| RolStoppable said: The main reasons are a combination of weak first party output and the console being built on the false premise that third party multiplatform games are important. After the Nintendo 64 had failed, Nintendo's main takeaway from it was that it is about third party software, so the GC was designed accordingly. It wasn't until a generation later that Nintendo recognized that it is about Nintendo themselves and what they stand for, so the Wii was designed accordingly. Then they learned nothing from the Wii and made it about third party multiplatform games again with the Wii U, a console that failed even harder than the GC. Then we got Switch which has the distinct Nintendo identity again. There's a clear pattern of success and failure, including the NES and SNES which weren't about third party multiplatform games either. Nowadays there's the widespread belief that Sony and Microsoft make traditional (or conventional) consoles while Nintendo is the odd one out. This belief has it backwards, because it's Nintendo who makes the traditional console. Sony and Microsoft consoles are about playing PC games on a device that is easier to use than a PC. When you think of the classic video game consoles made by Atari, Nintendo and Sega, are PC games the first thing that comes to your mind? Of course not, because the traditional console isn't about playing PC games. The essence of the traditional console is bringing the arcade experience into people's homes, and the arcade experience differed from the PC experience in that all the games were standing next to each other and had to be instantly good, otherwise potential customers would just walk over to the next arcade cabinet. This is what led to the "easy to learn, hard to master" mantra. Consoles did evolve over the first few generations, from housing mostly ports of arcade games to eventually being more about games specifically developed for consoles. But said games followed the arcade mantra of "easy to learn, hard to master" which is why they maintained their addictive essence. Whenever you come across a game that shoves a lot of tutorials down your throat, it's easy to realize that said game isn't what it should be about. When you think about it like that, you can put two and two together why third party multiplats are at odds with what the market expects from a Nintendo console and why those multiplats barely move the needle on hardware sales for Nintendo. The Nintendo 64 focused on 3D games, and early 3D games feel clunky and stiff in comparison to the brilliant fluidity of the gameplay in the 16-bit era. Super Mario 64 may have been the foundation for a lot of 3D gaming, but it pales in comparison to how good SNES games were. Nintendo's direction with first party software did more damage to the Nintendo 64 than the loss of third party IPs to Sony's PS1. Nintendo fans skipped the Nintendo 64 because Nintendo wasn't making the right games anymore. Then with the GC Nintendo didn't even cater to the expectations of the fans of the 3D games anymore (most notably, Super Mario Sunshine and The Wind Waker were controversial), so many of those fans skipped the GC. Nintendo went from bad to worse. The GC had around 600 games, up from the around 400 of the Nintendo 64, but third party software mattered little for sales because most of those games could be bought elsewhere on top of coming first and foremost from American and European publishers whose roots are largely in PC gaming. |
The N64 had some of the greatest 3-D experiences ever made, they were even more mind blowing at the time of their release. This is the reason why it sold as well as it did despite its total lack of 3rd party support, and the absence of some of the most popular genres of the time such as JRPGs, and Fighting games.
Nintendo dug the N64's grave when they decided to go cartridge instead of CD, and drove away its third party support. The system however had some of the most revolutionary games ever made, and to deny this, is to deny facts.
Last edited by SammyGiireal - on 10 October 2020
