What's with the extreme Nintendo Hate?

[MetalDooley]

While this is a completely fair point that you're making, I want you to recognize that Nintendo leans so heavily on existing IPs that they purposefully turned what should have been a new and exiting IP into something riding the coat tails of a predecessor.

From Wikipedia:

"Originally titled Monado: Beginning of the World, the game was retitled Xenoblade in January 2010 to honour Tetsuya Takahashi, "who poured his soul into making this and [?] the Xeno series"

Hardly sounds like a cynical business decision by Nintendo now does it

It merely proves the point that Nintendo is extremely adverse to taking risks

I don't know.I reckon releasing a console completely based around motion controls while simultaneously trying to bring in a entirely new audience is pretty risky.It would have been easy to just release a more powerful version of their previous console which is pretty much what Sony and Microsoft did

and would rather churn out the xth number of a series than anything without a number or familiar name in it.

Wii Sports,Wii Play,Big Brain Academy,Endless Ocean,Wii Fit,Wii Music,Captain Rainbow,Flingsmash,Fortune Street,The Last Story,Pandora's Tower,Magnetica,Maboshi,Art Style series,Lonpos,Bonsai Barber,You Me and the Cubes,Eco Shooter,Line attack heroes,Fluidity,Thruspace,Lego City Undercover,Electroplankton,Elite Beat Agents,Hotel Dusk:Room 215,Master of Illusion,Rhythm Heaven,The Legendary Starfy,Fossil Fighters,Glory of Heracles,Art Academy,Solatorobo:Red the Hunter,Inazuma Eleven,Steel Diver,Spirit Camera:The Cursed Memoir,Freakyforms,

Just a list of some of the games developed/published by Nintendo since 2006.How many of those have numbers or familiar names exactly?

 

[klaynexas3]

My main beef with Nintendo is their stagnation with most of their first party games with little new IP coming out of them. While they can make something fun, it's a bland kind of fun at this point; an "I've seen all this before" type of fun. I love my 3DS, don't get me wrong, and it has some pretty damn good games with the whole DS library to also back it up, but I can say most of what comes from them directly in terms of software is a little bland. Not all of it mind you, just a fair amount of it. So I don't hate it, I just want to see them stop beating dead horses and try out some new ones. I don't think that's too much to ask.

 

[GeneralFungi]

There are Nintendo fanboys that are very radical about their love for Nintendo. But I'm seeing a lot more people on this thread that can't accept Nintendo did anything correct past the gamecube era. I hate to use the term 'Nintendo Haters', but there are plenty of people who also have a very radical opinion about Nintendo. Just on the opposite scale. People who are completely disregarding evidence that goes against what they believe because the people defending Nintendo are 'fanboys' so their opinion can remain unchallenged.

Exactly how people will disregard someone because they're a 'hater'.

Well, what has Nintendo done right past the Gamecube era ... ><

Half the time it appears they are lucking out rather than succeeding because of careful planning. Starting from the DS, Nintendo started adding gimmicks to their consoles. The DS succeeded because the competition had limited support and was more expensive. The 3DS is kind of in a similar situation - also the market has changed; handheld "entertainment" devices are now dominated by smartphones, no place for a high-end dedicated device, a cheap "disposable" device for kids on the other hand ...

The Wii? Fad. It's over now. Nintendo made a lot of money from non-gamers, but completely destroyed their rep with core gamers - who are the bread and butter of the industry. And instead of using the cash to regain cred and re-enter the race proper ... we got the Wii U ... under-powered + gimmicks ... again.

I apologize but at this point you're demonstrating the exact kind behaviour I was referring to. Whether or not the Wii still has the same market appeal is debatable, but you're so determined to believe that Nintendo has done nothing positive in the past decade so you're simply calling intelligent business decisions luck. You're telling me that these 'fanboys' can't be debated with because they never concede on any points, but you're doing exactly that now. You're being the exact thing you are rallying against just on the opposite scale. The DS, 3DS and Wii weren't dumb decisions that got lucky. They were very deliberate, and Nintendo made those positive business decision deliberately. You might want to look up this thing known as 'confirmation bias' because at this point I'm seeing quite a lot of that.

Another thing that is starting to get on my nerves is how easy it is to dismiss something as a 'gimmick' so that they can be conveniently ignored. I thought everyone's problem with Nintendo was that they're not taking enough risks and that they aren't being creative? Yet you get all kinds of people who will completely dismiss a console because 'gimmicks' as if it is the all encompassing word that confirms a gaming device is bad and forever will be bad. The Wii was an awfully big risk. The Wii U, once again, is an awfully big risk. People want Nintendo to innovate but that's exactly what they've been doing. They're giving you new ways to play games to give you unique experiences that no other console can provide.

But no, Nintendo would be much more innovative if they created a console identical to the next xbox and playstation. I'd rather all of my consoles be the exact same box with the exact same controller. For innovation's sake.

I find it a bit telling that the Nintendo champions in this thread are being so defensive, I think it's safe to assume that each one has their own grievances with Nintendo's decisions. Search your feelings... you know it's true. You crazy Nintendogs may be a bit of a minority in this corner of the internet, but come on now, you wouldn't be here in this forum if you didn't share quite a bit in common with the guys you are arguing with. You're here to argue with others about what makes your games awesome, most gamers I know in real life aren't even that hardcore, I can't believe you don't see where we're coming from.

I can see where you're coming from. I have to strain my neck as I look up and I must squint my eyes a bit just because of how tall your high horse actually is, but I can catch feint glimpses of you from time to time.

You aren't required to like Nintendo or like their consoles. But your attitude is extremely condescending and it's on the basis that some people in the discussion don't share the same views as everyone else. You're essentially treating people who still like Nintendo and their products like troubled youth who just don't understand gaming as much as YOU do.

I understand why people aren't particular radical when it comes to Nintendo. I ride a horse considerably shorter then yours, so as I ride down the street I come within hearing range of people with alternate opinions to mine and try to view it from their perspective in order to understand their feelings.

At such a high altitude I wonder if you hear anything you don't want to hear at all.

 

[Lightknight]

While this is a completely fair point that you're making, I want you to recognize that Nintendo leans so heavily on existing IPs that they purposefully turned what should have been a new and exiting IP into something riding the coat tails of a predecessor.

From Wikipedia:

"Originally titled Monado: Beginning of the World, the game was retitled Xenoblade in January 2010 to honour Tetsuya Takahashi, "who poured his soul into making this and [?] the Xeno series"

Hardly sounds like a cynical business decision by Nintendo now does it

Why does that change it? I'm sure you are basically familiar with the kind of work and resources needed to aquire the IP licensing that are involved with making a title part of the IP franchise, right? Someone thought this would be a lucrative decision to make (they weren't wrong) and probably thought of the honor to Tetsuya as an added benefit (also not wrong) or a way to explain why they made the decision other than a more lucrative way. While it's a bit naive to think that sinking resources into IP licensing and rebranding would be done out of the goodness of a company's heart, it also doesn't have to be cynical to be a good and calculated business decision. But seriously, aren't things that are changed to honor someone usually done so to honor the dead (which Tetsuya is decidedly not)? I'd put this firmly in the realm of using a beloved name to associate with an unestablished title. It do not know how much game alteration was then done to bring the game in-line with its new title or how long before the rebranding they know the change would be made.

I don't know.I reckon releasing a console completely based around motion controls while simultaneously trying to bring in a entirely new audience is pretty risky.It would have been easy to just release a more powerful version of their previous console which is pretty much what Sony and Microsoft did

Huh? Trying to compete directly on hardware lines with giant tech companies like Sony and Microsoft that were capable of producing vastly powerful consoles (compared to Wii capabilities) that incured large losses every time they sold a system for years would have been far riskier for Nintendo. See, Nintendo is a gaming company with little else on the fire besides games. Ever since the gamecube era they were really beginning to fall behind technologically (except in handhelds). The comparable size of Nintendo matters because they have a singular focus with which they rise or fall while Microsoft and Sony have a lot of other irons in the fire that were able to compensate for that division's losses in the short term in hopes of future profit. Nintendo knew this ever since the gamecube and figured out that the only way to play the game was to do something else. People can ***** all-day-long that it was just a gimmick but the Wii-motes were a welcome innovation to the industry and I don't think they'd have survived without it. Was it a risk? Yeah, but less so than trying to compete with giants on their own turf. I do wonder how they financially line up though. Could Nintendo release a legitimate competitor to the ps4 and 720 with a comparable price within the next few years? I don't know that they have the resources or infrastructure or efficiencies of the other companies to enter that market. Getting barred from AAA 3rd party titles is pretty difficult where competition is concerned. This is why the day the Wii U came out with major current generation titles like Mass Effect 3. They were catching up on the huge titles they missed an opportunity with a system like the Wii. I could not see myself, as a serious gamer, owning only a Nintendo console in this day and age. I can, however, see myself owning only a ps4, 720, or pc and not the next Nintendo console as things stand.

Wii Sports,Wii Play,Big Brain Academy,Endless Ocean,Wii Fit,Wii Music,Captain Rainbow,Flingsmash,Fortune Street,The Last Story,Pandora's Tower,Magnetica,Maboshi,Art Style series,Lonpos,Bonsai Barber,You Me and the Cubes,Eco Shooter,Line attack heroes,Fluidity,Thruspace,Lego City Undercover,Electroplankton,Elite Beat Agents,Hotel Dusk:Room 215,Master of Illusion,Rhythm Heaven,The Legendary Starfy,Fossil Fighters,Glory of Heracles,Art Academy,Solatorobo:Red the Hunter,Inazuma Eleven,Steel Diver,Spirit Camera:The Cursed Memoir,Freakyforms,

Just a list of some of the games developed/published by Nintendo since 2006.How many of those have numbers or familiar names exactly?

I'm not 100% sure if you are disaggreeing with my point or just trying to prove my point with this list. I went ahead and visited the wiki and metacritic site to research these obscure titles. The majority of those games hit 75 metacritic or lower (with Flingsmash dipping into the 40s). One game you listed, Captain Rainbow, only sold a whopping 23k copies to date. Several were JP only or DS only titles which don't generally mean major IP releases. A few were also old IPs that they were revisiting like Fortune Street which has been around since 1991 and was available on the Playstation consoles since. Many of the 70 scores are basic puzzle games and are by no means the kind of games hardcore gamers like myself are talking about. We're talking about the Marios, Zeldas, Halos, inFamous, Heavy Rains and all the other IPs that stick with us. We don't buy a system because they have great puzzle games. We get those on our phones now, for free or cheap. Hell, I just purchased and played "The Room". I strongly recommend it if these are the games you're somehow touting as new IPs that Nintendo put legitimate resources behind. These are (mostly) not good games.

Many of the fitness and sports games that use the Wii are successors to the Power Pad games:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Pad

Slapping Wii on the name doesn't mean they are entirely void of predecessors. Like I said before, they typically create games to showcase new peripherals and this generation was that practice on steroids (it was a good call on their part). Doesn't mean that's a bad idea, I loved Wii Sports like just about everyone else who played it. But I'd argue that the real innovation there was the controller, not the game. There's no storyline or memorable characters in any of those. The breakthrough was in the way we play the games. With all that in mind, I wouldn't really think of them as new IPs like I would many of the other games you listed. They ARE new IPs, that's fair. But at the very least I'd put them all under the same IP of Wii-blank. Which is a game specifically designed to utilize the peripherals of the system.

The type of titles I'm talking about aren't these small download puzzle games or handheld games such as the ones you listed. The types of titles I'm talking are games like The Last Story, Red Steel (why didn't you mention this one? I enjoyed it), and No More Heroes. Nintendo is completely capable of putting these games out but they are simply falling behind the other consoles. The question is whether or not the issue was purely computing or if there has been creative stagnation with all the main talent going to the big boys (processing-wise).

I think the WiiU has the ability to put out completely graphically pleasing games. They won't be as complex as the ps4 or 720, but looking at the finest and most polished games of this generation gives me a lot of hope that the WiiU can continue to be relavent even on the lines or realistic games if they just get the 3rd party backing. However, judging from the reception of the WiiU and it's deplorable sales, something will have to change and fast. It will benefit them to put out a lot of games that rely more on artistic license than realistic graphics. I hope they go more that route because they're one of the best at that.

 

[Lightknight]

Which I guess is why they're publishing The Wonderful 101 by Platinum. Sure it's got a number in the title, but it's an original game that isn't part of any established series. I guess that's why they let Game Freak develop Harmo Knight, why they let Intelligent Systems develop Pushmo and Crashmo, why the best selling series on Wii was Wii Sports, and why their handheld teams have been coming up with things like Brain Training, Flip Note and Nintendogs.

I mean, look at all those Mario sequels I just mentioned right there.

And apparently won't even register when new games do come out, so I kind of feel Nintendo is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Please note that my response to your post can be found here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.407083-Whats-with-the-extreme-Nintendo-Hate?page=4#16976310

My argument isn't that they have created nothing. It's that they've created very little by comparison with respect to the competition. My response to Wonderful 101 is that you are citing a game which is not out yet. Jumping the gun there.

Before Super Mario Galaxy came out, could you have predicted everything Nintendo were going to do with that game? Could you have predicted that Nintendo were going to turn 3D platforming on its head by revolving the gameplay around planetoids with their own gravity? I doubt it. I highly doubt it. So why assume the same about the next Mario? The 3D Mario games have proven time and again to be some of the most unpredictable games out there. Nintendo followed up 64 with a game where Mario blasts pollution with a water cannon, then followed that up with a game where he jumps his way round the galaxy. What makes you think they won't do something just as leftfield next?

Doing new things with old IPs does not a new IP make. Why did it have to be Mario? Why not some new character with a different background? Why does it have to be Mario Saving a princess and/or collecting stars? Why make it partially new?

So dropping out of the graphics arms race and making a console that used motion controls was stagnation, was it? Integrating a touchscreen into a regular controller isn't creative?

? I'm afraid you missed my point. Do you think that hardware innovation equates to game innovation? I mean, in this scenario it did produce the Wii-sports games that rely exclusively on the hardware but I'm really just riding Nintendo for their IPs, not hardware. It would be dumb of anyone to say they aren't being innovative hardware-wise. They changed everything and are likely the sole reason for why the PS Move and Xbox Kinect exist.

That's actually bollocks. The only reason Nintendo don't go all in with hardware like the other two is because in order to sell tech-heavy consoles at a reasonable price, you have to take a huge loss on the hardware.

Really? That's the only reason? I assume you have some kind of cosy inside Nintendo source claiming that there were no other major contributing factors to this. By all means, cite your references. Please note that I also dealt with this in my next post to them as an additional reason.

The other two companies have got other divisions to subsidise them on this. And in case you hadn't noticed, going all in with expensive tech didn't end up doing much good for Sony. They lost all the money they made on the PS2, they lost marketshare, and their financials are now looking very, very shaky. If that's an example of what you think Nintendo should have done, then I'm just glad they didn't.

Yep, as I stated in my previous post. Sony made a significant number of mistakes, not the least of which was the hardware choices.

The Wii U isn't current gen. Even the most cursory glances at the GPU have shown that it's a more modern, more efficient design than current gen consoles. Pretty much everything inside the Wii U is completely custom, meaning you can't compare it to off the shelf components. By all accounts, Retro is working on some major eye candy for the console, and at the very least the likes of Trine 2: Director's Cut and NFS Most Wanted U have shown that it's a console with a lot more power and RAM than what the current HD twins have to offer. We're going to have to wait and see what Nintendo has got prepared up its sleeve before we know any more than that.

The Wii U is the most powerful machine of this generation. You can't compare the hardware from any console to off the shelf components because consoles optimize in ways pcs can't.

One thing the Wii U isn't, and this is for sure, is next gen capable. But here's the thing. Look at what is being pumped out towards the end of this generation. The games being made, like Skyrim, are amazing. Saying that the WiiU is more capable than the ps3 and 360 is no small thing and by no means implies crappy looking games. I mean heck, as of this generation I can still play games from 2005 like bioshock without my eyes bleeding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii_U#Technical_specifications

We know that of the 2GB of RAM, 1GB is dedicated to the OS. We know that hte CPU is clocked at 1.24 GHz and we know what the GPU is clocked at 550 MHz through testing them. Even allowing for a very WIDE range of interpretation of the components, this puts the machine solidly above current gen machines but below next gen machines. Something like a 7.5 generation machine.

So yeah, I can concede that it's unfair to call the WiiU current gen whereas it is understood that we're still in the 7th generation of machines, but I don't think it's being honest to say it's on par with the specs already released for the ps4 if those prove to be true. Either way, I can absolutely verify that just as serious eye candy can be made on current gen machines then serious eye candy should be easily made for the WiiU.

And what about Sony? They've been posting losses for years now. Again, if you're arguing Nintendo should follow Sony's model of expensive tech, then you'll have to explain to me how Nintendo will avoid the pitfall of losing billions of dollars in R&D costs and selling under price.

Not talking hardware. Nintendo did the best they could with what they had. If they weather the storm to the point that the next gen hardware becomes affordable then IP content and media features will be the only deciding factors. (in other words, things can only look so good).

And what about when the PS4 and Nextbox roll around? They will also be starting with a user base of 0. Do you not think the fact that so many titles are being released for next-gen consoles and PS3/360 is something to be worried about? Why are people going to buy any of those new consoles when so many of their

The problem isn't that it's new, the problem is that its sales have stagnated. Forecasting for the system by developers will not favor it. I'd say the ps4 already has some very serious titles promised and WiiU has stumbled in the delivery of what they've promised AND the WiiU's titles are not as impressive as the ps4's. Then again, the ps4 can always falter too. I think the next generation is Sony's to lose at this point. If they haven't learned from their silly mistakes on the ps3 then they deserve to be conquered. So far, with the decisions they're making, from the quality of the tech to the standardization of their hardware it looks like they're making the tough choices.

I doubt it, given that the platform physics are way too floaty and imprecise to ever be in a Nintendo platformer.

The spirit of the game, friend. The magical and campy nature of it smacks of some of my favorite Nintendo titles.

 

[Saviordd1]

Things like the huge dry period, hardware problems, loading times, long updates and the ilk are legitimate complaints and should be discussed.

And that's what we dislike? And then some?

Sorta answered your own question.

 

[MetalDooley]

I'm not 100% sure if you are disaggreeing with my point or just trying to prove my point with this list. I went ahead and visited the wiki and metacritic site to research these obscure titles. The majority of those games hit 75 metacritic or lower (with Flingsmash dipping into the 40s). One game you listed, Captain Rainbow, only sold a whopping 23k copies to date. Several were JP only or DS only titles which don't generally mean major IP releases. A few were also old IPs that they were revisiting like Fortune Street which has been around since 1991 and was available on the Playstation consoles since. Many of the 70 scores are basic puzzle games and are by no means the kind of games hardcore gamers like myself are talking about. We're talking about the Marios, Zeldas, Halos, inFamous, Heavy Rains and all the other IPs that stick with us. We don't buy a system because they have great puzzle games. We get those on our phones now, for free or cheap. Hell, I just purchased and played "The Room". I strongly recommend it if these are the games you're somehow touting as new IPs that Nintendo put legitimate resources behind. These are (mostly) not good games.

Whether those games I listed are any good or not is utterly irrelevant.You claimed that Nintendo don't release anything that's not a sequel or part of a well known franchise.I gave you a list of Nintendo developed/published titles from the last 7 years that are either brand new IPs or obscure franchises that proves your claim to be nonsense

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

Gunpo Yokoi. The man behind the Game&Watch, the Gameboy and the D-pad. His idea of using older technology in a lateral way has become a key philosophy at Nintendo, as it allows them to compete in the market without having to go bust trying to stay up-to-date with the latest hardware. In Japanese terms, the idea is known as Lateral Thinking With Withered Technology. It's the reason why the Gameboy beat all its competitors, why the DS beat the PSP, why the Wii beat the PS360, and why the 3DS is currently clobbering the Vita.

God, Yokoi's strategy should be stamped on a plaque in every development office in the world. Seriously, why do developers not understand that they should be thinking laterally? All they do is the idiotic and self-destructive brute force method which is starting to bite people in the ass big time.

 

[McMarbles]

I've been wondering how we define "New IP from Nintendo". Xenoblade Chronicle, The Last Story, Pandora's Tower, Fluidity, Pushmo, Dillon's Rolling Western, Artstyle, Endless Ocean, Freakyforms, Harmoknight, Sakura Samurai don't count.

Because they are not the hardcores? Because there were not the direct brainchild of Miyamoto? They don't count. For some reason.

They don't count because if they DID count, someone might actually have to admit they were WRONG. Andwe can't have that, can we?

 

[xaszatm]

Things like the huge dry period, hardware problems, loading times, long updates and the ilk are legitimate complaints and should be discussed.

And that's what we dislike? And then some?

Sorta answered your own question.

But the question isn't about dislike though. I understand why some people might dislike Nintendo. But what I don't understand is the hate. People act as if Nintendo can do no right and deserve nothing less then complete destruction. That I don't get.

 

[xaszatm]

Would a new IP have sold over 10 million copies? No. New original games simply don't sell as much. Nintendo made a legitimately awesome platformer, it sold spectacularly well. What does it matter to you that it so happened to star Mario?

