Quantcast
Nintendo First Party Software Problems

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nintendo First Party Software Problems

John19 said:
NawaiNey said:

It's accepted among Nintendo fans that Nintendo makes the best games, but if you actually look at the reviews, or awards and such Nintendo is no where close to being the best. 

Ok, so since you seem to swear by Metacritic, I assume you agree that Zelda OoT is the greatest game of all time?

Also, why do you only look to last gen to compare the big three and their outut/scores? Because Metacritic has a handy feature where you can easily see the average score for publishers and the amount of games they have reviewed, but I suspect you actually knew about that, but didn't bring it up/include it anywhere because it went against your narrative. For example, according to Metacritic, Nintendo has an average score of 76 from 549 game reviews, of which 314 are positive, 223 mixed, and 12 negative; the highest score from those games being a 99, and the lowest a 37. Compare that to Sony, who has an average score of 73 from 538 game reviews, of which 262 reviews are positive, 265 are mixed, and 11 are negative. The highest score from those games is a 96, and the lowest is 36. Finally, we have Microsoft, who has an average score of 74 from 367 game reviews, of which 205 are positive, 146 are mixed, and 16 are negative. The highest scored game from those are a 97, and the lowest 28. From this apparently factual and correct evidence from Metacriticsince you seem to love to use it so much of course, we can safely conclude that Nintendo makes the best games, and they also have the highest output of games.

You agree of course, right?

EDIT: Here's a link if you want to look for yourself www.metacritic.com/browse/games/company/popular

Not to mention that in that list of his he simply ignores Nintendo handheld games, for some random reason.If we are discussing first party games, its games we are discussing, not platforms.I guess that would go against his arguments and beliefs, since that would effectively double Nintendo games, and thus would make Nintendo look better than he thinks it should.

And correct me if Im wrong, but that list of his, and also this list on metacritic includes games published by Sony but not necessarily developed by Sony right?If thats the case, its boosting Sony, also in lesser extent Nintendo, catalogue for a discussion that should be only about first party offering, not also second party offering.Which again, would make Nintendo look even better.



Around the Network
NawaiNey said:
John19 said:

Ok, so since you seem to swear by Metacritic, I assume you agree that Zelda OoT is the greatest game of all time?

Also, why do you only look to last gen to compare the big three and their outut/scores? Because Metacritic has a handy feature where you can easily see the average score for publishers and the amount of games they have reviewed, but I suspect you actually knew about that, but didn't bring it up/include it anywhere because it went against your narrative. For example, according to Metacritic, Nintendo has an average score of 76 from 549 game reviews, of which 314 are positive, 223 mixed, and 12 negative; the highest score from those games being a 99, and the lowest a 37. Compare that to Sony, who has an average score of 73 from 538 game reviews, of which 262 reviews are positive, 265 are mixed, and 11 are negative. The highest score from those games is a 96, and the lowest is 36. Finally, we have Microsoft, who has an average score of 74 from 367 game reviews, of which 205 are positive, 146 are mixed, and 16 are negative. The highest scored game from those are a 97, and the lowest 28. From this apparently factual and correct evidence from Metacriticsince you seem to love to use it so much of course, we can safely conclude that Nintendo makes the best games, and they also have the highest output of games.

You agree of course, right?

EDIT: Here's a link if you want to look for yourself www.metacritic.com/browse/games/company/popular

That's all well and fine if you ignore the fact that Nintendo has been in the industry far longer and has released a lot more platforms, and somehow has about the same amount of games Sony has released on far fewer systems. Which isn't all that true because the actual fact is that Metacritic doesn't have reviews for the older generations barring the really good stuff from NES/SNES/N64/PS1 days, so since only the good Nintendo games from earlier generation are counted it brings nintendo's average up since the bad games from nintendo's first 3 generations aren't bringing it down. 

That's why I use last gen because that's the only actual comlete generation we have which Metacritic has all the reviews for.

What?You go on saying that its not fair because it dosent list NES and SNES games(It does list most 64 PS1 games), but then says its ok because metacritic dosent list older generation of Nintendo games.Dosent that mean that comparison is fair then?Not only that, but many consider the 3th and 4th generation to be Nintendo golden years, so that would actually make the score go up, with score from Super Mario World, mario games in general, Nintendo RPG catalogue and so on.

And as I said previously in another post, If im not mistaken, that list, and also the list you do on your own thread, lists games that Sony published, as well as developed, and Sony published games are not first party games, or even games that are exclusive to the PS are not first party, rather they are second party(examples this gen would be Persona 5, Yakuza, Nier and so on), making those lists lean to Sony unfairly(or simply making a biased discussion), since the discussion is about first party, not exclusive games.

And I mean, in that "list" you made you conveniently ignored half of Nintendo games.I think the excuse you gave is that you wanted to compare only the home console games, but in actual discussion, as in to make arguments about which company has better first party software, you always refer as to the companies as a whole or the gen as a whole, and that obviusly should include the handheld side of things.But yeah,that goes completely ignored, for your very convinience.



Miyamotoo said:
DélioPT said:

 

Metroid Prime announcement was one of biggest announcements of E3 despite Nintendo showed just logo, Metroid Prime fans were literally crying after announcement. People now know those games are coming, not they will wait to actually see them.

They said "Game Freaks has begun developing" Pokemon for Switch, but they didnt said "recently" or "just". And for Metroid "now in development" can men do not meant they couldn't working on game for quiet time now.

Lie, my vision of E3 2017. was that they will focus on 2017. games and to promote 2017. games on 1st place, and that they will show at least around two 2018. games despite they are focusing on 2017. games. And they did that, they did focus one 2017. games, they did show two 2018. games that will most likly be realased in 1st half of 2018. and they showed 2 games that could be relased in second half of 2018. or beyond. You are very well aware that I wrote to you multiply times that "focus on 2017. games" doesn't mean they will talk or show only 2017. games.

DKTF and Federation Force doesn't have anything with this situation. With Pokemon Nintendo just wanted to ensure people that Pokemon is in development for Switch after 3DS anancument (we are talking about biggest Nintendo IP), and this announcement was very simple, same goes for Metroid Prime. Metroid 3DS announcement isn't nearly important like Metroid Prime 4 announcement, its remaster of 2D Metroid game, fact that is announced at TreeHouse also proves that.

 

It totaly make sense, but you still dont get it. Pokemon Tournament is announced just before E3, Mario Rabbids is Switch exclusive game with Nintendo IP and its is announced at E3. Nintendo could anancued those games also in January, but they didn't. But that exception was totally different to any other Nintendo console reveal, thats is clear proof and fact that Nintendo is now managing announcements and releases different. They will have Nintendo Direct and E3 where they will announcing other their games for 2018. Again, its doesnt make any sense to be worried about Switch 2018. lineup in middle of 2017. when we already have 3-5 2018. announcements and when we already saw how they managed 2017. lineup with announcements and releases.

"Game Freaks has begun developing" and "now in development" point to recent events.
In MP4's case your own quote shows that Nintendo wanted to let people know right at the start.
Either it's began recently or not. You can't have it both ways.

"and they showed 2 games that could be relased in second half of 2018. "
This is the part i was talking about. There's nothing pointing at this - other than you wishing/believing.
So, yes, until both games come out in 2018, you were wrong.

The question was not if Nintendo wanted to please fans for not announcing a Switch Pokemon game in the ND. Your argument was that the Spotlight reveal was made because of that.
I don't believe that to be the case; i haven't seen any hint proving you right; i even showed you that Nintendo doesn't work that way (used the FForce backlash to show this).

Those non-revealed games of January were the exception. The same way Mario Tennis for Wii U was revealed at E3 2015 and launched months after.
Exceptions.
E3 showed you that they reveal (always have) more than just what's coming in the short term.

I don't know if there's reason to worry, but i do believe there's no reason to say all is fine when they have only announced 3 (confirmed to be) 2018 games.

friendlyfamine said:
DélioPT said:

Their isn't a problem with 2018, but there can be.
First, Pikmin 4 isn't a garanteed 2018 title. Nintendo hasn't confirmed and the "it's been in development since 2015" means nothing. 
We don't know how the development process is going, and if i'm not mistaken, Starfox Zero was in development since the Wii days and it came out in 2015.

Out of the blue there can be many things but no one knows that.
What we know is that by the end of E3 we have 3 games announced and instead of using their E3 time to announce more games for 2018 they wasted two perfectly good announcements of non 2018 games.

They could fill you with a remake every month if they wanted to. But that's not the point, is it?

I checked Sony's E3 2013 and 2016 conference, and to my surprise, the majority of games shown were for the current year or the next.
I don't know if SOny announces games a few months from reveal or not, but that really changes nothing.

Maybe it's not guaranteed, but I would bet money on it. Pikmin 4 has been known to be in development for what, 4 years now? Strategically, I believe Nintendo refrained from a lot of announcements at E3 ala Pikmin 4 to not overshadow the upcoming "Hey Pikmin". Same reason for not showing a Smash port could be to not discourage people from buying ARMS. Animal Crossing? Easily there will be a Direct later this year discussing the mobile game- and that could be used to build momentum for an upcoming 2018 title. Nintendo have discussed Wii U ports and have not declined them. They said as much that if they'd do it, they're going to supplement it to ensure it's price tag/not screwing Wii U owners.

Nintendo already told us that the E3 was focused on 2017, and they also told us it's only 25 minutes. They have Directs to show games. Many new games have been revealed in Directs and have sold decently well. Take Tropical Freeze for example. It's probably the best one I've got.

