By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Reggies Thoughts on Nintendo Going Third Party.

DarkLantis on 29 January 2017

 

Barkley said:
Azzanation said:
Reggie telling the fanboys who's boss. Good on ya Reg. Innovation is the only reason I'm interested in the Switch. Unlike the simple PCs like PS4 and XB1 which offer 1 or 2 good exclusives a years which can be played on any device if they wanted them to, due to there games lacking innovations. Maybe Sony and Xbox should go 3rd party that way Nintendo can continue to innovate.

That's kind of hillarious, how many of the greatest Nintendo titles actually rely on these "innovations".

Super Mario Galaxy? No

Breath of the Wild? No

Mario Kart? No

Pokemon? No

Animal Crossing? No

Fire Emblem? No

Almost every Nintendo game would be perfectly viable on ps4/xbo/pc.

If Nintendo had actually innovated in any meaningful succesful way in the past decade maybe Reggie would have some sort of a point, but regardless he avoided the main question and didn't address what's best for Nintendo itself once. The debate was a joke.

Totally agree with this.

I mean, they sure do innovate on theier hardware efforts, but I feel that neither Nintendo or theier poor 3rd party support make good use of these innovations. Feels like they trying to lead but there's no one behind that follows...

Take the Wii as an exemple. You have just a few games that make really good use of the motion controls. I can remember Skyward Sword and the games made specially for the Wii (the Sports/Music/Play series). The rest is totally dispensable, like the Mario Galaxy starbit collector. On the 3DS, the 3D feature was pratically abandoned by everyone, including Nintendo itself.

And I feel that, on the Switch, the same will happen in a worse way. There are so many things going on... The regular way to play, the motion controls, the camera, the play-with-8-people thing, the play-on-the-go experience, the portable device... It'll be a huge mess.

It's all good in theory, but in practice, nobody really embraces that innovation Nintendo is talking about and make good use of that on games. So what's the point?



Around the Network
Conina on 29 January 2017
Barkley said:
Kai_Mao said:

The HD Rumble and the IR in the Joy cons are pretty interesting so I'm curious to see how they'll be integrated in the future.

There's nothing wrong with having these features, it's just the way they push them. Having a better more accurate rumble, that's great. But they develop software that are basically tech demo's like 1-2-Switch to justify it and take it to the extreme. They try and make a bigger deal out of it all then it needs to be. They'll make one or two games that force it in to say it was a worthwhile addition, then carry on and make games like normal. They create software to justify their innovations existing when they should just be creating the best games they can with what they have.

I agree. Mandatory touchscreen-inputs in some DS games, mandatory six-axis-sequences in early PS3 games, mandatory use of the touchpad on the back of the Vita in a few games, asynchronous gameplay in a few WiiU games... and after a few of these games business as usual with "normal" controls.



zippy on 29 January 2017

Could it possibly be that Nintendo are doing fine and have zero reasons to go third party...just a thought.



Azzanation on 29 January 2017
Barkley said:
rjason12 said:

HD rumble is an innovation! It's an improvement to regular rumble. Stop talking down about it, just because nintendo is doing it. It's going to become a standard.

Please don't assume that's the reason at all.

Yes HD Rumble is an improvement, you literally can't say it's bad, it's objectively better. I just wouldn't really regard it in itself is really "innovative". It seems more the gameplay they're trying to create with it is the "innovation". The 'how many ice cubes are in your controller' minigames I couldn't care about in the slightest.

It's a nice feature, but it's not something I feel should have any affect on HOW we play, that just feels completely forced.

So you prefer to miss out on features and just have cheap PCs instead.. you prefer the company that layed down the control blueprint of today and just become Sega  (because that really helped Sega) while Sony and Xbox make the same old consoles gen after gen with only offering more power? Heck if Sony and Xbox went 3rd party than we can enjoy amazing games with features instead of just higher resolution. 



Barkley on 29 January 2017
Azzanation said:
Barkley said:

Please don't assume that's the reason at all.

Yes HD Rumble is an improvement, you literally can't say it's bad, it's objectively better. I just wouldn't really regard it in itself is really "innovative". It seems more the gameplay they're trying to create with it is the "innovation". The 'how many ice cubes are in your controller' minigames I couldn't care about in the slightest.

It's a nice feature, but it's not something I feel should have any affect on HOW we play, that just feels completely forced.

So you prefer to miss out on features and just have cheap PCs instead..

Features such as? What has Nintendo really done in the past decade that's so great? Nothing I can think of that I care about.

Regardless that assumes that if Nintendo stopped making hardware there'd never be any advancements made in gaming technology... oh wait shareplay.... VR.... Online Parties.... multi-touch....

Nintendo leaving hardware would not stop innovation. Amongst Mobile Hardware Manufacturers, Sony, Microsoft, Logitech, Razer, Oculus, and many other companies that may or may not exist yet, I think gaming hardware advancements would be covered should Nintendo dedicated themselves to software. 

 Regardless I'm more than content with gaming hardware as it is, it's software that needs to be innovated, not hardware.



Around the Network
Teeqoz on 29 January 2017

I saw this in my reccomended feed. Was wondering why my adblock wasn't working.



