Why do Nintendo's new Switch IPs get called "failures"?

[vivster]

TheMisterManGuy said:

vivster said:

The curse of success I guess?

All I can see is people saying that the new IPs failed to have the big impact its predecessors had. Nothing wrong with that. If your regular high class IPs sell upwards of 5 million and even breach 10m then an IP that sold 2m and definitely has no widespread appeal and will certainly not build a legacy then that IP certainly failed at being the next big IP of Nintendo.

I'm not actually sure what you're even trying to defend against here. Nintendo made a new IP, it didn't reach the heights of old IPs or even Splatoon and people noticed. An original IP of Nintendo is a big deal and of course it's gonna be measured against other Nintendo IPs.

If you feel the need to defend a game, doesn't that mean it already failed to speak with its own success?

You don't need instant mega success to build a successful new IP. Mario didn't start off being this massive pop culture icon he is now, he had to earn that status with multiple hit games. Million WW is a good start for ARMS as far as Nintendo is concerned as they never said the game failed to meet sales goals (same with 1-2 Switch and Labo). Splatoon was a rare case of a New IP being an instant phenomenon, even Nintendo was surprised it caught on that fast. Meanwhile, most franchises need multiple games to find their footing in the sales order. Besides, there are properties Nintendo has that do far worse than ARMS, yet they still keep them around anyway (Pikmin for example). 

If it's not a failure why do you feel that you have to defend it? If it's a good game, sold well, people who play it like it and Nintendo doesn't consider it a failure, where exactly is the problem here?