hopefully it's over with that?). Soon we will be getting Splatoon which seems to be a charming third person shooter that isn't cover based but actually has some strategy, color and isn't rated M for "hardcore" gamer.

So, what's there not to like about Nintendo games when you like the genre they cover? Solid games with solid support in genre that are almost dead without them. That and the fact that they do DLC right 9 out of 10 times.

One possible explanation for this is that Nintendo has a higher concentration of casual gamers who are easily impressed.

Or... and I know this will sound unbelievable but stay with me... they make good games. Nah, everyone else is at fault.

The problem isn't that they have the wrong formula, it's that they have nowhere else to go with it. I don't see any drastic difference between Super Mario World (SNES) and New Super Mario Bros. U (Wii U), beyond a cosmetic one. I see no difference between Pokemon Blue and Pokemon Turquoise, other than the cosmetic one (also moar Pokemon). And so on. I feel like I can get the basic Nintendo experience just by plugging back the good old SNES and maybe the N64/GC to cover 3D games. It's not that they make bad games, it's that they keep doing the same games - admittedly efficient - generation after generation. They're good at keeping their fanbase content by simply doing the same thing over and over, but terrible at drawing new consumers with new ideas.

 

[AT God]

I hadn't played any Nintendo games in many years but just about an hour ago I finished Starfox Assault for gamecube (Technically it was developed by Namco but its a Nintendo franchise and Namco does the best arcade flying shooters in my opinion). And having not played any nintendo games in many years, it really makes me want to go out and buy a WiiU or something because despite Assault not being very long, it was charming as hell.

In trying to understand why I was so enthralled, I think it is because of the simple storylines and the vibrant colors. No other major game company makes games the way Nintendo does and while their simple formulas and plots can get boring, I feel they have an insane replayability because over time you forget the boring stuff and remember the fun visuals.

The closest thing that does this for me that isn't Nintendo was the PS2-era Ratchet and Clank games. They had really simple plots and great, vibrant colors and the gameplay was solid.

I think that is the key with Nintendo, none of their games are "Game of the Year" material, they don't push limits or introduce new concepts and their games contain very little. But what they do contain is good quality and a unique style that makes me like them. I have bought and sold Super Mario Sunshine twice in my life, both times after 100%ing it and the other day I realized I really want to play it again, so there is a good chance I will buy a game I have beaten 100% twice before, just to play it again. And the only thing I can say as to why I would do that is because thinking about the game now just simply makes me feel good. I can barely recall the horribly frustrating abyss levels and things that made me want to smash my TV, all I remember when I think about that game is sliding around in the sunshine, doing flips and acrobatics, and spraying people with Yoshi vomit which was always funny in how horrible that is.

 

[Timeless Lavender]

I think one of the reason is definitely nostalgia since Nintendo rarely change their games formula and people still love them for it. But for me I guess the art style and interesting and solid game play ( like Pikmin, Xenoblade, Mario Kart, Splatoon)

Oh also because Bayonetta 2 exist.

 

[LaoJim]

Pretty much the only platforming game is Mario, only worthwhile party games are Nintendo games, only kart racer is Mario Kart, one of the few action adventure games is Zelda, pretty sure that the only metroidvania game that doesn't suck nowadays is Metroid (well, other M and shit, but... hopefully it's over with that?). Soon we will be getting Splatoon which seems to be a charming third person shooter that isn't cover based but actually has some strategy, color and isn't rated M for "hardcore" gamer.

Mario is the only platform game? How about Rayman Origins/Legends, Super Meat Boy, Splunky, Battleblock Theatre, and Sonic Generations. All of which could be viewed as being superior to the most recent 2D Mario. If I hadn't already bought a Wii U, Ori and the Blind Forest (plus RL) would actually be a bigger draw than the latest Mario.

The only Kart Racer is Mario Kart? Again I thought that Sonic Transformed was a much more enjoyable and creative kart racer than Mario Kart 8 which feels kind of a bit bland. Even back in the day, Diddy Kong Racing was (again to my mind) better than Mario Kart 64. If we're creative about what we consider a Kart racer, SkyDrift is an enormously fun 'Flight Kart' game.

One of the few action adventure games is Zelda? Tomb Raider, the Arkham games, Darksiders, Prince of Persia. I won't claim that these are better than Zelda because I haven't played the most recent Zelda games yet, but they are certainly alternatives.

Splatoon isn't out yet, it may be better than Garden Warfare or Sunset Overdrive or it might not be. Mario Party may be the best party game on the market but the latest one got very mediocre reviews.

And so on. In fairness there is nothing quite like Super Mario 3D World available on any of the other consoles.

