By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Seriously, Nintendo is not THAT Important

Mythmaker1 said:

They aren't the company that all publishers should aspire to be. They aren't some bastion of quality and creativity not seen anywhere else. They're one company, among many, better than some, lesser than others, and people really need to stop putting them on a pedastal.

Lesser than others? Who has a better résumé than Nintendo in gaming? 



Current gaming platforms - Switch, PlayStation 4, Xbox One, Wii U, New 3DS, PC

Around the Network
osed125 said:
TheJimbo1234 said:

Huh, well here is the very short counter to those three points;

1) Not it isn't. If they went, Sony and MC would have increased share prices and nothing bad would happen to them or their millions of customers.

2)Wrong. A touch pad is not innovative as that has been around for years. Full audio command integrations is innovative (although useful is another arguement entirely). Also more powerful consoles allows for innovative software.

3)Eh? That is just fan speak. They have not had an original IP for years, nor gameplay. Look at the Indy games smashing everything apart.

I heard of people not reading the OP, but not reading the tittle is a whole new level.

 Jeez



osed125 said:
TheJimbo1234 said:


Huh, well here is the very short counter to those three points;

1) Not it isn't. If they went, Sony and MC would have increased share prices and nothing bad would happen to them or their millions of customers.

2)Wrong. A touch pad is not innovative as that has been around for years. Full audio command integrations is innovative (although useful is another arguement entirely). Also more powerful consoles allows for innovative software.

3)Eh? That is just fan speak. They have not had an original IP for years, nor gameplay. Look at the Indy games smashing everything apart.

I heard of people not reading the OP, but not reading the tittle is a whole new level.

Erm, I am agreeing with OP.....it's just the condenced/far more snappy version of what OP said.

When dealing with fans, you have to be as blunt as a hammer, so you can bet many people would argue with OP over this from not reading or deluding themselves. The only way to get anywhere is by being short and simple.



curl-6 said:
Mythmaker1 said:

Fair enough. So what is it about Nintendo games, in particular, that is bestest? :P

Prioritization of fun, cleverly designed, and creative gameplay above all else.


They have that in spades, for the most part.

The point I diverge on is the prioritization of fun. I crave a fun game from time to time, but I often look for the maturity and depth I mentioned earlier, and not as many of their games have as much of that.



I believe in honesty, civility, generosity, practicality, and impartiality.

I love many of Nintendo's franchises, but I agree wholeheartedly.

These people that worship Nintendo, most of them just because it's what they grew up with, they don't love video games at all... They love only what they know. They're incredibly narrow-minded/sheltered, and detrimental to the medium at large.



Around the Network
Mythmaker1 said:
curl-6 said:
Mythmaker1 said:

Fair enough. So what is it about Nintendo games, in particular, that is bestest? :P

Prioritization of fun, cleverly designed, and creative gameplay above all else.


They have that in spades, for the most part.

The point I diverge on is the prioritization of fun. I crave a fun game from time to time, but I often look for the maturity and depth I mentioned earlier, and not as many of their games have as much of that.

For me, everything takes a back seat to fun. Maturity in games is like CGI in movies; it can be a good addition, but also a drawback, and isn't always necessary.



osed125 said:
Pristine20 said:
osed125 said:

It will become smaller and boring, further emphasizing my point that gaming companies in general are not that important. 

Never said Nintendo takes risks on software, they did with Wii games like Wii Sports and the likes but that's about it. 


You could make that point with anything short of farmers and water. What's boring to you may be paradise to others. As you probably already know, those games that make up your definition of boring are all a good number of gamers play.

Boring is subjective yes, but smaller isn't. If my scenario becomes true, that would mean less games a year, and a flood of trash indie games in the like of Candy Crush, Farmville and stuff like that. 

Also less diversity is not subjective, imagine only having drama and comedies on movies and TV, well imagine the same but with games genres, meaning only Sports and FPS games for example (I'm talking about AAA stuff here.)

I'll give you diversity on "AAA" titleseven though I'm not 100% sold that that would be the case absolutely. I mean FF still far outsells any JRPG but for some reason, they still make Tales games (Is tales not AAA)? I guess they're not bleeding cash enough? AAA isn't everything you know...and what's AAA is kind of difficult to determine sometimes. Is the AAA moniker given to big budget games or games over 90% on metacritic? That definition is crucial for me to understand your prediction.



