Hai guyz!
One thing that really urked me about Podtoid episode 93 was in the beginning when Samit defended and agreed with Nintendo of America president Reggie Fils-Aime's claim that the hardcore gamers are "truly insatiable." I suppose what bothers me most about this line of argument is that it completely misses the point of why the "hardcore" are disappointed with Nintendo. In fact, it many ways, I feel that the mere fact that Nintendo and its supporters' completely fail to understand why the "hardcore" are upset is part of that problem.
Speaking as a former Nintendo fan, I have always felt that the problem with Nintendo these days, and why I suspect that the "hardcore" are disappointed with them, is that they have completely failed to "act" as a "leader" in the games industry. By "leader," I am not speaking in terms of sales or profits because, as we know, Nintendo is undeniably the industry leader in terms of profits and sales.
In looking at what Reggie says, it seems that he feels that the hardcore want more games released out of Nintendo and that the hardcore want many of them to be either "mature" in content or a Mario or Zelda game. In my opinion, none of these reasons are correct because they ignore the fact that people were not complaining in the "glory days" of the NES, SuperNES, Game Boy, etc about any of those factors.
Amazing gameplay, graphics, and sound.
The problem with Nintendo is that their games and to some extent their products simply do not "lead" anymore. They do not inspire the type of awe or respect that they used to. When you got your first glimpse of
Super Metroid, you were blown the fuck away by what Nintendo did. Not only were gamers blown away by the game but I feel that games like this used to throw all sorts of shockwaves into the gaming industry. Now if you were making a game similar to
Super Metroid, you've got to work your ass off now to stand a chance. I wouldn't be surprised if the staff of
Castlevania: Symphony of the Night at Konami spent a great deal of time studying
Super Metroid as part of their work on what would become one of the masterpieces of the 32-bit era.
The original on top. Melee in the middle. Brawl on bottom.
In contrast today, I am generally hardpressed to see Nintendo games and products command that same type of awe and respect, even games that are supposed to be designed for the "hardcore" crowd. With all due respect to
Super Smash Bros. Brawl (which is a fine game in its own right), there used to be a time when the third installment of a Nintendo game both completely revolutionized the series while managed to pay respect and be true to its roots. Think about how
Super Mario Bros. 3,
The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, and
Super Metroid, all third installments of a series, managed to not only both innovate in all sorts of ways from its preceeding two games and also remain true to its origins. In contrast,
Super Smash Bros. Brawl is at best a minor tweak of
Super Smash Bros. Melee which in turn was at best a minor tweak of the original
Super Smash Bros..
Many people, particularly on Dtoid, went crazy when Miyamoto said that he felt that
Super Mario Galaxy and
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess were too conservative. I understand that gamers are probably scared that a more ambitious Mario or Zelda game would end up like one of the new Sonic games in terms of shittiness. Nonetheless, I cannot help but think that the vast majority of the Nintendo games that we treasure and love today, such as
Earthbound,
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time or
Super Mario Bros. 3 were created as a result of Nintendo acting in a ambitious and progressive fashion as opposed to being scared to tread off the beaten path.
As I see it, much of this lack of ambition and leadership on Nintendo's end translates to others areas of concern that the "hardcore" have had about Nintendo. A major complaint about the Nintendo Wii, for example, is the tired gimmicky Wii game controls that plague countless Wii games. Well, to be honest, how can you blame the developer? Nintendo themselves, the people who designed the Wii, just hasn't done a very good job themselves of showing the world how the Wii controls can be used in a polished and interesting fashion. Hell, most of the popular Wii games such as
Super Smash Bros. Brawl and
Mario Kart Wii are completely playable with standard controllers and in fact, every single person that I know that plays these games prefer using the GameCube controller for these games. Is it any surprise that if Nintendo doesn't seem to be able to do anything interesting with the controls that other third-party developers are probably stumped as well? The nostalgic Nintendo fanboy in me is really looking forward to the upcoming
Punch-Out for the Wii. Yet the early word and impressions of the game is that the controls are very unambitious and boring for what you would expect a boxing game with a Wiimote ought to have. Again, not surprised given Nintendo's track record with the Wiimote.
WiiWare Seal of Quality.
Another complaint: the tons of worthless throwaway games on the Wii and particularly WiiWare that are hardly to have taken any real effort to develop. Again, Nintendo themselves have released tons of throwaway shit on the Wii (such as Wii Play, Link's Crossbow Training, and Wii Music) and WiiWare (such as My Pokemon Ranch) that no one ought to be surprised that that third-parties are doing the same. Likewise many Wii developers are doing nothing but lazily porting over games from other consoles. Yet, how can you blame them when Nintendo is doing the same?
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess was essentially a port of the GameCube game. Now they are doing ports of
Pikmin and the
Metroid Prime games too.
I just can't help but think that, in the old days of the Super NES, if you wanted to develop for the system and you wanted to actually make money, you had to work your ass off in order to compete with the type of quality games and products that Nintendo was putting out. In contrast, the Nintendo of today (mainly with the Wii) has time and time again put out games and projects that are more often than not either conservative, unambitious, and/or lazy, What kind of an example is Nintendo setting for other developers by doing as they have done? When Nintendo's own games lack ambition, are lazy, and fumble on basic functionality such as online support, how can you expect better from its third-party developers? It's no surprise that, while the XBox Live was and still known for attracting all sorts of shit, the capital of the land of lazy shit games seems to be moving to WiiWare.
Earthbound: breaking the RPG mold.
