Seriously, Nintendo is not THAT Important

[Pristine20]

TornadoCreator said:

Mythmaker1 said:

Because I suspect it will be an issue, let me preface this before I begin in earnest. Yes, Nintendo is an excellent publisher. They make quite a lot of great games. They've done a lot to advance the industry over the years. I'm not attacking Nintendo fans or Nintendo itself with this post.

But seriously, can we admit that maybe they're not as important as some make them out to be?

Let me break things down a bit,  starting with three assertions I often see here and elsewhere.

1. Nintendo, as a company, is indispensable to the industry. This is not to say that they aren't important, or that they don't play an important role in the industry. But let's be practical here; 30+ years of gaming history isn't going to burst into flame if they were to go bankrupt, and the industry isn't going to collectively roll over and die because they aren't there. Again, they play an important role, but there are a lot of lean and hungry companies with the potential to fill the gap.

2. Nintendo is the only company that's being innovative. In terms of hardware, they definitely pushed touch and motion control to mainstream acceptance,  but they've also been stubbornly resistant to other trends in the industry that have drastically changed the hardware side of things. Some may dispute that these are positive changes, but it's hard to deny how transformative they've been. In terms of games, no. They will often push boundaries, but usually within very limited. Evolution, not revolution, and sometimes not even that. And some of their more innovative gameplay tweaks haven't always been very positive either.

3. Nintendo makes the best games, period. I can only imagine that the ones pushing this idea either have very narrow interests or very little exposure. Nintendo makes fun, highly polished games, but they aren't the only ones, and many of those other fun, highly polished games have the depth and maturity (actually maturity, not M-rated, etc..) that Nintendo games often lack. I'm not saying that Nintendo needs depth and maturity, there's nothing wrong with what they make, but the lack of these does not make their games any better either. And maybe, every once in a while, when the moon is full, and the stars are aligned, they put out a mediocre title, or even a flat-out bad game.

Am I saying the industry wouldn't be a darker, lesser place if Nintendo hadn't gotten into it? Probably not. Am I saying that the industry wouldn't be a darker, lesser place if Nintendo went bankrupt tomorrow? Probably not. But it distrubs me how many people seem to latch onto Nintendo and only Nintendo, and pretend the rest of the industry doesn't exist.

They aren't the company that all publishers should aspire to be. They aren't some bastion of quality and creativity not seen anywhere else. They're one company, among many, better than some, lesser than others, and people really need to stop putting them on a pedastal.

Why? Why do people need to stop putting Nintendo on a pedastal. They've earned their pedastal.

I honestly have a bit of a problem with your assertion because I genuinely do think Nintendo is vital for this hobby to remain the hobby I love. Will the industry survive without Nintendo? Sure. Will I still give a shit? Probably not.

Nintendo are one of the oldest developers, publishers, and industry juggernauts still in the game and we need them. Without the likes of Atari and THQ around, and with companies like Atlus, Capcom, Sega etc. either being bought out or shadows of their former selves; we certainly need Nintendo.

Now. I don't want to make any assumptions about you personally, but I am going to be speaking in general terms. The vast majority of gamers on the internet, and the "cash" majority of gamers in general, are not real gamers. Most so called gamers today are American teenage jocks who play Call Of Duty, Madden/Fifa (depending on region), maybe Grand Theft Auto, Battlefield and/or Halo, and pretty much nothing else. They care about sports and shooting. They do not share my hobby...

Now, me personally, I'm an actual gamer. I play RPGs, Platformers, Strategy Games, etc. I have been playing video games for 23 years, and have owned a majority of the consoles released since 1990. I started playing with the Sega Master System, and I've been a gamer ever since. I've owned consoles by all 4 major manufacturers, as well as having a gaming PC from the mid 90's onwards. I am a gamer. I do not need to prove my gaming credentials any further than I already have... I don't give a scuttering fuck about Call Of fucking Duty!!! I seriously don't care. I've never owned a Call Of Duty game, I don't want to play a Call Of Duty game. I give even less of a shit about online multiplayer. This is not my hobby.

