DevilRising said:
First off dude, I'm almost 32 years old. My first console was the Atari 2600, the first game I ever played was Pac-Man in the arcades. I "grew up" with the NES as my main system. I've lived through the SNES, N64, GC and Wii eras. I was there, so I know what happened. I wouldn't call it "revisionist history". I'd call it what it is: a practical take on what happened. What HAPPENED, is that the Playstation brand took hold of the market, and while a lot of long-time Nintendo (and even some old Sega) fans bought and enjoyed the Gamecube, there were MANY gamers, especially younger gamers, who specifically didn't buy it because "Oh it's just some purple kids toy". In their immature vision of what "core" gaming is (something you yourself keep bringing up), they refused to take a Nintendo console seriously because "It's for kids". Nevermind that that line has always been a massive load of bullshit. It's still true in many gamers minds. Even today. "Oh, if you're an adult gamer, you buy Playstation or Xbox, or game on PC, Nintendo's for kids". It's a carefully crafted misconception that dates all the way back to Sega's old "Nintendon't" advertisements. Sony picked up that kind of ad slander, and later the first Xbox even did it. Thus why that idea has been fostered in many gamers' minds.
But that's besides the point. I really don't what you're saying about "innovating core gaming". What exactly do you expect them to do? The Wii and DS innovated BECAUSE it was "outside the core", outside the norm. That as specificlaly the point, and the sales of DS and Wii DID allow Nintendo to "take the throne back". In case you missed it, Wii dominated sales last gen, and nothing has come close to touching Nintendo in handheld sales since 1989. What exactly is there, WORLD SHAKING, to innovate in what you call "Core gaming"? You're absolutely right. Nintendo DID innvoate and shape the gaming industry in the NES, SNES and N64 generations. Of course they did. What they did with Super Mario Bros., The Legend of Zelda, Metroid, etc., other companies tried to copy for years. Those games set the standard for half the genres in video gaming. And the SNES set new precedents with "Mode 7" graphics, with the pre-rendered look of Donkey Kong Country, with the style of Super Metroid, the innovative new racing concepts presented by Mario Kart and F-Zero, the early 3D gameplay in Star Fox, etc. And naturally, the N64 led the charge, even though Saturn and Playstation had tried it earlier, in really setting the precedent for making 3D games that WORKED, outside of fighters and racers. No one did a 3D action/platformer/adventure game right until Mario 64 came along and showd the way.
And all of that, you're absolutely correct. But where exactly, did you expect them to go from there? The step from 2D to 3D was huge (even though I still to this day argue that the industry abandoned 2D far too early). How do you possibly top that? What were they supposed to do on Gamecube that "shaped the industry"? And truthfully, what did Sega or Sony, or later Microsoft, do that shaped or shook up the industry either? That was kind of IT. 3D games were there, they were being made, being refined. But what came along that absolutely changed/shaped the industry during the PS2/Dreamcast/Xbox era, that HADN'T already been done on N64? Grand Theft Auto? Not really, there were other, earlier "Sandbox" games dating back to the 80s. So you're accusing Nintendo of not shaking up the whole industry with GC, even though PS2 and Xbox didn't do so either. They merely built upon the foundation laid by Nintendo's early work on N64 (since you're making that argument).
It wasn't until Nintendo came along with the DS, that they added touch screen controls as a new game implimentation. And guess what? It's become the thing, with phones, with tablets, with the Vita, the PS4 controller, etc. They may not have created it, but they certainly innovated it, and popularized it. And then they came out with the Wii, with the silly looking Wiimote/nunchuk set up that everyone said wasn't going to work. With motion controls that everyone said were going to fail and that Nintendo was going to go under. Sound familiar? Except it didn't. Wii Sports change the world of gaming, turned it on it's head, shook it up, revolutionized it, whatever you want to call it. You claim that "oh, well that doesn't count because that's casual gaming". No. It's just video gaming. There have been simple, "casual" games since the 1970s. This nerd business of slapping the "Casual" and "core" label on shit does not conform to the reality of the world, that is the fact that a lot of "non-core gamers" have been playing and enjoying "casual gaming" for decades, in various venues. Nintendo didn't create "casual gaming", but they sure as hell innovated it with the motion control setup, and brought a lot of those "non-traditional gamers" to gaming consoles. And Sony and Microsoft, who both derided the Wii and it's motion controls as "a fad, a gimmick", later were so inspired by it's popularity, and the money it was making Nintendo, that Sony made their OWN blatant Wiimote/Nunchuk ripoff with the Move, and Microsoft (tried, badly) to do it one better, and make a "hands free motion control" device in the Kinect. The Kinect helped MS sell 360s (that and the RROD). I don't know if the Move helped Sony much, but it may have. And regardless, Nintendo helped bring in a lot more potential customers across ALL platforms.
If you don't call that innovation, and shaping the industry, I don't know what to call it. Because that's what it was. Now Nintendo is trying to take a balanced approach, trying to marry the ideas of the DS and Wii, along with more traditional, old school controls, with the Wii U. No, they're not "innovating and shaking up the industry". They already did that. But what they are trying to do, is build on what they already started with Wii and DS. And personally, I applaud them for it. Because for one thing, while motion controls can be nice for certain games, I'm an old school gamer and will always prefer just pressing buttons. But it IS nice to have both options in Wii U. And it IS nice to have a controller that not only doubles as a second screen/touch screen, but you can even have off-tv play with it, tripling as a short-range portable gaming device even. There is a LOT to like about, and even a little bit of innovation going on, with the Wii U hardware itself. You just haven't seen much out of the GAMES ulitilizing it yet. And no wonder, not many GAMES have come out for the thing yet.
But they will, and many of them will make use of Wii U's various abilities. I just don't really get what you expect Nintendo to do, when you speak of "innovating the core gaming". If you mean for them to make new, more "mature" IPs that copy what other companies have already been doing for years, for one that's not their style, and for another, that would just be them copying other people's ideas. That's not innovation. So I really don't understand PRECISELY what you imagine they could do to "innovate core gaming" that they haven't done already. I think if you just sit back and wait, you'll see many games that do a lot of great things on this system, given time. And if you're not patient enough, or think it's just "another Gamecube", whatever you seem to think that means, well, then you're more than welcome to go looking for this mysterious "core gaming innovation" elsewhere.
|