Again, this is all just my own personal opinion on Nintendo. I just constantly feel that Nintendo is grossly exploiting this whole divide between "hardcore" and "casual" in order to make their own lives easier. Comments such "graphics aren't important" or "surround sound isn't important" just seem to show how far Nintendo has fallen since the days of their prime. I do believe that graphics and surround sound cannot make a shit game better than it is. However, I do know that in the glory days of Nintendo, the company claimed to and did make games that were fun, impressively-designed, and aesthetically brilliant. All the games Nintendo put out in the Super NES era weren't just great because they were fun. They were also great because they looked and sounded incredible. Even a game with minimal graphics such as
Earthbound do all sorts of amazing things with its graphical design and has arguably one of the most interesting soundtracks and use of sound in any 16-bit game. Again, let's not forget what an amazing story and departure in the typical RPG that the game was. Today, the whole "graphics aren't important" and "weee, fun waggle controls" mantra has become a way for Nintendo to deflect any complaint, legitimate or not, about the graphics of a game and attempt to hide the fact that, most often than not, even the best of their recent games are deeply unambitious.
It is this reason why I feel that the "hardcore" are not satisfied with what Nintendo has been doing. We get excited for games like
Super Smash Bros. Brawl and
Mario Kart Wii only to quickly realize that these games are the same things we have been playing on the previous console with minimal improvements. And in the meantime, in between these big releases, we get bombarded with shit game after shit game, many of which are developed by Nintendo themselves.
So yeah, Reggie, we are not insatiable. We are not expecting a Mario or Zelda game each year. We are not waiting for a violent game filled with sex and blood. We are just waiting for you to start making great games that will inspire and lead the industry as opposed to what you are doing now, which is sitting comfortably in your niche, churning out "safe" games on a factory line while counting your profits.
Tascar's blog
follow this blog
subscribe via RSS
send message
invite to meetup+play
I agree with your point, but I think Smash Bros. may not be the best example to use when arguing lack of innovation. It works, but it's also not a series that needs massive change, like some would argue about Castlevania.
Maaaaaaan. I have not played a Nintendo console since Super Nintendo.
Few things:
"In my opinion, none of these reasons are correct because they ignore the fact that people were not complaining in the "glory days" of the NES, SuperNES, Game Boy, etc about any of those factors."
Of course, no one complained back then. For most people who still game today, those machines were their FIRST consoles. There was a big consumer-base reboot after the gaming crash. Consoles were marketed as TOYS and people understood that it was chiefly a CHILDREN'S pastime. That crowd grew up and stuck with gaming, ao other companies like Sony and Microsoft focused chiefly on those aging consumers. Meanwhile, Nintendo kept on their family-friendly track rather that dedicate the majority of their resources to the aging crowd. Those gamers would get a bone now and then, but because Nintendo has typically stuck by their guns, it would appear on the surface level that they haven't grown much.
On the issue of "Nintendo leading the charge," why? Why is it up to Nintendo to "show the way"? Nintendo is not some untouchable company and Miyamoto is not some god who can walk the earth and have marigolds sprout in his treads. What kind of message is being sent that Nintendo has to lead by example all the time? That's certainly not how it works with Microsoft and Sony. That's one of the worst excuses for why there aren't many exceptional efforts from third parties on the Wii. There are some valid ones, true, but that isn't one of them.
Finally:
"Again, Nintendo themselves have released tons of throwaway shit on the Wii (such as Wii Play, Link's Crossbow Training, and Wii Music) and WiiWare (such as My Pokemon Ranch) that no one ought to be surprised that that third-parties are doing the same."
I do not doubt that Nintendo has churned out a few stinkers, but I wouldn't be so quick to label all of them as throwaways. Take Wii Music, a game that has been in development since the Wii was originally announced. We all remember Conductor Miyamoto on stage years ago. There was a lot of time and money invested on that project. Just because a game has a big budget and a larger-than-average dev cycle doesn't mean it can't still bite the big one. In fact, every game in the Wii ____ has had tons of time and money invested into them (with the exception of Wii Chess with was only released in one region and not even developed by Nintendo). There are plenty of roundtable discussions with Iwata and crew (Google "Iwata Asks") that discusses all the stages of their major titles' developments that proves this.
The only "safe" games that Nintendo are pumping out are their headliners like Mario and Zelda because enthusiast gamers, ironically, tend to gravitate towards the safe and familiar. It's an industry-wide issue that isn't exclusive to Nintendo. That's why the most creative games in the pipeline are small, niche, quirky, and/or cheap. The bigger the game, the less likely you will see anything new or fresh.
I don't have much to say on this subject regarding Nintendo that isn't completely opinionated, but I feel like Brawl sucks ass compared to Melee or Smash Brothers for their time periods.
Melee was just so easy to pick up AND was still deep under the surface. Brawl was just made with 100% mass appeal in mind. The fact that all tourneys are still Melee sucks.
One thing I will contend:
Nintendo is churning out remakes based off their IPs instead of innovating with new ones.
Punch Out!! It took long enough! But even then, apparently it's reported to be more of an NES remake than a Super Punch Out!! sequel.
No Kid Icarus Wii? Why.
No Earthbound/Mother support. Thanks Nintendo.
Donkey Konga instead of a successor to Donkey Kong 64 (Nintendo style, sans Rare).
Wario-Ware after Wario-Ware game instead of more titles like Shake it.
What about Star Tropics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarTropics
I mean, Star Tropics is just 1 of 1,000 potential untapped new IPs they could make. Instead, we'll see 6 more Mario based games before an original title.
What kind of new IP would you think Nintendo could make? Just spitball some ideas, here. Given Nintendo's style and attitudes, what kind of game do you think they'd position as their next big franchise?
I think a lot of people forget that Nintendo is a business.
They will develop in whatever way that provides the most profit, if that means developing more casual friendly games then so be it.
I find it funny how "hardcore" gamers feel they are entitled to speak out against Nintendo's business decisions.
If you don't like the direction Nintendo is going then vote with your dollars, it is as simple as that.