Dravenet7 on 29 January 2017
Barkley said:

That's kind of hillarious, how many of the greatest Nintendo titles actually rely on these "innovations".

Super Mario Galaxy? No

Breath of the Wild? No

Mario Kart? No

Pokemon? No

Animal Crossing? No

Fire Emblem? No

Almost every Nintendo game would be perfectly viable on ps4/xbo/pc.

If Nintendo had actually innovated in any meaningful succesful way in the past decade maybe Reggie would have some sort of a point, but regardless he avoided the main question and didn't address what's best for Nintendo itself once. The debate was a joke.

Super Mario Galaxy: Pretty sure you could use motion controls and collect star bits by yourself or with someone else

Breath of the Wild: Pretty sure this is the first original 3D developed Zelda that you can play on the go. In fact, I'm pretty sure that is what Nintendo has been advertising non-stop.

Pokemon: Pretty sure Pokemon has been on handhelds since forever.

Animal Crossing: Pretty sure Animal Crossing is on handhelds

Fire Emblem: Pretty sure Fire Emblem experienced a boom and rejuvination from the brink of death on handhelds

Almost every Nintendo game would be perfectly viable on ps4/xbo/pc: Pretty sure that you omitted Splatoon, a game that despite the whining and complaining about motion controls a majority tout a better experience. Pretty sure many fans who actually played metroid prime trilogy on the wii loved the motion controls.

If Nintendo had actually innovated in any meaningful succesful way in the past decade maybe Reggie would have some sort of a point:

Why stop at a decade, what about since Reggie's time at Nintendo? The don't make new hardware every year. a decade is like 2 generations of hardware, and a decade conviently enough ommits the release of the Wii and DS. Pretty sure the Wii's motion controls set a rubric for a decent chunk of gaming today: Motion in VR headsets, motion controllers for VR. Gyro controllers/ regular controllers with pointer control features. 



Azzanation on 29 January 2017
Barkley said:
Azzanation said:

So you prefer to miss out on features and just have cheap PCs instead..

Features such as? What has Nintendo really done in the past decade that's so great? Nothing I can think of that I care about.

Regardless that assumes that if Nintendo stopped making hardware there'd never be any advancements made in gaming technology... oh wait shareplay.... VR.... Online Parties.... multi-touch....

Nintendo leaving hardware would not stop innovation. Amongst Mobile Hardware Manufacturers, Sony, Microsoft, Logitech, Razer, Oculus, and many other companies that may or may not exist yet, I think gaming hardware advancements would be covered should Nintendo dedicated themselves to software. 

 Regardless I'm more than content with gaming hardware as it is, it's software that needs to be innovated, not hardware.

Maybe not for you however i loved using the Wii motes as the Wip in Metroid Prime 3, or using it to bowl bombs in Zelda or using the WiiU Pad for Zombi. 

Your just seeing it as a hardware difference. Look behind the scenes. Maybe Mario Galaxies wouldn't exist due to the idea of the Wii motes. Games dont have to utlise them to there fullest. Maybe Galaxies was created on the idea of collecting Star Bits. Who knows. We do know that Nintendo breed ideas from there innovations. Just like the ideas that came from the analog stick on the N64. Metroid might not have exist if it wasnt for the C Buttons etc. Im talking on creating new stories. Ideas come from something and innovated controls definitely push the imagination.

Keep giving Nintendo the same old controls and there games will get boring.



Dravenet7 on 29 January 2017

This kind can be seen as an interview despite being a debate, but it was okay. I really really liked the way Projared did his.



Alkibiádēs on 29 January 2017
Barkley said:
Azzanation said:
Reggie telling the fanboys who's boss. Good on ya Reg. Innovation is the only reason I'm interested in the Switch. Unlike the simple PCs like PS4 and XB1 which offer 1 or 2 good exclusives a years which can be played on any device if they wanted them to, due to there games lacking innovations. Maybe Sony and Xbox should go 3rd party that way Nintendo can continue to innovate.

That's kind of hillarious, how many of the greatest Nintendo titles actually rely on these "innovations".

Super Mario Galaxy? No

You use the IR pointer to collect star bits, you can shoot the star bits at enemies as well, you waggle the Wii mote to perform the spin attack, and you use motion control for the star ball levels and surfing on the manta ray. There's even more, but that's the general gist. 

Breath of the Wild? No

That's a launch game which is a Wii U port. It was going to make use of the two screens of the Wii U, but Aonuma decided to scrap that idea after they decided on a Switch port. The other Zelda games on the Wii U made use of the two screens though. 

Mario Kart? No

You can control Mario Kart with the motion control. 

Pokemon? No

Pokémon is made by Gamefreak, not Nintendo. 

Animal Crossing? No

Animal Crossing makes use of street pass. 

Fire Emblem? No

Almost every Nintendo game would be perfectly viable on ps4/xbo/pc.

If Nintendo had actually innovated in any meaningful succesful way in the past decade maybe Reggie would have some sort of a point, but regardless he avoided the main question and didn't address what's best for Nintendo itself once. The debate was a joke.

And you ignore many games that do make good use of these innovations like Skyward Sword, Metroid Prime Trilogy, Splatoon, Super Mario Maker, Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Warioware, etc. 



"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" - Thoukydides