The problem with any Nintendo discussion is they quickly devolve into those who think Nintendo can do no wrong and those who think it can do no right. As far as I'm concerned it is a good company, with some strong IPs that hasn't quite been hitting the heights it once did. My main problem with Nintendo is that having bought a Wii U, I'm not convinced that a lot of their games are as special as I've been lead to believe. The games are by no means bad, but I'm quickly realizing that in many cases I've already played similar games on my other console which are not necessarily worse. It always amazes me how uni-cultured certain people on this forum are. We had a thread about racing games a week or so ago and had comments like "The only racing game I play is Mario Kart" and one about fighting games "The only one I play is Smash". It's a bit like a classical music snob saying "The only symphony is Beethoven's Ninth". No one is going to deny that's Luddy wrote some great music, but...

 

[OldNewNewOld]

Snip for space

Rayman Origin came out a long time ago, Legends is short. Super Meat Boy is a really bad platformer with shit tier controls that have no place in platforming. Spelunky isn't even a platformer. It's a roughlike platformer mix with parts of both genres but not enough to be any of them. Sonic Generations.... yeah, happened generations ago. Ori and the Blind Forest came out half a month ago.
Mario is the only consistent platformer. When you buy a Nintendo console, you know you will get a damn well platformer for sure, probably 2 with the recent trend of 2D and 3D games.

Sonic Transformed? Yeah, with a almost dead community unfortunately. It's a great kart racer but that's it. It's over, it's done. Diddy Kong Racing? Really? You wanna plug in your N64 to the internet and play some online? And as someone who actually owns the game and played it recently again, it aged horribly. And if we're creative with what we consider a RTS, CoD is a damn good RTS.

The last Tomb Rider was really really bad. What Other M did to Metroid, the latest Tomb Raider was 10 times worse to the Tomb Raider series.
Batman games aren't even in the same genre as Zelda games. Darksiders would be an excellent Zelda alternative if it wasn't dead. I loved 1 and I loved 2 and I would probably love 3 if it was ever game. Prince of Persia? What is this? 2005? There are no alternatives to those who love the genre. We already played everything similar to Zelda and now all we can do is wait for the next Zelda because no one else wants out money. And even if Ubisoft made a new PoP game and it was on the level on WW, I wouldn't buy it because it's fucking Ubisoft.

Garden Warfare? It's bad.
Sunset Overdrive seems good and I would love to play it but seeing people list quite a few major flaws... still interested though. And I never said it would be the best colorful TPS there is but it's serving an audience that most other developer don't want to touch. And the swimming mechanics got me hyped.

The amount of competition against Nintendo's hard hitter is so low that they are almost non existing. What should I do when I replay Rayman Origin and Legends 5 times? Will Ubishit release a new one? Will I even buy it thanks to it being Ubishit and them getting worse with every passing second? Indie platformer that have bad controls and try to be artsy instead of a freaking platformer with good controls, level design and gameplay in general?

You're giving me examples of games similar to Nintendo games that are even 2 generations ago. Yeah, that sure as hell won't disprove my point that Nintendo is single handedly keeping those few genre alive with someone else trying to take a piece of the pie and fail. I would have loved if Sonic Transformed stayed as popular as it was at release but it damn well deserved all the praise it got and even more. But it didn't. I would have loved if Vigil Games didn't get sold out and they managed to make Darksiders 3 and 4 and hopefully even more because it fills a part of the "Zelda" feeling whenever there is no Zelda out, 1 and 2 being excellent games, they deserve to be recognized as some of the best games in the genre, but it didn't happen.
There are attempts to take a piece of the market that Nintendo serves, sometimes they are fantastic, sometimes less so. Some are so freaking awesome that I get really mad when I see the bad sales numbers while New Super Mario Bros. 2 sold better. I'm not saying Nintendo can't make mistakes because they do them, and when they do them, they really fuck shit up hardcore (Other M being the recent example, or while I enjoyed Brawl, it was a huge fuck-up compared to Melee). But no one can deny that any of those attempts either failed or didn't do good enough to keep those attempts happening which is a real shame.

There is no denying that I'm a huge Nintendo fan, but I'm also a huge fan of the PS2 which had some of my favorite games and was actually the last time any console tried to compete against Nintendo in Nintendo's domain. Crash, Spyro, Shadow of the Colossus and many more managed to give me the feeling that Nintendo does. But that's all in the distant past and nowadays it doesn't really happen. So while saying that some of the listed games are the only games in their genre is wrong, I didn't really mean it literally. I meant it as more or less the only games that you will get for sure and they will have a high standard of craftsmanship. You will occasionally get some other games in, but they are much rarer.