I don't know. Games like Trine and Super Meat Boy do show that there is a market for platformers with different characters. I think that the real reason why Nintendo doesn't show a platformer with a new character is because everyone will compare it to some obscure old game and complain that they didn't make that version. Of course, I'm just speculating but seeing the responses here don't hurt it.

Gunpo Yokoi. The man behind the Game&Watch, the Gameboy and the D-pad. His idea of using older technology in a lateral way has become a key philosophy at Nintendo, as it allows them to compete in the market without having to go bust trying to stay up-to-date with the latest hardware. In Japanese terms, the idea is known as Lateral Thinking With Withered Technology. It's the reason why the Gameboy beat all its competitors, why the DS beat the PSP, why the Wii beat the PS360, and why the 3DS is currently clobbering the Vita.

Wow, I didn't know this. Thanks for sharing this interesting information. If one company is doing this, then at least gaming becomes more interesting.

[ The problem isn't that it's new, the problem is that its sales have stagnated. Forecasting for the system by developers will not favor it. I'd say the ps4 already has some very serious titles promised and WiiU has stumbled in the delivery of what they've promised AND the WiiU's titles are not as impressive as the ps4's.

The Wii U's managed to just about stay level with the 6 month sales of the PS3 and 360 despite not having had any major releases out for it yet. When games like Zelda, Mario, Smash Bros and what ever else IPs Nintendo is currently working on are released (Star Fox, F-Zero, Kirby, Wii Fit U, etc), sales are going to pick up dramatically. Nintendo's been hinting pretty heavily that they're arranging their releases to have a packed second half to 2013. If they do that, then the PS4 and Nextbox won't have to compete with the Wii U having a 3.4 million lead. They'll have to compete with the Wii U having a 10 million lead.

Um, isn't this just speculation right just now? While I do hope that Nintendo has a heavily packed second term, there can be much that happens between then and now that results in another dry spell like the one happening right now. Granted, with Nintendo rather than other third parties on the job this has a lower chance of happening, it's still possible.

Also, why are we saying that we have the sales of the PS3 and Xbox 360 of the first six months as a good thing? Didn't both of those consoles sold poorly during this time? Like, the PS3's exclusives were all mediocre 3rd party support so why are we considering this good?

 

[charlesmagne]

There repackaging the same mothafuckin games for like what ?, 20 years,Mario , Zelda, etc.., do somethong else freakin retards.

 

[aba1]

I used to be with Nintendo exclusively till this generation. I can't count the amount of times I defended the GameCube hell I still love my N64 and Cube and when they put out the Wii I was so excited. The thing is though I don't care for Nintendo anymore because the Wii was a giant F-u to all the long time gamers. I bought my wii and had 2-3 games to play on it for a entire life cycle. Even now I only use it for smash bros and cube games it is a embarrassment. Nintendo forced me to go to a new system and they will have to work hard if they ever want to win me back. Even now I keep a eye on them but they fail to put out anything but re-releases or sequels that are so similar they might as well be a re-release.

It is worth noting I don't play hand-helds so everything I say only really applies to their consoles.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Also, something interesting which has come up for people who say the Wii U is only current gen hardware. IGN have released gameplay footage of the upcoming Shadow Of The Eternals, the sorta-sequel to Eternal Darkness. This game has been confirmed only for PC and Wii U. And showing off the gameplay, certain controller prompts appear, strongly suggesting it's the Wii U version they're showing.

This is a game confirmed to be running on Cryengine, probably Cryengine 3 which Crytek already confirmed they had running on Wii U. What's really interesting is that when you look up close, the levels of geometry and detail are far beyond what the 360 or PS3 would be capable of. The floor tiles are uneven and show individual cracks, the wall bricks are worn and craggy, there are lighting and particle effects which in certain areas just look stunning...

Spoiler

This is running on the admittedly very pretty Cryengine 3, but is also the work of a very small development team with a limited budget. They're trying to crowdsource funds to do the rest of the game. If this is what a small team can do with the console, is anyone really going to sit there and say a large developer couldn't make a game with visual effects far in advance of what current gen consoles can handle?

Hopefully this game can put to bed the notion that the Wii U is only current gen hardware.

Not that I'm saying these screens look bad, I'm not. They look great. But I can't say they look a sneeze of a lot better then anything current gen. Again, don't take this as me saying WiiU games will look like crap. I'm sure there's going to be plenty fantastic looking games on the system, but interms of graphical power I'm really not seeing that leap forward compared to current tech.

 

[Terramax]

Gunpo Yokoi. The man behind the Game&Watch, the Gameboy and the D-pad. His idea of using older technology in a lateral way has become a key philosophy at Nintendo, as it allows them to compete in the market without having to go bust trying to stay up-to-date with the latest hardware. In Japanese terms, the idea is known as Lateral Thinking With Withered Technology. It's the reason why the Gameboy beat all its competitors, why the DS beat the PSP, why the Wii beat the PS360, and why the 3DS is currently clobbering the Vita.

God, Yokoi's strategy should be stamped on a plaque in every development office in the world. Seriously, why do developers not understand that they should be thinking laterally? All they do is the idiotic and self-destructive brute force method which is starting to bite people in the ass big time.

I'm trying my hardest to stay out of this argument, but I really think at this point it we should be distinguishing the difference between a company being financially successful, and being creative.

