Rank the Presidents of Nintendo

[bdbdbd]

TheMisterManGuy said:

bdbdbd said:

The PS3 motion controls came as a surprise to everyone because the controller itself had the motion controls tacked on only after Nintendo revealed Wii, actually Revolution, controller having such feature - especially when people were positive about it. I think it was a perfect example how the incumbents try to copy disruptor without understanding the basis for the function they copy. This was why Nintendo revealed the controller as late as possible. Going back to 90's, Nintendo had the analog controller, so it was copied as soon as possible. Nintendo had the FFB add-on with rumble pack, next it was copied as dual shock. I think even Nintendo kind of ended up missing the point with Motion plus, although it was released when Nintendo expected the competitors to release their own motion controllers. Motion plus was kind of meh. I wouldn't say the late time for Sixaxis was really Sony's arrogance, but rather them being forced to react to Nintendo.

The point is, Sony crammed a feature into their console without even briefing their own developers on what it was or how it could be used, or if it was even a good idea at the time. This was Sony's mentality at the time. They thought they could shove in whatever crap into their box and just expect devs to learn it. It was a problem Sony wouldn't rectify until later half of the PS3's life starting with PlayStation Move. Move was the first project at SCE that incorporated WWS developers into the creative process of PlayStation platform development, and PS Vita, PS4, PSVR, and PS5 continued this trend.

bdbdbd said:

Instead Wii U, they should have released a updated Wii with 1080p HDMI port atleast a year earlier. Myself having a Wii U, the best feature of the system was being able to play Wii games via HDMI that eliminates large chunk of the lag on HDTV's. I wouldn't say Wii was a blue ocean product, as it was disruptive with different values. It was sold to same people who already were gamers, but the system had different values so that you had to get yourself a Wii to get the experience regardless whether you had another system or not. Microsofts "Wii60" campaign was kind of a proof MS understood this. It was Wii's successor that was originally supposed to drive Playstation off of homes - kind of DS to 3DS. Wii U ended up overshooting pretty much everything and nobody wanted the expensive gimmicky controller.

I kind of agree. If nothing else, Nintendo should've fought harder against the image of the Wii being a lame "casual" console during its later years, cause it's not like they were helping that image with disasters like E3 08. The thing people kind of forget about the Wii is that it had the games, plenty of so-called "core" games. But Nintendo wasn't aggressive enough in promoting that side of the Wii's library in its later half. Operation Rainfall is a perfect example of that, where Nintendo just decided not to release high quality AAA releases in America, even when they were already there. The Wii U felt like a lame attempt to try and win back the "core gamer" that should've came out in 2009, not 2012.

bdbdbd said:

I think Switch is more in lines with Gameboy. There's really not much "Touch generations" -type software on it, although it's a multiplayer system like home consoles. Maybe they have plans for Switch 2 to feature software for expanded audience.

The Switch is the result of Nintendo learning what worked, and what didn't work with their past two generations of hardware, to create a console that feels like it belongs in the modern era, with a practical gimmick that actually fits modern lifestyles. I mean there's some "Touch Generations" type games on it. But it's not the focus because "Touch Generations" type games aren't new or novel like they were in 2006. Not to mention, gaming is a much more accessible and easy to get into medium than it was in the mid-2000s, so building a console that "expands the gaming population" just wasn't going to fly in the modern age when games are at everybody's fingertips. The Switch was designed with this in mind, and is equipped to handle any kind of gaming lifestyle. From casual touch screen games, to deep console experiences, and has experiences that are unique to it like Ring-Fit Adventure and Splatoon.

A big reason the Switch is so successful though also, is because it's an easy console to take with you and share with a friend. Why do you think Mario Kart 8 DX is it's best selling game? Because it's the one that's best suited to the Switch's hook of being a console-on-the-go that you can play with a friend right out of the box.

I get your point, but what else they could have done with that schedule. In retrospect it was stupid decision for Sony to include the motion controls in the original controller, but it did make sense from the information they had back then. Wii was never about the controller but all about the games using it. However, Sony had incredibly poorly documented dev tools for third parties, who had to guess what the system could do and what it could not - and how to do it. This was mainly on PS2, but apparently PS3 aswell. So, you're correct in much more ways than you wrote about, just that given the schedule I don't think the controller was the issue, but actually everything else.

I think you're right. I believe Nintendo was pushing too hard the "competing without competing" -mantra and weren't pushing the core games to people. They did a lot of things incredibly right with their own core games on Wii, just that in the end they were left half way after a great start. When the Wii U was out, they did a complete 180 turn and suddenly it was a system for core gamers that had virtually nothing for the Wii audience to upgrade to - even the colour scheme was idiotic,  you had the white shitty system and black "good" system. I bought my Wii U for christmas 2015 because kids wanted it (and I wanted Hyrule Warriors) and had bought the system earlier but wanted to wait for the 32 gig white version. I did buy the black one as the 8 gig model made absolutely no sense at all.

Switch as a system fits the modern lifestyle better, but what I meant by "Touch Generations" was games that are designed to fit the modern lifestyle - that's what they in the end were. If you think of the core games, they are huge timesinks and do not fit the busy lifestyles people have. Of course there are some core games that you can pick up and play, such as Mario Kart, but not specifically designed for this purpose. Wii Music kind of ruined the whole idea of such philosophy, because it was marketed as one but was definitely a core game.