Why doesn't Nintendo make a game that looks like Uncharted 2/3??

[DonFerrari]

StarDoor said:

Dr.Vita said:

Because these games are far better than what Nintendo is capable of.

Sony's best game:

96 Uncharted 2: Among Thieves (PS3)

Oct 13, 2009

5.0

Nintendo's seven best games:

99 The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (N64)	Nov 23, 1998	9.2
97 Super Mario Galaxy (WII)	Nov 12, 2007	9.0
97 Super Mario Odyssey (Switch)	Oct 27, 2017	9.0
97 Super Mario Galaxy 2 (WII)	May 23, 2010	9.1
97 The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild (Switch)	Mar 3, 2017	8.4
97 Perfect Dark (N64)	May 22, 2000	9.0
97 Metroid Prime (GC)	Nov 17, 2002	9.3

I can say that Super Mario Odyssey is better than anything that Sony is capable of, and unlike your statement, there's actual evidence to back it up.

Yep review is indeed a great evidence... A lot of people probably also dished the Sony platforms in the name of Nintendo ones because obviously those games are better.

Kai_Mao said:

DonFerrari said:

The issue on that is the complete lack of standard for reviewers.

To ignore all the shortcomings in the Nintendo games to them bitch and moan on the other games is obtuse. Also on the "what could have been", a lot of reviewers don't evaluate what the game is or try to accomplish, but what they wanted the game to achieve. Both aren't present when they give plethora of high scores for some Nintendo games.

On the case of BTOW it became so ridiculous that some reviewers pointed to several down points on the game, with severe criticism, and still gave a 10. Not a 9.5 (like, it is almost perfect, but have these big issues) but a 10. And for other games they will pick minor nitpicks and down the score to 80. In both cases "because of reasons". And that is why it's useless to discuss reviewers. Same on discussing GOTYs. A game can win the "game of the year" award on the platform and lose on the category it represents for a game that is on the same platform.

Personally, I think BoTW is probably the only example I am aware of with the issue you mentioned when it comes to judging Nintendo games. Maybe Skyward Sword, but it ended up with a 93 so there were more reviewers who were critical of the game. You could also add Paper Mario Sticker Star (75% on Metacritic), but I haven't read the reviews so I cannot tell. Otherwise, I really cannot think of any other Nintendo game in the last decade that supposedly had that scenario you mentioned besides BoTW. I think the scores and praises were well-deserved but that's neither here nor there. Games like Star Fox Zero, Metroid: Other M, Metroid Prime Federation Force, Zelda: Triforce Heroes, Wii Music, and Animal Crossing amiibo Festival didn't have the luxury of being reviewed well just because they were Nintendo games.

Just being a Nintendo games certainly won't make the game score great, but being Nintendo will make they be evaluated differently, you yourself admited in previous post didn't you? That they evaluate by what is possible on the HW not compared to everything else.

Miyamotoo said:

DonFerrari said:

So you can't use the reviewers giving good scores to Nintendo as a way to say Nintendo games have great graphics or that graphics doesn't matter (because for PC, PS and Xbox they are sure to take out score on graphics) it is more like that reviewers give a free pass to these games and change the scope of evaluation.

Good looking game is not same thing like graphically technically advanced, game can be great looking despite its not graphically technically advanced, and ofcourse how game is look is more important than how much graphically technically advanced, like Zelda BotW and Mario Oddysey, they are both great looking games despite they are not so much graphically technically advanced.

Have I said different? And we always go back to this excuse when anyone is discussing graphics on Nintendo HW. There are games on Snes that are still pretty considering what they tried, that won't erase the fact that there is a lack of details on the cartoony style of Nintendo.