The fact of the matter is, video games where a personal endevour. If you're an old school gamer, you remember sitting at home playing Final Fantasy or Zelda; maybe it was Ultima or Phantasy Star. Perhaps it was Baldur's Gate, Mega Man, Streets Of Rage, Sonic or the OG himself Mario. Either way, how did you play. On your own, just the glow of the TV and the sound of the chiptune music. Perhaps if you where lucky you had a friend over occationally sitting with you on the floor/sofa, a bowl of cheeto's and the odd laugh, but ultimately, it was a private endevour. Shared between a few friends/siblings, but very much on the outskirts. Video games, much like comic books, animé, alternative music, or even reading books; was for most kids of the late 80's to early 90's an unpopular "geek" hobby... oh and we're talking about a time where being a geek meant you got beat up, your things stolen, and your life made a misery; not now, where "geek" means you where stupid glasses, pretend you know about computers, spout trendy memes, and fuck the hot goth chick at the weekend. There was NOTHING cool about being a geek back then.

So, what is video games to us gamers. The real gamers, the old "geeks" of the retro age. It's a usurped hobby, filled with pretenders and posers who've decided in their late 20's and early 30's that video games are cool; despite being the very same people who beat up the "geek" for playing them in school. The next generation, without the "geek" identifier being what it was, associate video games with the mainstream now. Everyone is a gamer, so no-one is... and where does that leave the real gamer, stuck with nothing.

Now, I have nothing against the mainstream games industry. Honestly, I have friends who are gamers now, who most definitely where not back in the day. My closest friend is a tech nut, has a £1000 gaming PC, and every console and handheld going today yet hasn't played anything of note pre-PSOne (and very little of note pre-PS3). He loves video games, but he's far more into action games, shooters, and western RPGs than anything. The JRPG makes little sense to him as he never grew attached to the tropes and gameplay style like I did. I don't begrudge him his hobby. Good for him, enjoy away.

My point is that virtual paintball, which let's face it, is what most online FPS's best aproximate, is about as far removed from Super Mario Bros. as you can get. It's not the same hobby and treating it as such is daft. The problem is, this industry runs on an either-or basis. Games are not made because they're not "ecconomically viable", companies that used to make cute platformers and interesting RPGs now make samey FPS games because they're all chasing the CoD dollar. I don't want a video games industry where everything is trying to be mainstream because I'm not mainstream, I'm a gamer. I want quirky adventure games, cute platformers, overly in depth RPGs that require and intimate understanding of the multi-facetted geek culture to appreciate. This is gaming. This is however extremely niche. Now, some could say, "aaah, but games like that are released on PS3, Xbox 360 etc. so why do you need Nintendo". Well, because Nintendo creates them. Would there even be a Ratchet & Clank if there wasn't Mario still selling copies. Would there be a Darksiders if there wasn't a Zelda for someone to look at and go, "let's make that, but darker and more mature", would we have the Persona series in western markets if things like Pokémon never existed. Maybe, but probably not I'd wager. Without Nintendo to highlight that we still exist, the games industry would homogenise. Sony and Microsoft have no ties to the old school. Even the original Playstation, whilst holding it's charm has completely forgotten it at the same time. After all, where's Crash Bandicoot, where's Spyro The Dragon... oh right yeah, they're making Killzone and Uncharted now, games involving mainstream burly men with guns. How thrilling.

We need Nintendo, because without Nintendo, there's no such thing as gaming. Sure there's still interactive entertainment, but it's all online and involves shooting other people with guns... how gaushe.

Interestingly, I haven't bought a nintendo product since the SNES was around and somehow, I've been gaming since. I guess I'm not a real gamer huh? How do "we" need nintendo again?  Say "I need nintendo badly" next time and your rant may sound more objective instead of a nostalgic mess.