Why is it only Nintendo's new IPs that "don't count"?

[BrawlMan]

Options are good, but only if the games' mechanics still work well with those options.

Exactly, which is why there should be options.

There are many things that a traditional controller just wouldn't be nearly as good at as a motion-based control scheme, and if a game is designed around a motion-based control scheme, then the former is more than likely to occur..

In your opinion. Many of the games could have worked with traditional controls in addition to motion. Developers were just lazy or too coward to do it as you said.

The reason a lot of Wii motion controls were "forced" is because again, the Wii Remote's lack of buttons, so developers had to use waggle as a workaround to compensate.

We've had this discussion before on the old Espcapists site, so I will say it again: Nintendo's fault for not putting options. I don't know what else to tell you. You can defend how Nintendo handled it all you want, but it's still crap. You are not convincing me. I am aware that the Switch has gyro sensors, but once again, they're not shoved in our face like the Wii, and kept as optional. Some people use them, but most just want to play the regular way.

I do agree that games like NSMB Wii and DKCR should've supported the Classic/GameCube controller as those are arguably a better fit for these types of games.

More or less proves my point about why forcing motion controls is not a good idea. I could not even bother to complete DKCR on the Wii. Had to play it on the 3DS.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Except ARMS sold over 2 million copies though, and its getting a character in Smash Bros. soon.

Initial sales on a new IP don't mean that the IP has any staying power, neither does moving IP from one game to another existing game.


Earthbound is a popular IP that gets characters in Smash too, but Earthbound (Mother) is a dead IP still.

 

[Aiddon]

The thing is that analog controls were BY FAR objectively better than anything that came before as far as controllers are concerned.

Motion controls are still around and will be around for the rest of gaming history. You, and everyone who tried to kill them, lost. Deal with it

 

[CriticalGaming]

Motion controls are still around and will be around for the rest of gaming history. You, and everyone who tried to kill them, lost. Deal with it

I imagine motion controls are going to end up more and more a part of gaming as VR starts to get better and better.

 

[happyninja42]

I've never understood why people have to be so petty as to have a "war" about consoles or pcs at all. Seriously who gives a shit? If you don't like a particular platform, just don't buy it or it's products. What does it matter if other people enjoy stuff you don't? It's frankly completely stupid and juvenile.

 

[Hawki]

I've never understood why people have to be so petty as to have a "war" about consoles or pcs at all. Seriously who gives a shit? If you don't like a particular platform, just don't buy it or it's products. What does it matter if other people enjoy stuff you don't? It's frankly completely stupid and juvenile.

I think there's an actual psychological term for it, but basically, if you buy something, you're compelled to justify the purchase, especially if the purchase was expensive. The console wars are an extension of this, because if I get Console A rather than Console B, then I'm psychologically inclined to defend my purchase when the B types start dissing A or claiming B is better or whatnot.

 

[happyninja42]

I think there's an actual psychological term for it, but basically, if you buy something, you're compelled to justify the purchase, especially if the purchase was expensive. The console wars are an extension of this, because if I get Console A rather than Console B, then I'm psychologically inclined to defend my purchase when the B types start dissing A or claiming B is better or whatnot.

Oh I am familiar with the human behavior, I'm just saying I find it fairly dumb, and people should be aware of it and not behave like that, instead of just diving head first into further conflict over something completely meaningless.

I've just never cared what other people think on something that much. Maybe I just don't socialize with as many asshole gamers as the rest of you, but I just never really encountered large swathes of people who felt the need to attack a purchase I made when it came up in conversation. And when it did, I would just shrug and say "Well I like it." or something similar. I don't really care if Person X hates Insert Console of Your Choice that I bought. And I've never really felt the need to "defend" it. It's just a fucking product. These companies don't need us being zealous champions and crusaders for their mass produced stuff.

I'm using the plural you here, just as disclaimer.

If you are the kind of person who feels the need to criticize and belittle people for buying something you don't like, stop it, you are acting like a child.

If you are having people criticize you for buying something they don't like, ignore them. They are acting like a child. Just shrug and move on, this isn't a debate, there is no "victory", it's just a loudmouth blowhard showing their immaturity, and they aren't worth your time.