@Megastryke
Very aggressive there! I mis-spoke; I mean to say "actual new approaches to their IPS". (IE: Not Mario Party 1-when will they stop?)
Although being sarcastic about the world's largest game company finding it "hard" to come up with a new IP is kind of odd. It's easily possible when hundreds of other companies "who aren't doing it right" come up with successful IPs every year.
@Megastryke
First of all, I highly disagree with your interpretation of the past. Yes, for a particular generation, a Nintendo system was likely to be their first console. However I think you give gamers (children including) way too little credit if you are suggesting that they didn't know any better, especially given the tons of other systems that kept coming out and the fact that this was a time period where there were many popular and well-designed games that were arcade only. I am always confused when people defend Nintendo by implying that "mature" or "aging" gamers "left" Nintendo. Nintendo has always had games, whether first-party or third-party that were "mature." "Contra" is hardly a "kid's" game. "The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past" has at least two murders. "Earthbound" has alot of mature themes.
I am always confused when people claim that Nintendo has always been about "family-friendly games." That just simply is not true. Nintendo has been about "gaming" period in the past. To me, "family-friendly gaming" and "mature gaming" did not exist as two separate and opposite concepts until the end of the 16-bit era going into the 32/64-bit era. If you think about what Nintendo did at the end of the 16-bit console: censoring "Mortal Kombat" and insisting on a cartridge-based system, Nintendo basically sent the message that any game developer that was interested a games that needed violent content and needed more than a cartridge ought to go somewhere else. It is not surprising that many of the games that we now call "mature," games that rely on story, voice-acting, cut scenes, graphical power, etc, disappeared off of a Nintendo system and went elsewhere.
To me, Nintendo might not have been about making "mature" games. But I think that they certainly recognized that "mature" games was a large part of why they were successful back in the day. But if you are Nintendo, and you just lost a huge amount of titles and developers to Sony and Sega, are you going to publicly admit that you lost some good game franchises and that your system's games sound (and in many ways look) worse than the opposition or are you going to try to get PR to make the situation look good? To me, this is where Nintendo really went off the rails: when it began to pigeon-hole itself by tossing around all sorts of PR ideological shit about how graphics, audio, voice acting, etc were all bullshit and how their view of gaming was better than the opposition. Compare that to what Nintendo did when they were competing against the Sega Genesis where Nintendo's counter was simple: they had the better games period.
Second, with respect to your point about wanting Nintendo to lead the charge, please go to the bottom of my comment. I'll address your point along with Sylphx's.
Third, I don't feel that you can rightfully claim that "Wii Music" was seriously given as much resources, attention, and polish as say "Super Mario Galaxy" as the entire game in every way just strikes me as unpolished and fairly lazy. I do know that Miyamoto did say that he thought of the idea of "Wii Music" at the very beginning of Wii development. However, let's not forget that Miyamoto also claimed that the idea of Yoshi and riding on a dinosaur was an original concept for the original "Super Mario Bros." but I think that you would agree that it would be silly to then say that the start of "Super Mario World's" development cycle is the same as the start of the original "Super Mario Bros."
Finally, with respect to IPs, I feel that when Nintendo has introduced an IP and made a serious push of that IP, they have almost always been successful. Star Fox was a completely new IP in the mid-1990s. Pokemon did not exist until the late 1990s. Pikmin has been an extremely successful franchise that, honestly, I would have expected to be. Isn't Animal Crossing successful too? I guess you might say that Earthbound was a failure but again, I think that Nintendo's marketing of that could have been better. Likewise, I'd say that the fact that Earthbound and Mother have such a huge following is testament to the fact that Nintendo can be successful with new IPs if they actually choose to do it. Honestly, if I could come up with new IPs, I certainly wouldn't be here typing. :)
@Sylphx and Megastryke both
Megastryke, you talked about how I was being unfair in that I wanted Nintendo to lead the charge. However, I really have to ask you. Why do you think that I am even posting this post? The fact is, while I do love and appreciate much of what Sony and Microsoft has done for video gaming, the two companies have nothing on what Nintendo has contributed during its time in the light. It is arguably true that Nintendo has done more than any single company in the history of video games for the advancement of video games and the fact is, Nintendo knows it and talks about it all the time. Hell, the entire "Super Smash Bros." series is pretty much a playable museum and monument to their accomplishments.
There is a reason why the "hardcore" is angry at Nintendo and it is because, due to what Nintendo has done in the past and the fact that Nintendo likes to remind us all the time of its role in video games, we expect more of them. This is the same reason there are tons of people who are upset with what Disney did with its animation but very little people that care about what Dreamworks has done with its animation: Disney has contributed significantly to animation and likes to remind us so and in contrast Dreamworks has really done nothing in comparison.
I understand what Sylphx is saying about profits and being a business first. However, again, looking at a company like Disney which I think very well parallels Nintendo, I worry about their long-term future. Nintendo and Disney are both companies who made a shit load of money aspiring to make quality products. As Disney started becoming very super successful in the 1990s, they began to squander that quality and brand name in order to make more money. Shit sequels like "The Return of Jafar" or "Pocahontas II: Journey to a New World" would come out time and time again because, as Disney felt at the time, the kids would be too stupid to understand the difference between shit and quality. The thing is, as many have figured out, once you start making shit, that can come to bite you in the ass and that's exactly what happened to Disney once they had made so much shit that the Disney brand didn't mean anything anymore. And believe it or not, there were many people supporting what Disney was doing at the time too, just as you are doing. It's the same argument: what right do you have to question Disney's business decisions? If you don't like it just don't buy it.