As businessmen, Nintendo are the best. Even better than my beloved Sega (the original Sega, that died around 2002, NOT the current Sega Sammy Corp). Nintendo know how to make profit, even at the worst of times, often by producing technically inferior software, but knowing how to sell it. They've found new audiences to target (but they're not the first, I'll add). And they know the formula to keep selling dead horse franchises in a way that it seems fresh enough to convince many to keep buying. So, as business men, I respect Nintendo.

HOWEVER, as a creative force, I find them deeply lacking. When Sega were faced with bankruptcy, any sane person in their offices would've told them to whore out Sonic games galore, and bring back titles from their Mega-drive days i.e. Streets of Rage, Shinobi, Golden Axe, etc, and to milk people's nostalgia for all it was worth. Instead, they gave us titles such as Nights into Dreams, Burning Rangers, Phantasy Star Online, Sakura Wars (in Japan), Jet Set Radio, Crazy Taxi, Skies of Arcadia, Virtua Tennis, Chu Chu Rocket, Monkey Ball, Gunvalkyrie, Shenmue, Samba De Amigo, and Seaman. These were all huge creative risks, and while admittedly not all of them are perfect, my God most play better than what Nintendo's franchises have ever played. Sega took one creative gamble after another, and I have the highest respect for that.

Nintendo on the other hand, do not. Don't feed this bullshit that the Wii is a creative idea, because it's not. It was a gizmo specifically targeted at an untapped demographic. It was a business decision. Not a creative decision. Now, you can argue that the console allowed for creative freedom for those who developed for it, but history has taught us that this wasn't the case. How the F was aiming the wii-mote at stars in Mario Galaxy an innovative or creative idea? It wasn't. It was an arbitrary way to make any kind of use for the wiimote device.
For plenty of titles, the Wii's controls were a hindrance.

Wii Sports,Wii Play,Big Brain Academy,Endless Ocean,Wii Fit,Wii Music,Captain Rainbow,Flingsmash,Fortune Street,The Last Story,Pandora's Tower,Magnetica,Maboshi,Art Style series,Lonpos,Bonsai Barber,You Me and the Cubes,Eco Shooter,Line attack heroes,Fluidity,Thruspace,Lego City Undercover,Electroplankton,Elite Beat Agents,Hotel Dusk:Room 215,Master of Illusion,Rhythm Heaven,The Legendary Starfy,Fossil Fighters,Glory of Heracles,Art Academy,Solatorobo:Red the Hunter,Inazuma Eleven,Steel Diver,Spirit Camera:The Cursed Memoir,Freakyforms,

OK, now remove all the games on that list that weren't actually developed by Nintendo. They weren't the creative forces behind it, therefore they deserve little to no credit for their existence. Also, games like Fortune Street and Solatorobo are sequels or spiritual sequels to previous games. That's at least half of the list gone already.

Now, for the remaining ones, which there were genuinely creative titles? How many were genuine gambles? Which genuinely pushed genres to new heights? Which brought us to new levels of emotion when playing? Which attempted to create all new genres, or use video games as a way of expression? Which attempted to push the creative envelope by any means?

Wii Sports? A cheap tech demo. Wii Resort? A cash-in of a tech demo. Wii Fit - a gimmicky cash in on people's obsession with losing weight and fitness. Brain Training - consisted off puzzles found in magazines, books, and educational PC software already available for years, all rolled onto a single DS package, in a way to shamelessly exploit the naivety of non-gamers, particularly elder members of the public.

Many of these games were not developed for the enjoyment of gamers. They were sold with the promise that they'll make you healthier, fight dementia, or some crap like that. They were created for the easy money by associating their products with the latest social trends! Again, these are business decisions. Not creative decisions.

And then there's been games like Xenoblades which were just absolute s*&t.

I can agree that MS and Sony are just as obsessed when it comes to making money. But as seriously miss-guided as they are when making titles like Heavy Rain, or Steel Battalion, I can at least give some respect for their intentions to gamble in games that attempt to take the gaming experience to a whole new level of immersion, complexity, creativity and entertainment. I can't give the same amount to Nintendo.

For all the paragraphs I've read on this thread so far, nothing written down has persuaded me to rethink otherwise. All I'm reading is 'well, Ninty are making money, therefore we shouldn't hate them'. Well, by that logic, bow down to the almighty Activision for minting it also. I see them as no more or less creatively bankrupt than Nintendo. Their Guitar Hero and Band Hero peripherals are hardly different than Nintendo's Wii controller. Both are sold as innovative items developed to make it easier for non-gamers to get in on the action. Both companies are more than adequate business people.

 

[deadish]

[
I apologize but at this point you're demonstrating the exact kind behaviour I was referring to. Whether or not the Wii still has the same market appeal is debatable, but you're so determined to believe that Nintendo has done nothing positive in the past decade so you're simply calling intelligent business decisions luck. You're telling me that these 'fanboys' can't be debated with because they never concede on any points, but you're doing exactly that now. You're being the exact thing you are rallying against just on the opposite scale. The DS, 3DS and Wii weren't dumb decisions that got lucky. They were very deliberate, and Nintendo made those positive business decision deliberately. You might want to look up this thing known as 'confirmation bias' because at this point I'm seeing quite a lot of that.

There is a difference in getting good grades because you researched and studied and getting good grades because you just so happened to pick the right answers at random.

Perhaps more elaboration is required.

DS. It succeeded because,
a) cheap
b) good battery life
c) brand recognition.