 

[sXeth]

I think there's an actual psychological term for it, but basically, if you buy something, you're compelled to justify the purchase, especially if the purchase was expensive. The console wars are an extension of this, because if I get Console A rather than Console B, then I'm psychologically inclined to defend my purchase when the B types start dissing A or claiming B is better or whatnot.

Sunk cost fallacy, if I recall correctly.


I mean, I use a Playstation because the asymettrical thumbsticks have always been awful for me, which DQ's the other two console options outright. And tend to avoid PC because Steam made having a credit card a requirement to play on PC for nearly a decade in which I couldn't get one, and since that has been an option, its been largely a poor experience of broken buggy mess after broken buggy mess as PC releases go, which only occasionally gets fixed, because its easy to redirect the cause onto your pc setup.

 

[BrawlMan]

And tend to avoid PC because Steam made having a credit card a requirement to play on PC for nearly a decade in which I couldn't get one

You can buy Steam money cards. That's what I've been using the entire time. I've only had Steam for about 2 years now.

 

[happyninja42]

Sunk cost fallacy, if I recall correctly.


I mean, I use a Playstation because the asymettrical thumbsticks have always been awful for me, which DQ's the other two console options outright. And tend to avoid PC because Steam made having a credit card a requirement to play on PC for nearly a decade in which I couldn't get one, and since that has been an option, its been largely a poor experience of broken buggy mess after broken buggy mess as PC releases go, which only occasionally gets fixed, because its easy to redirect the cause onto your pc setup.

See for me, I've pretty much been a PS and PC gamer since...I guess probably the N64 days? I think that was last nintendo console I personally owned, though I did recently get a switch for a few titles. Prior to the switch though, I just wasn't interested in the nintendo game roster, and found I enjoyed playstation's stuff more, as well as PC. I prefered the keyboard/mouse setup for a lot of games as it felt more comfortable to me, and the titles were just more my speed.

But the thing is, I was fine with nintendo existing, and other people enjoying the titles they made. It didn't float MY boat, but like with music, the fact that I prefer techno and trance, as well as rock to things like pop or rap, doesn't mean I think those genres should go die in a fire.

That's the disconnect for me personally in this "war" stuff. The transition from "I prefer/like X over Y" to "I must attack the very right to exist that Y has, because if I don't it somehow lessens my love of X." It's just....insane.

Maybe it's because I see the same behavior reflect at work, on subjects far more important than video games? *shrugs* I just find it a waste of time and it just furthers our fracturing nature of how we seem to want to constantly attack ourselves.

 

[sXeth]

You can buy Steam money cards. That's what I've been using the entire time. I've only had Steam for about 2 years now.

You can *now*.

2005-2014 or so, much less so (At least in Canada).


Kind of like Cloud/streaming gaming, the purveyors are not exactly cosniderate of the infrastructure actually being present (I didn't even mention the fact that downloading a game during 2005-2010 also would've been a matter of *days* on available internet)


As it goes, the Playstation Cards were equally slow to ever show up. It was well into PS4 before I could get them. Before that the only way up here was to buy those pre-paid Visa cards (which would cost an extra amount because the PSN would bill 1 cent to authorize it or whatever, stopping you from adding the top 5 dollars on).


I think Xbox was actually the first one to get their cards out there, in the end.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Motion controls are still around and will be around for the rest of gaming history. You, and everyone who tried to kill them, lost. Deal with it

I couldn't really care less about the fate of motion controls nor am I trying to kill them. I literally said the Wiimote worked great for stuff like Wii Bowling but it wasn't and still isn't ready for games with full 3D movement. Not even VR is ready yet for that as the most popular way for moving around the environment is teleporting around vs actually moving normally. I even said on the old forums that eSports will take over real sports when VR is like how you see it is in movies. Who wouldn't want to watch a match of Rocket League with drivers in full-on virtual cars over a Nascar race?

 

[themistermanguy]

Exactly, which is why there should be options.

If a game works well with them yes. Sometimes though, locking down control options results in a more focused, tightly designed experience. If a game is played a certain way with little options, then that would usually mean that the creators want it to be played the way it was intended to be played, for a reason.