Right now, Nintendo feels like they are going down that same path. Yes, I understand that a company needs to make money. However, I do worry that you can only go so far with the "profits only mantra" before you go crashing down. Regardless of how we feel about the financial benefits of making casual-friendly games, I don't think that anyone is denying that few of these casual-friendly games are actually good and likely to stand the test of time. Likewise, I don't think most people can disagree that much of Nintendo's success now is due to them cashing in on the goodwill and quality associated with their past. I just worry that, as with Disney, there is a limit on that reservoir and that it is drying up fast.
If it end's up being the wrong decision, they will learn their lesson.
It may very well be, but who knows in the long run.
There's no question Nintendo at this moment will be the most successful video game medium for a long, long time. They're making all the right moves if you're looking at it purely from a business standpoint.
My only qualm is the quality of their sequels/spinoffs/lack of innovation.
Disclaimer: I love the Wii and the DS.
Wow, that was a whole 'nother blog in and of itself. Forgive me if I only address a few areas because I jumped around the response a bit.
"I am always confused when people claim that Nintendo has always been about 'family-friendly games.' That just simply is not true."
Fact. When Nintendo was planning the launch of the Nintendo Entertainment System in the United States, retailers originally wanted to hear none of it because the time of home consoles, they thought, was finished. Nintendo bundled R.O.B. with the machine and positioned the package as a toy rather than an electronic entertainment center like past consoles.
Fact. Nintendo's content guidelines required to be met prior to distribution were, among other things, meant to curb the kind of questionable content that parents found inappropriate in earlier games.
With facts like those, it's not hard to see why anyone would think Nintendo is "kiddy." True, they try to be more open for everyone, but that's what it means to be family-friendly. You brought up Disney, there's a good example. Disney makes nothing but family-friendly films and TV shows. What's the most extreme thing they've done? Probably the Pirates of the Caribbean films, and those were bloodless affairs with very little foul language. Just because something appeals to kids doesn't mean adults can't enjoy it. On the flip-side, just because something is a little more skewed towards an older set, like Pirates, doesn't mean it is 100% not suitable for a slightly younger crowd.
So, stuff like Castlevania and Contra. You can argue whether they were "made for kids" but they were safe enough for kids to enjoy.
Next:
"I don't feel that you can rightfully claim that 'Wii Music' was seriously given as much resources, attention, and polish as say 'Super Mario Galaxy' as the entire game in every way just strikes me as unpolished and fairly lazy."
I didn't say Wii Music cost more than Galaxy, but it certainly wasn't made for peanuts. It was one of their major holiday titles and it has been in development for some years. Even if the tech itself was rather low-key, there was a lot of thought given to how it would look and play. It's definitely unlike any other game, whether that's good or bad. It doesn't matter what you "feel." Go look up the stuff on Google. It's all there.
What separates Yoshi from Wii Music is that the idea for Yoshi was never further developed until World whereas we have physically seen demos of Wii Music at E3s each year since the Wii was unveiled.
Now, IPs:
Nintendo is not shy about exploring new IPs, its just that they tend to be smaller affairs lately because even for the "mighty" Nintendo, a brand new break-out hit is hard to make. There was Disaster and Captain Rainbow that never came to the States, but given the poor sales of both in Japan as well as the poor sales of the former in the UK, do you really think it would have made a difference here? It would be more of a waste of money and time to release them here if few people will buy.
But the gamers want "hardcore, triple-A, expensive new IPs." Not "casual" IPs. Not "hardcore but inexpensive" IPs. For what this crowd is asking, a new IP like that isn't just going to pop up out of the blue. Not anymore. Today's Nintendo isn't going to experiment with something that isn't going to guarantee them success. A more traditional title would have to be out of this world to really be worth Nintendo's time. They aren't about to create some mammoth new IP only to see it flop. That's why they have been testing waters with smaller scale stuff like Disaster.
Plus, they aren't going to create a new IP that shares too much in common with another of their properties. They aren't going to create a new character who does the same kind of platforming that Mario does. They aren't going to make a new action-adventure since they already have Zelda for that. If you get a new IP, it'll be a NEW IP.
What about games like Nintendogs and Brain Age? Do they not count as new IPs because they aren't traditional? What about Rhythm Heaven which is finally coming to our shores? It is a sequel, yes, but it's new to everyone outside of Japan. Does that count as "new" even though it's really a "casual" game?
Awesome read. I could not agree more. FRONT PAGE NAO!
Megatryke, it's ok. This exchange is quite fun and a good discussion for me. I have to note that in retrospect, trading these Disney comparisons back and forth, it is quite amusing how similar both of these two companies are. No one the two most recognized fictional characters constantly oscillate between Mario and Mickey Mouse.
I agree with you in that in the U.S., the NES was marketed heavily as a toy and for kids. Nonetheless, in Japan, I think that it is obvious that the system and games were designed for everyone. While I agree that in the U.S., things were instituted to keep everything family friendly, I think that we need to differentiate between something that is made family-friendly versus something that is specifically directed towards a family.
Let's use the example you gave with "Pirates of the Caribbean." To me, "Pirates of the Caribbean" and the vast majority of the greatest of Disney's works such as "The Lion King" and "Fantasia" balanced a quality movie which took much effort and work with content considerations to be able to be viewed by a wide audience. They are not disturbing and graphic enough (though many of their films come very close) to keep away kids but they are intelligent enough to appeal to adults. When I think of Nintendo's greatest games, that is what I see: quality games designed for everyone.
To me, the Disney equivalent of what Nintendo is doing now with the casual crowd is "High School Musical." It is a mediocre at best film series that is cheaply and quickly made and specifically because Disney knows that all to need to appeal to kids (and to get their parents to buy the DVD) is a little bit of Zac Efron dancing and singing in front of a cheap set. Another example are those cheap direct-to-video Disney sequels. They are badly made because Disney knows that they don't need to put in that much effort to make a buck.