"Cons" - the start of the gimmick train
a) The dual screen was a gimmick. Majority of games have no use for 2 screens. Players can't look at 2 screen simultaneously either, so one screen is "wasted" all the time. It would have been better to have 1 screen at 2x the size.
b) The touch screen is pretty useful. But half the time it's use seem "forced", e.g. Draw this to do that. Why can't I just press some button combo and be done with it?

The 3DS proves Nintendo has no idea why it's successful.
a) expensive at launch - only dropped the price because it wasn't selling. Insulting compensation to early adopters - seriously, a bunch of dated games?
b) battery life sucked AND for some reason it takes longer to recharge then to run the battery down through use. What kind of brain dead electronics design is that?
c) in their rush to beat Sony to the market, no second analog stick - have to buy a hideous looking addon that runs on an AAA battery ... AAA battery! WTF!!

It's obvious that they were threatened by Sony, the PSP wasn't a run away success but it wasn't a total failure either as it filled the niches the DS could not, so they tried to enter the "high end". They blew a ton a money I'm sure with the custom CPU and GPU chips. They could have just used off the shelf smartphone CPUs/GPUs and get better bang for buck. Another mistake.

d) then there is the 3D that almost everyone turns off. That can't be used on the move because of the horribly small sweet spot. Gimmick.

Wii. /sigh
Motion control is a gimmick half the time. A lot like the touch screen in the DS, it's used seem "forced" in many games. Do this motion to pull the lever ... Why can't i just press A? The Wii's motion control was not accurate enough for games to "detect skill" and the lag didn't help. Most of what it does is "gesture recognition". But why bother with "big" gestures like waving your arms when you can just "get to the point" and press A?
It's sold well, the mainstream loved the novelty of "virtually reality" ... until they didn't and mothballed their Wii because the novelty has worn off.

With the Wii U, their luck finally ran out.

Another thing that is starting to get on my nerves is how easy it is to dismiss something as a 'gimmick' so that they can be conveniently ignored. I thought everyone's problem with Nintendo was that they're not taking enough risks and that they aren't being creative? Yet you get all kinds of people who will completely dismiss a console because 'gimmicks' as if it is the all encompassing word that confirms a gaming device is bad and forever will be bad. The Wii was an awfully big risk. The Wii U, once again, is an awfully big risk. People want Nintendo to innovate but that's exactly what they've been doing. They're giving you new ways to play games to give you unique experiences that no other console can provide.

But no, Nintendo would be much more innovative if they created a console identical to the next xbox and playstation. I'd rather all of my consoles be the exact same box with the exact same controller. For innovation's sake.

If it isn't generally useful, then it's a gimmick. That's my definition. It's very sad that Sony and MS too have jumped aboard the gimmick train as of lately because they think that's what people want thanks to the Wii.

You know that old Apple ad, "Think different.". I always found it kind of funny. Sure Einstein "thought different", but so do the patients in the loony bin.

Innovation requires that the result IMPROVES things. Else it's not "innovation", it's not "creativity", it's just being stupid/nuts.

 

[Olas]

From what I can tell, OP, people on this site dislike Nintendo because they've developed the impression that Nintendo just tries to repackage the exact same game again and again and resell it to loyal fans who'll buy anything with the Nintendo brand on it.

Most of these people won't go into any specifics, outside of maybe mentioning the New Super Mario Bros games, but will insist that every single Nintendo franchise is being overused again and again without enough new inspiration. They then listen to each other reiterate these points and become more and more convinced of it.

Don't listen to these people, most of them don't actually play many Nintendo games and are just basing this worldview on the hazy impression of Nintendo that they've developed from distant observation. If you actually play and enjoy Nintendo games then you already know better than they do and don't have to convince anyone of anything.

 

[shrekfan246]

If two people disagree and they provide reasonable evidence that supports their opinion then how do you determine that anyone is wrong? People like j-e-f-f-e-r-s have done a reasonable job of providing fact and evidence in order to support why they believe what they believe, but no one, including the people vehemently against Nintendo has really conceded on anything.

Jeffers cited Nintendo as the creators of the analog stick and then never responded when he got called out on it. Makes you wonder what other "fact and evidence" he's providing that's been completely willed into existence by his vigor to defend Nintendo. ¬_¬

The gameplay is different enough between iterations unless you are suggesting Bowser's Inside Story is the same as Mario Galaxy :/

It just seems like having a go at DC for using Superman and Batman.

This is a two-day old post, but you keep bringing the same stance up again and again, and I'd like to point out that people who go off against Nintendo aren't usually looking at the less publicized handheld titles like the Mario RPGs.

In my case, I'm not even looking at Super Mario 64 or Super Mario Sunshine, because fair enough those and Super Mario Galaxy do just enough differently to warrant being so popular. No, I'm looking at Super Mario Galaxy 2. I'm looking at New Super Mario Bros. I'm looking at Ocarina of Time 3D, at Twilight Princess (OoT with a wolf and shadow realms), at Skyward Sword (Wind Waker in the sky). I'm looking at Donkey Kong Country Returns, at Kirby's Return To Dreamland, because as fun and solid as I think those games are, there's practically nothing that distinguishes them from the games released over a decade ago in the same franchises, except that they look better now. Kirby's Epic Yarn wasn't even supposed to be a Kirby game until Nintendo stepped in, but I suppose again - fair enough that it's different.