In your opinion. Many of the games could have worked with traditional controls in addition to motion. Developers were just lazy or too coward to do it as you said.

But would they be any good though. This is why control options are locked down sometimes, to ensure the gameplay and its control scheme are as tightly integrated as possible. I mean, having a gyro steering option in Mario Kart is one thing, but Nobody is going to want to play something like Wii Sports with a standard controller.

We've had this discussion before on the old Espcapists site, so I will say it again: Nintendo's fault for not putting options. I don't know what else to tell you. You can defend how Nintendo handled it all you want, but it's still crap. You are not convincing me. I am aware that the Switch has gyro sensors, but once again, they're not shoved in our face like the Wii, and kept as optional. Some people use them, but most just want to play the regular way.

You can argue that the Wii Remote could've had a better button layout, which I may agree with. I think something similar to the GameCube's would've been better for the Wii remote, without sacrificing its simplicity, which was what Nintendo was going for with the Wii.

Initial sales on a new IP don't mean that the IP has any staying power, neither does moving IP from one game to another existing game.

That's why you grow and IP with future games and crossover content. Very few franchises become megahits overnight.

 

[BrawlMan]

But would they be any good though?

Yes. Something is better than nothing. I don't care if it's perfect or not.

 

[Yoshi]

Yes. Something is better than nothing. I don't care if it's perfect or not.

Duke Nukem Forever had normal controls. that game was terrible. :3

 

[CriticalGaming]

That's why you grow and IP with future games and crossover content. Very few franchises become megahits overnight.

I don't know what you are trying to say here. Good games get popular and become hits. Most publishers do not ignore games that have high sales success.

Two million units to Nintendo is probably dogshit and they didn't warrent any further investment in ARMS.....at least for now. Hell Splatoon got a sequel and splatoon only sold HALF what ARMS sold. Though the Wii U is probably to blame for that, and to be frank SP2 is the same exact game with a few additions.

And think about this. Breath of the Wild is a MASSIVE game, way bigger than 5 ARMS Sequels would be, and yet Breath of the Wild 2 will arrive well before the next ARMS game.

Think of this..... Mass Effect only sold 700k copies. Less than HALF what ARMS sold, and Mass Effect got 4 games out of those sales numbers. Mass effect 2 came out three years after the first one 2007-2010, with the third game coming in 2012.

ARMS has been out over three years, and the only thing that IP has to show for it is a game that's barely played and some Smash DLC.

Nintendo does not stick with anything unless they see instant mega success.

Arms took 18 months to sell that 2million copies. Meanwhile Breath of the Wild sold 18 million copies.To Nintendo, that makes ARMS a waste of time, but more than that, it makes developing new IP a waste of time because they don't NEED to. People are clearly buying more than enough of the existing properties and the characters in Nintendo's stable are so boring and generic that any game they make featuring those characters can literally be any genre of game they want to make. So why bother with a new IP?

Credit where credit is due however. Nintendo has bought new IP's out of Platinum. Since now they own Bayonetta, (not a new IP but they're making a new game in the series), Astral Chain (which is already close to ARMS in terms of sales numbers). And they struck a temporary deal to own Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3 which also is on pace to out sell arms.

Nintendo however isn't developing those IP's though. They might fund them, but those are one time deals and they don't necessarily hold the rights to that IP in it's entirety, as the same deal was struck with Capcom back in the day for a few games developed by Capcom but funded by Nintendo, only to later see those titles on other systems later on. Resident Evil 4 being the key example here.

So does Nintendo develop new IP's in-house? Yes, but they always seem to drop those IP's as soon as they come out. Thus causing people to effectively forget about them, or saying "they don't count".

They do count, they're just shit and nobody cares.

 

[themistermanguy]

I don't know what you are trying to say here. Good games get popular and become hits. Most publishers do not ignore games that have high sales success.

Two million units to Nintendo is probably dogshit and they didn't warrent any further investment in ARMS.....at least for now. Hell Splatoon got a sequel and splatoon only sold HALF what ARMS sold. Though the Wii U is probably to blame for that, and to be frank SP2 is the same exact game with a few additions.