I do agree that due to the restrictions in the U.S., Nintendo games were largely stripped of mature content. But again, I don't think that these were games that were designed for families in terms of difficulty, accessibility, etc. I mean, I don't think you can look at the latter stages of even a simple game like "Super Mario Bros" and honestly say that this was designed with a family in mind as its target audience. This is in contrast with games like "WiiPlay" and "WiiMusic" that are specifically designed for that audience.
With respect to WiiMusic, I think that this is a case where we will just have to agree to disagree with each other.
With respect to the IP issue. I feel that often Nintendo creates a self-fulfilling prophecy when they don't support an IP, end up releasing it here half-assed, and then end up failing. I'm going to be honest. I honestly think that Pikmin is about the stupidest idea I have ever seen. I completely fail to find Olimar or the pikmin that interesting. Yet Pikmin succeeded. Nintendo aggressively pushed that property in the U.S. and it paid off.
I am not that familiar with "Captain Rainbow" but the project gives me a Katamari type of vibe and, just as Katamari did well here, I just can't imagine that Nintendo, if they honestly tried to push it, couldn't succeed. I suppose that would be my answer with respect to Rhythm Heaven. It's an awesome-looking game (and series) that Nintendo really seemed to sit on for a long long time and are only releasing now. Frankly, I am not sure Rhythm Heaven will do well in the U.S. but if that is the case, I think is would be because I don't see Nintendo pushing this title that hard.
I actually don't mind "Nintendogs" and "Brain Age" that much. But again, I think that goes to my point. Nintendo knows that they need to create new IPs to target casual gamers and that's exactly what they did with Nintendogs and Brain Age. I just wish that they would realize that you can do the same with "hardcore" players too.
Nintendo doesn't listen because the complaints are drowned out by all the money they make.
Good read though :)
I just wish that they would realize that you can do the same with "hardcore" players too.
Pretty much sums up what I'm thinking too. Nintendo is making great DS titles like Brain Age, but that only peaks part of my interest.
It was fun reading 5 blogs in one! I don't think I care enough about Nintendo anymore to write that much.
I agree , but I want to add another thing , Nintendo seens to think that being hardcore is playing bloody games , they don't realize that Nintendo's core just want some 2D ...
Topsauce here you come :)
@Tascar
Let's talk Disney some more!
DisneyToon Studios, the crew responsible for all those crappy sequels to classic Disney films, is no more. John Lasseter put his foot down on that nonsense. Tinker Bell was their last film. It's back to original films and the occasional spin-off.
Now, High School Musical and Hanna Montana and stuff like that doesn't bother me because I know Pixar is going to crank out a new winner each year. There is that The Princess and the Frog film coming out this year that heralds the return of traditional animation in Disney films (if it does well, we'll see more like it in the future). That's how I see Nintendo. They have stuff that will appeal to one group, then their traditional stuff that will appeal to everyone in addition to the long-time fans.
The difficulty of NES-era games had less to do with appealing to a "hardcore" crowd and more to do with artificially extending the life of the product. Games were designed with this arcade mentality that goes, "We gotta suck as many quarters as we can from these guys." That meant few lives and fewer if any continues, stupid enemy placement, blind jumps, stuff like that. Games, ALL games, today are tame by comparison. Everything has save files, lives have been done away with. That's not a Nintendo problem. Games today can't get away with the same sadistic concepts prevalent in yesteryears.
Back to the IPs, Nintendo has had many new IP releases in the past few years, it's just that the ones that you'd consider "traditional" are overlooked even by the enthusiast crowd. Nintendo hasn't pushed some of these games as hard as the enthusiast crowd would prefer because if they are going to go big they will go BIG. That means they have to come up with something that is pure dynamite.
It's really been easier for them to expand with new IPs in the the non-traditional space simply because it is unknown territory. The landscape for the kinds of games enjoyed today was BARREN when the NES came out, so it was easier for an IP to capture mind share. Likewise, the kinds of entry-level games that are now big on the DS and Wii were almost unheard of in the past. No one really made these kinds of games, at least not with the thought that they could be as big as the traditional games.
Okay, it's 3AM where I'm at, but I've read the blog, and skimmed the comments, so I apologize if I repeat anything that's been said previously, but here we go . . .
As it has been stated, Nintendo is probably the most important company in terms of innovations and groundbreaking new stuff. Game cartridges with batteries to save, rumble in a controller, motion sensing, etc. Using games like Ocarina of Time and Super Metroid and such as examples. Yes, those games broke tremendous new ground, and were original, and were for "hardcore" gamers. Now with the current generation, primarily speaking of the Wii, we don't get that kind of stuff, and that as SYLPHX previously stated, is due to business.
A company that's openly traded's NUMBER ONE objective in their business plan is to make profit for shareholders. That is the number one objective for ANY company with shareholders. In today's climate, you have to appeal to EVERYONE in order to manage that. Note how a LOT of games are no longer exclusives and are crossing over, ie. Devil May Cry, Final Fantasy, etc. Nintendo, while it has been changing and has for the most part ignored their "hardcore" demographic, which got it to where it is today, is running a business as said.
Which brings me to my next point. I personally would KILL to have a new Earthbound game, or something fresh and new and original like a Kid Icarus, or even a Donkey Kong game that isn't an offshoot, but will I see these in the near future? NO! Have I come to live with this? YES! Am I happy about this? NO! Do I understand why this is happening? YES! Let's face it, pretty much EVERYONE loved Ocarina of Time, therefore Twilight Princess was honestly OoT 2.0 in reality. Did it piss off quite a large number of "hardcore" Nintendo supporters? YES! Did we all pretty much end up buying it? YES! But why? It's because it's a cookie cutter game that we all know we enjoyed on a previous system, and that Nintendo knows will appeal to the masses and therefore will sell. Just like how it's very true if you look at the Super Smash Bros. series, nothing has really actually changed from the original on N64. A few new modes, trophies, and updated graphics. Aside from that, there was NOTHING that made major changes from let's say Super Mario World to Super Mario 64.