Anyway, stop stressing out please. Who cares about first party? At this point all that matters is exclusives. The previous list of games I showed you earlier where all exclusives, except possibly Octopath; the exclusivity is unknown. I'm not even hardcore for Nintendo like you are either.

Nintendo announced Smash for Wii U and 3DS, they announced Metroid for both systems. 
I don't think there's a problem there.

Nintendo says and does many things, but they aren't always the best action, it is what they can do.
It's called PR speech.

My problem with announcing the bulk of their 2018 plans throught NDs is that they aren't the best choice. E3 is: more attention from gamers and media in general.

Who cares about 1st party? That's what drives the Nintendo HW business.
You speak of exclusives... name me how many powerhouse exclusives Switch has from 3rd parties - 'cause that's what sells HW, at the end of the day.



There's also the question of whether the same reviewers would give those games the same scores today. Perfect Dark Zero makes that list of quality Microsoft first-party games, but the consensus among both fans and critics today is that it never deserved that status and publications that reviews it highly are embarrassed by that. On the other hand publications were declaring Super Mario Galaxy the game of the generation 6 years after it was released.



DélioPT said:

Nintendo announced Smash for Wii U and 3DS, they announced Metroid for both systems. 
I don't think there's a problem there.

Nintendo says and does many things, but they aren't always the best action, it is what they can do.
It's called PR speech.

My problem with announcing the bulk of their 2018 plans throught NDs is that they aren't the best choice. E3 is: more attention from gamers and media in general.

Who cares about 1st party? That's what drives the Nintendo HW business.
You speak of exclusives... name me how many powerhouse exclusives Switch has from 3rd parties - 'cause that's what sells HW, at the end of the day.

I literally told you that in my first comment to you. You're taking the piss.



Around the Network

With AMD they would gain 3rd party support



DélioPT said:
Miyamotoo said:

Metroid Prime announcement was one of biggest announcements of E3 despite Nintendo showed just logo, Metroid Prime fans were literally crying after announcement. People now know those games are coming, not they will wait to actually see them.

They said "Game Freaks has begun developing" Pokemon for Switch, but they didnt said "recently" or "just". And for Metroid "now in development" can men do not meant they couldn't working on game for quiet time now.

Lie, my vision of E3 2017. was that they will focus on 2017. games and to promote 2017. games on 1st place, and that they will show at least around two 2018. games despite they are focusing on 2017. games. And they did that, they did focus one 2017. games, they did show two 2018. games that will most likly be realased in 1st half of 2018. and they showed 2 games that could be relased in second half of 2018. or beyond. You are very well aware that I wrote to you multiply times that "focus on 2017. games" doesn't mean they will talk or show only 2017. games.

DKTF and Federation Force doesn't have anything with this situation. With Pokemon Nintendo just wanted to ensure people that Pokemon is in development for Switch after 3DS anancument (we are talking about biggest Nintendo IP), and this announcement was very simple, same goes for Metroid Prime. Metroid 3DS announcement isn't nearly important like Metroid Prime 4 announcement, its remaster of 2D Metroid game, fact that is announced at TreeHouse also proves that.

 

It totaly make sense, but you still dont get it. Pokemon Tournament is announced just before E3, Mario Rabbids is Switch exclusive game with Nintendo IP and its is announced at E3. Nintendo could anancued those games also in January, but they didn't. But that exception was totally different to any other Nintendo console reveal, thats is clear proof and fact that Nintendo is now managing announcements and releases different. They will have Nintendo Direct and E3 where they will announcing other their games for 2018. Again, its doesnt make any sense to be worried about Switch 2018. lineup in middle of 2017. when we already have 3-5 2018. announcements and when we already saw how they managed 2017. lineup with announcements and releases.

"Game Freaks has begun developing" and "now in development" point to recent events.
In MP4's case your own quote shows that Nintendo wanted to let people know right at the start.
Either it's began recently or not. You can't have it both ways.

"and they showed 2 games that could be relased in second half of 2018. "
This is the part i was talking about. There's nothing pointing at this - other than you wishing/believing.
So, yes, until both games come out in 2018, you were wrong.

The question was not if Nintendo wanted to please fans for not announcing a Switch Pokemon game in the ND. Your argument was that the Spotlight reveal was made because of that.
I don't believe that to be the case; i haven't seen any hint proving you right; i even showed you that Nintendo doesn't work that way (used the FForce backlash to show this).

Those non-revealed games of January were the exception. The same way Mario Tennis for Wii U was revealed at E3 2015 and launched months after.
Exceptions.
E3 showed you that they reveal (always have) more than just what's coming in the short term.

I don't know if there's reason to worry, but i do believe there's no reason to say all is fine when they have only announced 3 (confirmed to be) 2018 games.

