lol, I had no idea Japan had a lot of people and not much land!!  I also didn't realise every building in Japan was a boring white cube.  Oh wait, they're not.  Here's the Tokyo skyline:

The point is just that Nintendo headquarters is very boring, architecturally.  I'm sure it's very practical and functional, and I'm sure that's what they were going for.  It's a solid decision.  But it's still boring looking - though not ugly.

Sorry but their HQ is in Kyoto not Tokyo

Yep. It´s a generic project, nothing flashy, but would Nintendo really need something flashy  and fancy, like the "center of the game universe"? Or just something practical?

You know, some people in these forums try to make a lot of fuzz about that, when in fact it means nothing related to the companies financial health.

Yeah, Kyoto has harsher building codes since it is a heritage site being the old capitol. Here is an article that touches on it slightly, just building a small house you have to conform to certin restrictions, I would expect larger buildings to have to meet more restrictions.

And included is that Nintendo doesn't have the company culture of being flashy.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323968704578651900778595128

Also for those who said why didn't they buy Atlas and do this instead, the building for this began in 2010, and the planning before that you don't just wake up one day and say hey lets start a building with no plans, permits, budget,  etc. Atlas didn't go on sale until 2013 when the build was basically complete.

Your point?

Reserved is definitely their way.  They could build something cooler or more remarkable looking no matter where they are - this building is as basic as it gets - but it's the Nintendo way to not make a splash.  I guess that's a good thing.

And the Atlus thing is completely irrelevant to this discussion.  As you say the building was planned long before, but it's not an either/or situation.  They could buy Atlus and 5 other companies and build 10 of these buildings with their cash in the bank.  They just choose not to.

Do they really need to build something pretty and flashy on the outside?

or would they be better at building something that can hold many employees and  can withstand earthquakes and many hazards for years to come?

what's the point of having an interestingly shaped building if it's going to fall over at the first quake?

and remember this is Nintendo we're talking about, one of the most conservative company in the world.

That still doesn't have anything with the topic.  Roger said in Japan everything must be small and practical. I was pointing out that many buildings in Japan are neither.  I'm sure it's a sound practical financial decision to build the building as they did.

Oh, and interesting buildings can be just as earthquake-resistant as Borg structures.

Take a look at Kyoto. It doesn't have much in the way of modern building designs. Their new R&D facility actually looks much more modern than the grand majority of new buildings there.

Exactly. It's not an architectural marvel, but it looks cool and modern and a very traditional city.