A reason why all us "hardcore" guys are pissed, is because we've been spoilt. We all want the "newest," "best," "groundbreaking" thing to come out. The issue is, it doesn't happen like that any more. Another example, the Halo (I'll refrain from calling it Gaylo for now) series. The first one was great! Good story, great gameplay, good multiplayer. As the 2nd and 3rd ones were released, I just couldn't really find it bareable. Why? Because it was LITERALLY the original Halo, with a 2 and 3 slapped onto it. Nothing new or groundbreaking, but yet they both sold like crazy. Why? Because it appealed to the masses.
The margin of error and such nowadays is extremely small. Unless you're massively setup and have great backing, the ability to take risks nowadays is extremely hard to do. Take a beloved game of mine, Beyond Good & Evil for example. If it wasn't developed by a big company like Ubisoft and all, the game would've never been made, or the company that made it would've probably gone under from poor sales. But look at it! It's a PHENOMENAL game, yet did not sell well, and was a big gamble. Now, while Nintendo can easily take a chance with new games and such, I find that they're quite content not taking any big risks, and just continuing their current trend of appealing to the masses and boosting their profits. It's so far proven to be a winning formula, so there's really nothing to change. Is it lame for gamers like us? Hells yeah! But how many of you own pretty much the N64 Zeldas and onward? What about the Metroid Prime trilogy? Every single Mario Kart? Money talks, and that's the main point right now for Nintendo. I feel I may have gone off tangent or ranted a bit and all, but this is a topic I would like to discuss CIVILLY! But as said before, until the money stops flowing, be prepared to continue seeing Super Mario 64 4th version, and Ocarina of Time Wii x 2, or Mario Kart with Airplanes and such.
Awesome post... I'm still a Nintendo kid, cause I grew up on their stuff and can't kick the habit. But luckily I only have to drop coin once or twice a year because the bigN has such a shitty release schedule.
Epic Wall of Discussion!
I'm gonna have to read this later, but kudos for going at it
Does anybody remember what Nintendo's stance has been all along? When they first came out with the concept for the Wii, they explained their sacrifice of graphics and online play by claiming to be revolutionary, or a 'leader' as you would put it, you can't concern yourselves with what people *think* they want. Going in, the only thing that the gaming community was clamoring for as a whole was better graphics and more online play. Nintendo said nuts to satisfying the needs people *think* they have, we're going to give them something they've never seen before and they'll like it.
It worked, for awhile. The problem that I, personally, have with Nintendo is embedded in Fils-amie's comment, and it ties directly back to the attitude they've taken with the Wii from the get go. This basically reads as "You fanboys don't really know what you want, and you're impossible to please anyway, so we're going to do our own thing and you'll just have to learn to like it". So far, it's doing fine for them. Their gimmicky games and controls are selling systems to people who normally could care less about video games. That's fine, but eventually their 'fad' will wear thin, and the casual crowd will move on to the next hip thing. In the end, fanboys and hardcores will be the only ones left to save Nintendo. Hopefully there will be enough of them left to make it happen.
This is the problem that Nintendo's having: They don't even know what a hardcore gamer is.
Remember when Nintendo said that five hours a week is hardcore? http://kotaku.com/5010227/nintendo-wii-gamers-are-hardcore-gamers
Remember when Reggie said, "Why should hardcore gamers feel left out? They're getting Animal Crossing for Wii and GTA on DS?"
How are they suppose to please a demographic that they know nothing about?
But Reggie is exactly right Kavorka.
Dude, this is totally unfounded. I remember the N64 and GC days, and they were the same thing. Nintendo is surely working on games for the core gamer, and you will see them eventually.
All these "safe" games? They're quick to develop, well made, and they make money. Money that allows them to take their sweet time on the real games, the Marios and Zeldas of the world.
I don't use my Wii at all right now, but I know the day will come when Nintendo releases something spectacular that you can only get from them. I'll be waiting for that day.
Get over it.
@Megastryke, I agree with what you are saying about Disney. But let us not forget that this was not the first time Disney was in the dumps. If anything, the 1970s to 1980s were pretty damaging to Disney as its status and relevance started eroding away slowly. That was where I saw Nintendo with the N64 going to the GC at: they were doing well but they were losing their status slowly and surely. I see the Wii as comparable to what happened with Disney when it really came back again in the late 1980s and 1990s with its animated film renassiance. Once Disney really made it big in the 1990s they started to take quality and their brand name for granted. Before, you had to be a really good animated film to get the Disney name. Now every shit sequel had the Disney name. In other words, Disney saw a quick and easy venue for making money and milked it until they have completely lost whatever respect they might have once had.
This is where I see Nintendo right now. They made it big again with the Wii and now that they have seen how large and huge the casual market is as well as how relatively simple it is to appeal to that crowd, that has become their new focus. I just worry that, as with Disney, it's going to end up blowing up in their face at some point.
I agree with you that Disney has now reorganized itself to distinctly address most of its audience. We as an audience know that they have their one division that targets kids (i.e. High School Musical). They have their Pixar division that makes CGI animated films of a certain quality that we expect. The same with their traditional animated film studio. In other words, I think that Disney now understands all of its audience and is trying to tailor their offerings to each group.
In contrast, while I agree that Nintendo claims to understand the difference between what casual players and hardcore players want, statements like the ones that come out of Reggie's mouth just make me question whether or not he and Nintendo truly understand what the "hardcore" is asking for. Notdryad in the comments nailed it on the wall: Nintendo thinks it knows what the hardcore is. But they really don't. It almost reminds me of that phase in the early 2000s when every Western animated studio was trying to jump on the anime bandwagon but they completely failed because when they looked at anime, the only thing they saw was the ultraviolence and tentacle sex and therefore failed completely to understand why people liked anime.
@Funktastic, I agree with you in that a publicly traded company has its shareholders as its primary responsibility. My disagreement with you however, is that I feel that there is a way to please your shareholders as well as do the things that we as a more hardcore gamer want. One way of reducing your risk is to diversify and Nintendo could easily, especially given the profits they make on hardware and their casual games, occasionally fund and support something new or different. Consider all these times that we have been arguing about whether or not we ought to look past a few flaws if the game innovates or does something new. I don't recall any of those discussions centering around a Nintendo game or product. The fact is, Nintendo simply really hasn't take a risk for the hardcore audience and I don't understand why that is.
Again, I do see what you mean about all three Halos being essentially the same game. However, again, in the history books of video games, do you feel that Bungie or Halo will ever be viewed in the type of way that Mario or Zelda or Nintendo will? I feel like we do excuse Halo because frankly, we don't expect Bungie to be THAT great. On the other hand, Nintendo, the single most important contribtor to modern video game history, does have that type of baggage, regardless of what we feel that is right or wrong. I probably shouldn't talk too much about Twilight Princess but I will briefly say that I suppose that my disappointment with it was that there literally was not any change and that certain changes that were made just didn't work as well as I would have liked. Yes, control-wise Twilight Princess, The Wind Waker, and Ocarina of Time are essentially the same game. Still, I felt that Wind Waker really took the controls and did something different with it. The way the game played, the way the game was structured, the way storytelling was done, just felt different and fresh to me. Then I played Twilight Princess and it just seemed like a less-appealing copy of Ocarina of Time with a story and storytelling that just seemed a bit awkward. And I will admit that my experience with wolf Link was soured by the fact that Okami did it better. Ok. Tangent over.
One of many ways Nintendo could easily gain a huge amount of support from the hardcore is simply to make a big announcement to release Mother 1 and 2 on the Virtual Console. As many may know, Mother 1 was already translated years ago by Nintendo for an anticipated launch that never occured. It would be very easy to replace or alter the offending parts of the soundtrack of Mother 2 (Earthbound) that are currently under legal dispute. As for Mother 3, it's a years old game that just simply requires a translation. Hell, I can't even imagine it being that expensive for Nintendo to just license or purchase the fan translation. Something like what I just laid out would really be quite a minimal cost, especially in comparison to going out and developing from scratch another game. Even if sales are moderate, I cannot imagine that Nintendo couldn't make money off of this idea, especially since the Super Smash Bros series has introduced many people to and kept alive the Mother (Earthbound) IP.
Again, I understand exactly what you mean when you are saying that a company needs to make profits. However, as I see it, there are simply tons of easy, relatively cheap ways to please the hardcore audience and Nintendo does not seem to have even entertained most of those possibilities. Hell, in the next E3, just get Miyamoto on stage for an hour and have him talk about level design for Mario games and maybe briefly talk about some ideas that never happened or ideas he is juggling around. Even something as simple as that would result in the hardcore going crazy with excitement. I just don't feel like Nintendo has really given anymore than casual lip-service to the hardcore. And again, as Notdryad points out and I agree with, Nintendo probably doesn't even really know what the hardcore is.
One last thing to Funktastic because I think in the latter half of your comment, you hit on something that I think Nintendo really screwed up on: their third-party support. When I see the NES and SuperNES, what I see are systems that were designed for what Nintendo and Miyamoto wants to do as well as what developers want in a system. When Nintendo releases a system like the N64 without a CD-ROM and every other developer really wants a CD-ROM, then you've lost your developers. The same goes with Nintendo Wii. When you make a system which is relatively underpowered compared to the competition, is pitched largely on the concept of a unique control system, and don't have strong online support, disk storage, HD, etc and your developers like that, you scare away your developers. Yes, Nintendo has increasingly done a good job of convincing XBox360/Ps3 developers to also have a presence on the Wii. If the Wii was at least as powerful as the XBox 360, was at least comparable to the Ps3 in terms of online support, and positioned the Wiimote as a complement instead of a replacement for a standard type of controller, I feel that "hardcore" games such as Final Fantasy XII, Metal Gear Solid 4, Resident Evil 5, Street Fighter IV, etc, would have easily found themselves on this hypothetical Wii and pleased the hardcore enough to free Nintendo to do their own thing. Hell, that's exactly what Nintendo did in the NES and SuperNES era. As fondly as we look at Nintendo's work during that time, it's undesputable that third-party developers like Capcom, Konami, Square, etc all contributed to that legacy. So yeah, I agree that Nintendo has in some way created their own problem of not appealing to the hardcore by driving away those who could have filled that void.
I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said and I love you for it. Very well thought out and written. Solid all around.
@EDS: His point is that games like that should already have been released. It's been what, three years? Nintendo needs to buck up and bring on the quality.
Tascar, check your PM box.
Wow. I think this is the largest wall of text I've ever read on here.
I agree that Nintendo have lost their way, but I think this largely began when their hierarchy, played musical chairs and switched around a few years ago. This should have been for the better, but besides the Wii and DS, their games have suffered greatly, from the vast variety they used to create.
My SNES was my first consoles, and I remember the Nintendo games being much better back then. Right now on Wii, the variety is cut right down. All I see most of the time is rehashed or easy to create IP, and no real chances being taken by them. The thing is, Nintendo are in a very unique Acti-Blizzard like position, where their games are well known, fun and will most likely sell. I do think that the GC's demise was an important warning shot across their face, that they might not always sell, though.