 

[Strazdas]

from my personal experience - nostalgia. I noticed that people that used to play Nintendo as kids still like nintendo and those who didnt still dont.

Same way Disney is the king of animated movies,

you mean by abusing overused tropes and strongarming everyone that does them better by either buying them out or suing thme into oblivion?

You can thank DIsney for things like: buying and killing studios, assimilating studios to never be heard from again, destroying culture by buying laws that prevent culture spread, suing people for making tributes.

Disney is a horrible company hiding under nice pretence. And they own a third of entertainment industry.

Instead they find ways to make the wheel, harder, better, faster, stronger, skid resistant, all-terrain, and indestructible.

Is that why they are always behind the curve and has to be brought into modern times kicking and screaming?

Is that why they constantly fuck their costumers over by region locking and trying to lock down things to overpriced controlled media storage?

Is that why they constantly fuck thier fans over by doing things like Youtube scandal.

 

[Strazdas]

To put it simply, not only are Wii and WiiU games generally rated higher than Xbox, PlayStation or PC games, but there is less of a gap between the critic and user scores. Normally, user ratings are considerably lower than critic ratings. Not so with Nintendo games.

Oh thats just flat out wrong.

2013:

2014:

youll notice that in neither of two last years has Nintendo consoles had the most great games or good exclusives.

In fact you will see PC dominating 2013 and PS4 and PC fighting it off in 2014

 

[elvor0]

They're fun. That's it, just fun. Extremely charming, extremely well polished, non too complex fun. Most of the time, they don't break new ground or even try to. I've only been disappointed once by a Nintendo game, which was Link Between Worlds, and only because it was too easy due to the new "choose your dungeon" system.

Plus they guys at Nintendo always feel they just wanna have fun too, E3 last year had all the big publishes trot out and say buzzwords over a million hours, waving their dick about, wheras Nintedo just came out and said "Look, this is what we've got, we've really enjoyed working on it, we think it's fun and we hope you do too."

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

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

I'd add to that, "doing what it says on the tin" no (few?) hollow PR promises, broken games etc

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

But how to explain it? Why are players more satisfied than critics with Nintendo compared to other platforms?

Uh, because their games are GOOD?? I don't see why it's so difficult for people to wrap their heads around something that simple.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

No console is based off CoD, or any IP in particular. Take away CoD, Assassin's Creed, God of War, Halo, any of those colossi - whether they're exclusive to a system or not - and Sony/Microsoft are still standing. They haven't based their success or popularity on anything in particular, except the possibility that you can play (most) games on them. Yes, there're exclusives, if only to offer some sort of unique selling point that differentiates them from the competition. But they're not mooching off anything. Or at least, not mooching of One Thing. Take away Mario and/or Zelda from Nintendo, and Pokemon off handhelds, and they have nothing left. I don't care how many C-list IPs you can enumerate, or that Pitt is your favorite character: they lose most of their consumer base in a heartbeat. Their entire marketing is based around Mario. Their big launches are based around Mario. Their success, going back to the 80s, has always been based around Mario. And for reasons involving tradition, conservativism and brand recognition, they have to keep chucking out Mario games even when there's nothing more to say about Mario or do with Mario. Same reason Disney keeps Mickey Mouse alive. You can't lose your head pet.

you say that like its a bad thing

 

[Dragonbums]

But how to explain it? Why are players more satisfied than critics with Nintendo compared to other platforms?

If the discrepancy between player to critic ratio in terms of Nintendo game ratings are as low as 3% then why is this even a question? That's more likely a difference of like maybe 100 people having a minute difference in opinion on how good the game is. Especially given the fact that there are a lot less game critics then there are game players as far as Metacritic is concerned. So that 3% suddenly becomes practically non existent if we are going to talk about "major" discrepancies between critic opinion of Nintendo and player criticism of Nintendo.

And it's far from supporting your original claim that the only reason why players rate Nintendo games "higher" (if you can even call it that.) is because they are easily impressed and don't know better.

 

[StreamerDarkly]

snip

Thank you for posting that. I should have said that I was basing my results off of games that had more than 10 critic ratings and more than 40 user ratings. I find that whenever you start talking about details like that, people's eyes glaze over. The reason for discounting games with a low number of reviews is because the Metascore isn't so much a consensus as it is the opinion of just a few people (unreliable data). Typically, it's games in the red and yellow slices of the pie that end up being excluded by this filter.

And I did not mean to exaggerate the difference in critic ratings across the various platforms - as you rightly point out, it;s quite small if you look at average Metascores. However, I stand behind the main point regarding the difference between user scores and critic scores.