ARMS sold better many of Nintendo's other niche series on its first try. 2.1 million is a good enough foundation to build on with future games.

ARMS has been out over three years, and the only thing that IP has to show for it is a game that's barely played and some Smash DLC.

The game's still pretty active online.

Nintendo does not stick with anything unless they see instant mega success.

Then explain why Fire Emblem and Pikmin games keep getting made? lol. You're pretty much pulling shit out of your ass with this one.

Arms took 18 months to sell that 2million copies. Meanwhile Breath of the Wild sold 18 million copies.To Nintendo, that makes ARMS a waste of time, but more than that, it makes developing new IP a waste of time because they don't NEED to. People are clearly buying more than enough of the existing properties and the characters in Nintendo's stable are so boring and generic that any game they make featuring those characters can literally be any genre of game they want to make. So why bother with a new IP?

Because developers have cool ideas that they should have the freedom to persue? It's the same reason why Gurrella made Horizon instead of another Killzone, they wanted to do something different. By this logic, nobody should make new IPs. Stupid fucking argument.

Nintendo however isn't developing those IP's though. They might fund them, but those are one time deals and they don't necessarily hold the rights to that IP in it's entirety, as the same deal was struck with Capcom back in the day for a few games developed by Capcom but funded by Nintendo, only to later see those titles on other systems later on. Resident Evil 4 being the key example here.

Nintendo is heavily involved with nearly every game they publish. Astral Chain for example, even has a Nintendo staff member, Kaori Ando as an Assistant Director.

So does Nintendo develop new IP's in-house? Yes, but they always seem to drop those IP's as soon as they come out. Thus causing people to effectively forget about them, or saying "they don't count".

Again, this is bullshit. If they drop them as soon as they come out, why did games like Nintendogs, Pikmin, Splatoon and Brain Age get sequels?

They do count, they're just shit and nobody cares.

Nobody thinks that. You just think everyone does lol.

 

[Yoshi]

ARMS sold better many of Nintendo's other niche series on its first try. 2.1 million is a good enough foundation to build on with future games.



The game's still pretty active online.



Then explain why Fire Emblem and Pikmin games keep getting made? lol. You're pretty much pulling shit out of your ass with this one.



Because developers have cool ideas that they should have the freedom to persue? It's the same reason why Gurrella made Horizon instead of another Killzone, they wanted to do something different. By this logic, nobody should make new IPs. Stupid fucking argument.



Nintendo is heavily involved with nearly every game they publish. Astral Chain for example, even has a Nintendo staff member, Kaori Ando as an Assistant Director.


Again, this is bullshit. If they drop them as soon as they come out, why did games like Nintendogs, Pikmin, Splatoon and Brain Age get sequels?


Nobody thinks that. You just think everyone does lol.

It's funny cause Bloodborne only sold about 2 million copies, pretty much the same as ARMs. And his favourite game of all time, Final Fantasy 7: one 3rd of a remake, didn't even sell much more than that at only 3.5million units

 

[Houseman]

Nobody thinks that. You just think everyone does lol.

Out of curiosity, I looked up "Billy Hatcher" which was a Nintendo game (or a Sega game on a Nintendo platform) that nobody cares about. It seems that the wikipedia article about it has been vandalized:

Upon their return to the human world, Billy is a short distance away from his friends. They get his attention by giving him sloppy toppy and he runs over to them joining their cavatappi party , thus ending the game with a schmeaty meat parade.

Now, I never actually beat the game so I don't know if that's true or not, but that really doesn't sound right.

 

[Aiddon]

-Snip-

Yeah, looking at Nintendo's history they're actually willing to have "mid-tier" franchises instead of the impractical "do either massive blockbusters or shoestring-budget projects with no in-between approach" a lot of other companies do. A lot of it has to do with the fact that they just don't waste as much as other companies. They don't engage in the "just throw money and people" philosophy which is why they also don't engage in crunch. As such, they have such a heavy war chest that no loss can really put a dent in them and it's why they can afford to branch out and experiment. It just leads to a healthier IP catalog