I fondly remember Pilotwings, Vortex, Mach Rider, all we get now is just total bilge remakes and stuff. Nintendo's selective hearing is their worst trate, along with their complacent nature. They forget too easily, it was almost over for them, in the face of PS3 and 360. However, the recent SD card update shows signs they are unplugging their ears.
To fix this problem, Nintendo need to put their thinking hats on, and create some fresh IP, that would appease the hardcore crowd. I'm sure if they announced five fresh or under used IP tomorrow, we'd be pleased as punch. Thing is, I don't see any passion from what they are doing.
Games on the way that are showing some change, are Rock n' Roll Climbing (obviously a modern take on Ice Climbers, correct if wrong). Excitebots isn't fooling me, because all I can see is that its a masked remake of Stunt Race FX. Is this all you have Nintendo?
The other clear thing Nintendo must bare in mind, when creating future consoles is approaching developers with potential specs, and question them, as to what they want from a console. Building a console to suit Nintendo and their games alone, is not smart at all. Their failure to do this will always hurt them. I really play Nintendo wake up, because since I purchased a 360, I haven't missed their games that much. Never thought it would happen, but its up to Nintendo to persuade me back. Beyond my DS, it's not happening.
Don't be scared to voice your opinions, fans. It's all we have if we want Nintendo to listen and positive change.
A very good post, Tascar.
Rock N' Roll Climber has nothing to do with Ice Climber and Excitebots is a sequel to Excite Truck.
Why does Nintendo have to focus so much attention on the "hardcore" crowd? Why? That isn't going to help them. I have yet to see a good explanation as to why they need to appease the "hardcore." The "what happens when the new casual crowd moves on to the next fad" excuse holds no water because it relies totally on gut feeling as opposed to any real outlook of the industry.
First of all, MEGASTRYKE is completely correct in his questioning of why does Nintendo supposedly have to focus so much on the "hardcore" crowd? I believe many think like this, because "we" got them to where they are today, and they "owe" it to us, which in "theory" they do, but not at all at the same time. As for the "casual" crowd "moving on," I think many people forget they already have an installed user base and don't particularly have to worry too much if the Wii magically just stops selling right now and all.
Back to you now TASCAR. Oh, there is most definitely a way of pleasing the shareholders and make games/do things that "hardcore" gamers want. It's a matter of time and effort and all, and whether or not they want to invest in those things, which is pretty evident, not at the moment. Is it easy for them at the moment to diversify and such? You're damn right it is. They did it on the Gamecube and all with things like Pikmin, and Gamecube wasn't particularly "successful" per se, yet they don't do it on the tremendously successful Wii. I'm going back to my point that Nintendo for the most part has become "lazy." They just re-released Pikmin and Mario Power Tennis for Wii, with Wii controls. Could they have easily made a new entry to both of those series for the Wii? Absolutely! Why didn't they? Because they've come into that lull where they can just keep re-releasing/updating (Punch-Out!!, etc.) games and we'll still gobble them up. Once again, they have absolute zero need to take a risk for the "hardcore" audience, and while you can argue "well then, they should totally do it since it can't hurt them that badly," you could also say, they have no need to make any changes, and just be "lazy" and keep raking in the dough.
I really want to say FUCK NO to having Bungie and Halo in the histroy book of video games and all, not necessarily in the same class of Mario or Zelda, but my gut feeling says that they'll be considered "high enough" to be close enough to be mentioned in the same breath of those two series, solely due to massive fanboyism. Wind Waker used the same controls as Ocarina of Time, but changed it up with the graphic style and how there's so much focus on water and traveling by boat, etc. And yes, you totally hit the nail on the head in regards to my theory of why a lot of people "didn't like" Twilight Princess. It went back to Ocarina of Time style in almost every way, aside from Wolf Link, which was a cool and interesting twist, didn't play out as too overly different/unique. As for Okami, I consider that game to essentially be the Ocarina of Time for PS2.
Ah, back to Mother/Earthbound. Will the games' release on Virtual Console sell? Yes. Is it a lot of effort for Nintendo to do? Not really. Does Nintendo really have to do this to appease "hardcore" gamers? Nope. Will they sell as well as a lot of the other games on Virtual Console? Not a chance. Why? Cause the masses once again, have no idea what the flying fuck Mother/Earthbound is. And sounding like a broken record, that's what Nintendo is focusing on.
Nintendo simply DOES NOT NEED to entertain these "easy to implement" ideas and such, and that's why we're being starved of "hardcore" titles. As for how NOTDRYAD pointed out how Nintendo probably doens't even really know what "hardcore" is, on one hand I can see that argument, but on the other, I still believe they know damn sure what it is, but have discovered they no longer need to cater to such a "demanding" and "hard to satisfy" group of gamers, due to their success.
Third-party support on Nintendo consoles is hilarious. I absolutely freaking agree with what you said about how Nintendo designs consoles for themselves. Granted, cartridge was everywhere for the NES and SNES and was the norm, therefore everyone could develop essentially on the same playing field and there were no major differences. Their choices for the N64 and Gamecube and Wii were interesting ones. The N64 and Gamecube just couldn't do the same kind of memory as their competitors, and therefore their "uniqueness" somewhat came back to bite them in the ass, because as you said, it wasn't what other developers wanted. I don't think you can really say the same for the Wii, as while it's "underpowered" and all, truth be told, it IS significantly different than its competitors and is in its own category, seperate from the PS3 and Xbox 360. I also wouldn't say that the Wii's lesser "features" have scared away developers, as opposed to actually inviting more to make games for them, since it's easier, cheaper, and has the highest installed user base. Granted, if a developer wants to make something massive and groundbreaking in terms of power, like a GTA IV or MGS4 for the Wii, they won't be able to, but think of all the "successful" third-party "shovelware" on the Wii.
Please don't post pictures of Super Metroid. It's like drinking a beer in front of an alcoholic- now I have to go play the game because it's so good.