Paper Mario, Mario Party, Mario & Luigi, Super Mario Galaxy, and New Super Mario Bros. are all different, yes. But the consequence of that is that Mario is everywhere, and considering that when people think of Mario they think "Platformer", you look at the last six Mario platformers released (independent of Galaxy because as I already said, all credit to Nintendo for that one):
Super Mario Galaxy 2
New Super Mario Bros.
New Super Mario Bros. Wii
New Super Mario Bros. 2
New Super Mario Bros. U
Super Mario 3D Land

SMG2 was basically an expansion pack for the first game. NSMB was basically Super Mario Bros. 3 in 2.5D. And the three games that have followed have been the exact same thing with slightly different power-ups each time. Every New Super Mario title has been criticized for being too much like other 2D Mario platformers, but they're not changing. Oh no, Bowser stomped into Peach's castle instead of stealing her, it still means Mario and Luigi have to trek across a plains world, a forest world, a desert world, an ice world, a water world, and a lava world/castles to rescue her. Oh, but now there's a flying squirrel suit that does the same thing the Tanooki suit did! But there's an ice flower and a fire flower!

And I'm sure that you wouldn't think it's fair for me to say that 3D Land is basically just NSMB and Super Mario 64 fused together, because obviously that should be different enough. Yeah, at least it's not NSMB, but it's still sticking pretty rigidly to the tried-and-true Mario formula, and a slightly different perspective shouldn't preclude it from being criticized as such.

 

[Olas]

Having different characters helps though. When people say "Nintendo just keeps making the same game", what I think they mean is that they keep using the same characteristics. The same Mario, the same Link, going through the same overarching ordeal as they have been for years.

Creating a new character in a new world with a new visual style can add some freshness. And depended on this new character and world, it can open up newer gameplay possibilities.

Since when did every Zelda game feature the same Link? Or the same world? Or the same visual style? Or even the same overarching plot? In fact none of the last 4 console Zelda's have had any of these things in common. You can argue that they all sorta have the same basic plot structure, if you ignore Majora's Mask, but otherwise they've all been very unique.

Really the only thing every single Zelda game has in common is Link's outfit, that and the basic premise of fighting things with a sword.

The same can be said of the Mario games, Paper-Mario is totally different than traditional Mario, which is different from the Mario and Luigi rpg games, not to mention the Luigi's mansion spinoffs which are more like Ghostbusters than Mario. Even the 3D mario platforming games have changed it up a bit. Mario Sunshine had the pump mechanism that dramatically altered gameplay, while the Galaxy games played with the concept of gravity.

The criticisms escapists throw at Nintendo are unfounded if you ask me.

 

[shrekfan246]

This is a two-day old post, but you keep bringing the same stance up again and again, and I'd like to point out that people who go off against Nintendo aren't usually looking at the less publicized handheld titles like the Mario RPGs.

In my case, I'm not even looking at Super Mario 64 or Super Mario Sunshine, because fair enough those and Super Mario Galaxy do just enough differently to warrant being so popular. No, I'm looking at Super Mario Galaxy 2.

The game widely acclaimed for being even better than its predecessor?

Cite me evidence of where critical acclaim means I can't criticize it for being essentially the same as its predecessor, even if it is better.

I'm looking at New Super Mario Bros.

A game series that's had four instalments in about 8 years, and repeatedly sold like gangbusters?

Again, cite me evidence of where sales mean I can't criticize it for not changing.

I'm looking at Ocarina of Time 3D, at Twilight Princess (OoT with a wolf and shadow realms), at Skyward Sword (Wind Waker in the sky). I'm looking at Donkey Kong Country Returns, at Kirby's Return To Dreamland, because as fun and solid as I think those games are, there's practically nothing that distinguishes them from the games released over a decade ago in the same franchises, except that they look better now.

You were using MotionPlus to control Ocarina of Time back in 1998?

Oh, you've got me there. A new control system means it's a new game.

And I'm sure that you wouldn't think it's fair for me to say that 3D Land is basically just NSMB and Super Mario 64 fused together, because obviously that should be different enough. Yeah, at least it's not NSMB, but it's still sticking pretty rigidly to the tried-and-true Mario formula, and a slightly different perspective shouldn't preclude it from being criticized as such.

Super Mario 64 had an entire second singleplayer campaign following on from the first, while making use of parallax-3D?

Right, I remember now, tertiary and optional features make a new game too.

If two people disagree and they provide reasonable evidence that supports their opinion then how do you determine that anyone is wrong? People like j-e-f-f-e-r-s have done a reasonable job of providing fact and evidence in order to support why they believe what they believe, but no one, including the people vehemently against Nintendo has really conceded on anything.

Jeffers cited Nintendo as the creators of the analog stick and then never responded when he got called out on it. Makes you wonder what other "fact and evidence" he's providing that's been completely willed into existence by his vigor to defend Nintendo. ¬_¬

I did actually. No-one has been able to link me to an example of the 360-degree analogue stick before the N64. All anyone have been able to prove is that other companies had analogue joysticks sometime before the N64. The joystick is a fundamentally different input device to the analogue thumbstick.

Again, if you can link me to evidence showing me a company using a 360 degrees analogue thumbstick as part of a gamepad before the N64, I'll concede the point. But you won't, because it didn't exist before the N64. Just let it go...

I don't care enough to debate with someone who is going to claim that the analog joystick and analog thumbstick have nothing in common, and that the addition of one to a 'standard' controller means that a company can be hailed as some grand innovator.