The truth about Nintendo

[Zod95]

sundin13 said:

2 : I have no idea how you are missing the fact that motion controls are innovative and provided a great deal of creative freedom to devs. "Nintendo didn't try anything special at all, they just closed on themselves" is some of the biggest bull**** I have heard in a while. The Wii was more innovative than the PS2, PS3 and PS4 combined! The Wii was a fairly big risk, tapping into a part of the market that was vastly unproven and many people expected it to fail. Additionally, as I have said before, Nintendo would have lost a large part of the market if they had made their console more expensive and they would have lost a large part of their profit if they had not made money off of console sales. How would Nintendo struggling be good for the industry? Especially when Sony staff has stated that the current decline of Nintendo is hurting the industry because it is not bringing in as many new gamers.

I have no idea of how you are missing the fact that the "non-standard tech" is only about the core capabilities and therefore doesn't comprise the motion tech.

 

sundin13 said:

3. "Gamers who prefer lower priced consoles can buy a PS3/X360"  Not at the start of the gen! PS3 was ridiculously priced and the 360 charged for an online connection which was an expense I wasn't willing to pay (I still hold that belief). If I wanted to go online, I would have had to pay an addition few hundred dollars throughout the generation. The Wii was the only cost effective "current gen" option at the beginning of last gen.

At the start of the 7th gen, they could have bought a PS2. My point is that Nintendo is never the most affordable alternative.

 

sundin13 said:

Wii launched with Twilight princess and within a year had games such as Metroid Prime 3, Super mario Galaxy, Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn, Battalion Wars 2 etc.. Yes, they used the Wii line to help bring in "casuals" but they continued to release amazing AAA software like always.

You can call AAA to whatever you want but please don't use it as argument or fact.

The E3 previous to the console launch was about the Wii Sports and Wii Play, those were the flagship games of the system.

 

sundin13 said:

Let me ask you this. You are Nintendo and you just released the Nintendo Wii. What do you do now? Do you tell 3rd parties that you refuse to release their games if they aren't up to a certain level of quality?

Just released? Too late. I could try to do damage control but my focus would be to avoid the same mistake on the following generation.

I would never refuse to release any game, as some people here would (when they talk about "quality control"). I would try to create AAA games for the motion. Wii Sports and Wii Play are collections of mini-games. I would do something big.

 

sundin13 said:

How would they have been able to do this without the negative side effects?

Wii with motion + 7th gen core capabilities. Simple.

 

sundin13 said:

That is about as true as "piracy is a lost sale" (aka not true) and you have no way of proving this fact.

Piracy is not a lost sale, but it surely comprises lost sales.

How would I prove that shovelware is bad in the long-term? Easy. Look at the early death of the Wii and the WiiU's massive flop.

 

sundin13 said:

A lot of the people who picked up the Wii were likely one off buyers

No one is a one-off-buyer. If the product has quality, people will come for more. This applies to any product or even service.

 

sundin13 said:

Oh, and like I said above, Sony disagrees with you (this link shows that Sony believes Nintendo currently and in the past play an important role in bringing in new gamers): http://nintendoeverything.com/sony-uk-boss-nintendo-decline-could-be-detrimental-to-the-market/

Sony is in business. I'm not. I'm free to say whatever I want. They aren't.

 

sundin13 said:

Yet their games consistently have dev times far above industry standard including games like Zelda and Pikmin and Smash Bros.

You're looking at the wrong indicator. Look at man-hours work. A small team taking 5 years to develop a game is as good as a big team taking only 1.

 

sundin13 said:

I don't claim to know what is under the hood of games but from what I can see 99% of games aren't less "cheap" than Nintendo games. I would like to see examples of what you mean on all those points and out of curiosity, I would like to know what games you enjoy.

99% is a big number. I'm not sure whether the shovelware is that big.

4 examples for each point:

- open-world: GTA, Getaway, Assassin's Creed, Saints Row

- simulating physics: rFactor, Life For Speed, Crysis, Richard Burn's Rally

- non-linear story telling: Heavy Rain, GTA, LA Noire, Fahrenheit

- stochastic-animations-based-gameplay: FIFA, PES, Skate, Virtua Tennis

- complex AI: Killzone, Batman Arkham, SWAT, Midnight Club

The games I enjoy the most are the ones that aim for RPG but where you make your own story/career, you don't need to necessarily accomplish anything and you intuitively progress in the game as you want, a kind of "simulating RPG". At the moment, I mostly play: the online of Killzone 2, Rome Total War and the career mode of Pro Evolution Soccer. In the future, I'm looking forward for The Crew and Tom Clancy's The Division.

 

sundin13 said:

Turn based games and random encounters are both valid development options that are employed not only through a large number of classic games but continue to be employed in great games today, from Pokemon to the brand new and critically praised Bravely Default. I feel sorry that you are unable to enjoy these games but that is your problem, not anybody elses. You are implying that games of this ilk are inferior or simpler but in reality they are simply different. Pokemon has a multitude of layers of complexity and real time battles would remove some of that as well as removing some of what makes the games so fun and accessible. Once again, this is entirely your opinion and it is not based in fact or truth whatsoever.

And that's ok for a first Pokémon game. But then they make the 2nd, and the 3rd and the 4th game, and so on, and it's all about the same thing, I find it sad that they are not evolving while collecting so many millions from their customers. Imagine that RockStar had done the same thing with GTA so that the series were always 2D until nowadays. Does that seem wise to you? Sure we still have 2D games, sure that GTA lost something from 2D to 3D, sure that the 2D could be to some extent more fun and accessible, but still how would you look at that?

 

sundin13 said:

If you would like an RPG that doesn't have turn based attacks or random encounters, I would like to point you towards Xenoblade Chronicles, a wonderful open world RPG with over 100 hours of content, a great story and an inventive battle system. 

Thank you for your suggestion but I don't like the games that are known as RPG. I like what I have defined earlier as being "simulating RPG".

 

sundin13 said:

Mini disc was used for PSP as opposed to cartridges which were used for pretty much every other portable ever (including vita)...

Those cartridges were all the same or they were from different formats as the ones of N64 backwards?

 

sundin13 said:

"Gimmick - "a special feature for the sake of having a special feature""

Except that isn't the definition of the word. Here is the real definition:

Gimmick - a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or business.

How is that bad in any way? In fact it is arguably a good thing that sets apart consoles. Kinect is a gimmick, Move is a gimmick, that little pad on the Dualshock 4 is a gimmick...gimmick isn't a negative word and it shouldn't be used as such

"Nintendo without the WiiU gamepad had no strategy for the 8th gen. They have introduced a special feature for the sake of having a special feature."

Err...the strategy is to make great games. What exactly is the strategy for Sony? Make great games. And Microsoft? Make great games (and buy exclusive content).

My definition is on Wikipedia. And I've never said gimmick was a bad thing, although people perceived that from my words.

Sony's strategy with the PS4 was making a console with what gamers/devs wanted and nothing more than that, and sell it for an affordable price. Simple and effective. Microsoft's strategy with the XOne was differentiation by means of a fully supported Kinect (like Nintendo with the WiiU game pad). Complex and ineffective.