 

Yes it can be go in both ways. But have on mind that Reggie and Nintendo were hinting Metroid Prime for quite time now.

Why you ingoring fact they said they "it may not be released in more than in year" for Pokemon. Holiday 2018. is year and half after E3 2017. so defiantly its posible that can be relased in 2018. and that actually even sound like they aiming holiday 2018. release. For Metroid Prime 4, we dont know for how much is development and of course also it could be released in holiday 2018. that again is around 1.5 year after E3 2017. announcement. I can't be wrong with that because I wrote they could be released in second half of 2018. not that they will certainly be released. But you will be wrong if only one is relased in 2018. beacuse you are saying they will not be relased in 2018.

You believe whatever you want, even dispte strong point and facts. Like I wrote, Force backlash doesn't have anything with this situation, what exactly they could said after FForce backlash, certainly they didn't want to say they are working on some "NX" game when "NX" still wasn't revealed, but actualy they did start hinting Metroid Prime after FForce backlash.

 

Only Mario Tennis!? :D You have plenty of those examples for Wii U and 3DS, SM3DW was 1st time shown at E3 2013. and released in November of same year, Paper Mario: Color Splash was revealed in March 2016. and released in October, Captain Toad was announced at E3 2014. and released in December of same year, TP HD was revealed in November and relesed in March (4 monts later), WW HD was revealed in January event and released in September, Animal Crossing and Mario Tennis were revealed at E3 2015. and were released in November, Kirby and the Rainbow Curse and Mario Party 10 at E3 2014. and they were relased in February and March, Hyrule Warriors was revealed  in December and released in September...I will not even bother with 3DS games I will just mentione last example, this 3DS Pokemon was announced in June and it will be released in November, while previous one was announced in February and released in November of same year.

This is clear example how Nintendo is operating in most cases, they reveal and launch game in less than a year and like you can see there are plenty examples where they announced and released game in less than 6 months. Wii U list would have even much more examples if Wii U didnt sell terrible and Nintendo in panic mode announced most of Wii U projects they had in that time in January event just 2 months after Wii U launch. And now with Switch, they are going even for less time between annacument and launch (in most cases), because Switch is selling great and they have steady flow of good games without drouths compared to Wii U. You again fail to see that or from some reason you don't want to see that, but all that is reason why you don't need to be worry (and why most people are not worry), "because in middle of 2017. we have "only" 3 certain games that will be released in 2018", especially if we know that that all big internal projects are in development for Switch (most of 2017. and 2018. 3DS games are done buy external teams outside Nintendo and in most cases they are smaller projects, spinoffs and remasters).

If you want we can bet, I am sure until years end, Nintendo will announced at least around 2-3 more 2018. games, so at years end we will have at least (certain) 5-6 Switch 1st party/exclusives 2018. games. Of Course in January I expecting ND again with some other new anancuments.



h2ohno said:
There's also the question of whether the same reviewers would give those games the same scores today. Perfect Dark Zero makes that list of quality Microsoft first-party games, but the consensus among both fans and critics today is that it never deserved that status and publications that reviews it highly are embarrassed by that. On the other hand publications were declaring Super Mario Galaxy the game of the generation 6 years after it was released.

That could be said 20 years ago, today, and most likely it can be said for 20 years. When reviewers are giving they score, they dont think how that game would be 20 years ago or how it will be in 20 years, but how good is that game in current time.



Miyamotoo said:
h2ohno said:
There's also the question of whether the same reviewers would give those games the same scores today. Perfect Dark Zero makes that list of quality Microsoft first-party games, but the consensus among both fans and critics today is that it never deserved that status and publications that reviews it highly are embarrassed by that. On the other hand publications were declaring Super Mario Galaxy the game of the generation 6 years after it was released.

That could be said 20 years ago, today, and most likely it can be said for 20 years. When reviewers are giving they score, they dont think how that game would be 20 years ago or how it will be in 20 years, but how good is that game in current time.

There's still a difference between 'this was great when it came out, but standards have risen,' like Goldeneye, and 'what the heck were we thinking giving this game a good review in the first place,' like how almost everyone started looking at Perferct Dark Zero pretty quickly after its release.



h2ohno said:
Miyamotoo said:

That could be said 20 years ago, today, and most likely it can be said for 20 years. When reviewers are giving they score, they dont think how that game would be 20 years ago or how it will be in 20 years, but how good is that game in current time.

There's still a difference between 'this was great when it came out, but standards have risen,' like Goldeneye, and 'what the heck were we thinking giving this game a good review in the first place,' like how almost everyone started looking at Perferct Dark Zero pretty quickly after its release.

Of Course, always (even today) it can be said that some game received better scores than deserves, or that some received weaker than deserves, but that really doesn't change anything beacuse we can say that for curent games also or future.