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

PenguinZ said:
Mythmaker1 said:

They aren't the company that all publishers should aspire to be. They aren't some bastion of quality and creativity not seen anywhere else. They're one company, among many, better than some, lesser than others, and people really need to stop putting them on a pedastal.

Lesser than others? Who has a better résumé than Nintendo in gaming?

Not who you asked, but my opinion? Capcom, SNK, Namco, Sega, Atlus, and now Platinum are all companies I'd all put well over Nintendo in a heartbeat.

Obviously some of those like Capcom have seen far, FAR better days... Or really, I'd argue all but Atlus and Platinum have, but if you ask me... Nintendo never truly recovered from the commercial failure of the Gamecube. While their profitability may have gone up, their quality and general value proposition has absolutely plummeted. Perhaps as a direct result.



Mythmaker1 said:

Because I suspect it will be an issue, let me preface this before I begin in earnest. Yes, Nintendo is an excellent publisher. They make quite a lot of great games. They've done a lot to advance the industry over the years. I'm not attacking Nintendo fans or Nintendo itself with this post.

But seriously, can we admit that maybe they're not as important as some make them out to be?

Let me break things down a bit,  starting with three assertions I often see here and elsewhere.

1. Nintendo, as a company, is indispensable to the industry. This is not to say that they aren't important, or that they don't play an important role in the industry. But let's be practical here; 30+ years of gaming history isn't going to burst into flame if they were to go bankrupt, and the industry isn't going to collectively roll over and die because they aren't there. Again, they play an important role, but there are a lot of lean and hungry companies with the potential to fill the gap.

2. Nintendo is the only company that's being innovative. In terms of hardware, they definitely pushed touch and motion control to mainstream acceptance,  but they've also been stubbornly resistant to other trends in the industry that have drastically changed the hardware side of things. Some may dispute that these are positive changes, but it's hard to deny how transformative they've been. In terms of games, no. They will often push boundaries, but usually within very limited. Evolution, not revolution, and sometimes not even that. And some of their more innovative gameplay tweaks haven't always been very positive either.

3. Nintendo makes the best games, period. I can only imagine that the ones pushing this idea either have very narrow interests or very little exposure. Nintendo makes fun, highly polished games, but they aren't the only ones, and many of those other fun, highly polished games have the depth and maturity (actually maturity, not M-rated, etc..) that Nintendo games often lack. I'm not saying that Nintendo needs depth and maturity, there's nothing wrong with what they make, but the lack of these does not make their games any better either. And maybe, every once in a while, when the moon is full, and the stars are aligned, they put out a mediocre title, or even a flat-out bad game.

Am I saying the industry wouldn't be a darker, lesser place if Nintendo hadn't gotten into it? Probably not. Am I saying that the industry wouldn't be a darker, lesser place if Nintendo went bankrupt tomorrow? Probably not. But it distrubs me how many people seem to latch onto Nintendo and only Nintendo, and pretend the rest of the industry doesn't exist.

They aren't the company that all publishers should aspire to be. They aren't some bastion of quality and creativity not seen anywhere else. They're one company, among many, better than some, lesser than others, and people really need to stop putting them on a pedastal.


In 2-3 years console gaming in general will be not that important.



"Excuse me sir, I see you have a weapon. Why don't you put it down and let's settle this like gentlemen"  ~ max

curl-6 said:
Mythmaker1 said:
curl-6 said:
Mythmaker1 said:

Fair enough. So what is it about Nintendo games, in particular, that is bestest? :P

Prioritization of fun, cleverly designed, and creative gameplay above all else.


They have that in spades, for the most part.

The point I diverge on is the prioritization of fun. I crave a fun game from time to time, but I often look for the maturity and depth I mentioned earlier, and not as many of their games have as much of that.

For me, everything takes a back seat to fun. Maturity in games is like CGI in movies; it can be a good addition, but also a drawback, and isn't always necessary.

"Fun" is a term that has really been hijacked by the ninty crowd.  Fun = enjoyment so pretty much any game is fun noone would be playing it. As such, all games that have seen a release are probably fun to someone. It's not a ninty-exclusive like some of you seem to infer.



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler