Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Among the big Japanese publishers, is Nintendo the least creatively risk-averse?

Last generation did a number on Japanese game companies. Rising costs of AAA game development, declining popularity of Japanese developed games in the west, and a seemingly endless stream of bad business decisions brought companies like Capcom, Square Enix, and Sega to their knees. But today, Major Japanese publishers have been making strides to keep up and improve, even being able to rival and beat western developers on multiple occasions in recent years. But in order to do so, most of them had to sacrifice one key asset, innovation. Capcom and Sega in particular have gone from two of the most eclectic and imaginative developers/publishers in the industry, to sterile sequel factories focusing almost entirely on a limited selection of cash-cow properties (Street Fighter and Monster Hunter for Capcom, and Sonic and Yakuza for Sega). They can still make great games, but gone are the days where you see wacky titles like Viewtiful Joe or Space Channel 5 on a regular basis.

But of all the major Japanese game publishers, Nintendo always seemed to be the most creatively consistent. Even their lowest creative point, the Wii U and 3DS era to me, is still way more innovative than modern Capcom or Sega. In fact, of the major Japanese publishers at the moment, I'd say Nintendo is by far the least risk-averse creatively speaking. While Capcom and Sega bank all their bets on the latest Yakuza or Monster Hunter, Nintendo is taking in ideas and concepts most major Japanese companies today wouldn't touch with a 10 ft. pole. In just two years, Nintendo introduced a third person Arena fighter about stretchy Armed freaks, a 2 player party game where you don't look at the screen, a British puzzle game about snipping paper, a game about binging obscene amounts of Sushi, and a series of Lego-like Interactive model kits made from Cardboard.

I think a large reason Nintendo is able to do things like these is because they're notoriously cost-conscious. Nintendo has been known, sometimes to a fault, for only spending as much as they need to spend to get the job done. Most of their games are made on modest budgets, and usually only need a relatively small number of sales to turn a profit. Nintendo is a company who doesn't really care what they do, so long as it made a profit. Their status as a platform holder also pushes them to try and get as much unique and original content onto their systems as possible to ensure stable sales and a regular flow of first party games.

Sure you can argue that Nintendo is more creatively conservative vs. smaller indie titles (which is true in a way), and you can argue that even they whore out their cash-cows like Mario, Pokemon and Splatoon, which is also true as well. But I'd say Nintendo doesn't exclusively rely on their mainstays the way Capcom and Sega do. Nintendo is in a position where they can afford to take insane creative risks. If it isn't a massive seller or even a successful game, no problem, it at least either made enough money or had the more profitable titles pick up the slack. Even some of their cash cows like Mario take creative risks on a regular basis.

TL;DR - Compared to Capcom, Sega, Square Enix, etc., Nintendo seems to be the least risk-averse creatively speaking in today's gaming market. They've put out sever weird ideas and concepts that would've never been greenlit by modern Capcom or Sega.



Around the Network

Last 3 console are pretty risky



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

Not just among Japanese publishers, among all publishers, period. Or would anybody else come up with things like Arms? Splatoon? LABO? All their nonstandard (aka More! Power!) consoles and handhelds?



Yes, and that's due to the fact that they can afford it since they rely on their cash cows simultaneously as well.



Gameplay > Graphics

Substance > Style

Art Direction > Realism

It'd seem that they are trying to keep things a bit more traditional the last two or three years but who can blame them to think conservatively after the last few years, I know for a fact though, that if their plans to mobil-ify the switch does not pan out they have some new device out that will be said to be pushing boundaries. My guess is a cost efficient yet high quality VR/AR like platform when that becomes feasible and they can manufacture HMD's of high enough quality but costs effective enough for local MP and Co-op. I know people will call me crazy but if they are going to start gambling again, it'll be on mixed reality. I suspect somewhere mod next generation, in the mid 2020s when they can keep costs down yet have the tech needed.



 

China Numba wan!!

Around the Network

Nintendo is by faaaaar the largest, most successful japanese publisher (I'd exclude Sony, as the big majority of their games isn't developed in Japan) and has been for decades, so they are in a better position to fund more daring projects



You kinda contradict yourself. If they put very little budget on their not well recognized franchises then they are being very conservative on avoid risk.

Certainly I can agree that Nintendo makes more varied titles than most if not all Japanese developers. Still Capcom and Sega aren't limited to the 2 IPs each you have put.

But yes, we can agree with the premisse you put on general terms.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Nintendo have always been conservative but as a platform holder they want a variety of content. As for japenese publishers being risk adverse, you should look at Koei Tecmo, who's most risky move was copying an open world trend badly years too late. They almost always stick to their guns and don't go outside their comfort zone. Konami is another that other than past Metal Gear games they stick to lower cost yearly releases like PES. Your argument does work with Square Enix & Capcom but not really with Koei Tecmo or Bandai Namco who make majority of their money on lower cost projects.



DonFerrari said:
You kinda contradict yourself. If they put very little budget on their not well recognized franchises then they are being very conservative on avoid risk.

Certainly I can agree that Nintendo makes more varied titles than most if not all Japanese developers. Still Capcom and Sega aren't limited to the 2 IPs each you have put.

But yes, we can agree with the premisse you put on general terms.

Yeah but when you see Sega doesn't wanna fund Bayonetta 2 and rather pay for another shitty Sonic game that almost no one even want or care, you realize they aren't always good risk takers.

 

In fact, the Bayonetta case is a good point for the thread



"Quagmire, are you the type of guy who takes 'no' for an answer ?"
"My lawyer doesn't allow me to answer that question"

PSN ID: skmblake | Feel free to add me

Nintendo take big risks creatively indeed.
Unfortunately for us, they tend to chase the Big Blue Ocean, if you see what I mean.


Besides, if Nintendo wasn't risk-averse, they'd collaborate with Square Enix on a new Paper Mario game.



 
I WON A BET AGAINST AZUREN! WOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

:3