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

Gnac on 11 January 2014
leyendax69 said:

It's just an expression. What I meant is, if you think Nintendo's games are better than the rest of industry... ok. But Nintendo fans usually say that like a general consensus.

So it's a bit like a group of people calling something "THE BEST _____ OF ALL TIME", but it would actually be pedantic to call anyone out on this whenever the newest best thing of all time is declared. Hyperbole is everywhere.



WHERE IS MY KORORINPA 3

Around the Network
the_dengle on 11 January 2014

85% of the handheld market is a pretty big deal.

The PS2 accounted for about 75% of the console market during the sixth generation, and many of its sales came well after its competitors were discontinued and all of their successors launched.



Azhraell on 11 January 2014
curl-6 said:
leyendax69 said:

It's just an expression. What I meant is, if you think Nintendo's games are better than the rest of industry... ok. But Nintendo fans usually say that like a general consensus.

Well, it tends to be one of the reasons they're fans in the first place. ;)

That's not the important thing of why I quote you, but no problem :)



sundin13 on 11 January 2014

Relative to other companies in the industry, I would say that yeah, Nintendo is THAT important. They practically own the market of a few genres. Where would 3D platformers be without Nintendo? No other company is really looking at 3D platformers seriously. Ratchet and Clank is nowhere near where it used to be in and other than that, there are very few mainstream games in this genre. You could argue that Nintendo sustains the karting genre and the Brawler genre (Smash Bros). Even thinking about their games like Legend of Zelda or Metroid Prime I don't see other companies making similar games.

Compare this to say, Sony's first party offering (let me state before I get into this that I am not dismissing the quality of these games). I will steal a list from someone else in this thread:

Action adventure - Uncharted/ Ratchet & Clank
Racing - Gran Turismo/ Motorstorm/ Wipeout/ ModNation Racer
1st Person Shooter - Killzone/ Resistance
Shooters - M.A.G/ Starhawk/ Socom
Action - God Of War/ inFAMOUS/ Twisted Metal
Platforming - LBP/ Sly Cooper
Sports - MLB:The Show

Where would each of these genres be without Sony? Racing would be totally fine, Sports games wouldn't suffer, Nintendo can (and pretty much does) hold up platforming by itself, we all know shooters wouldn't suffer. I wont talk about all of these games because I haven't played games in all of these franchises but it feels to me like other companies make games in a space that holds a lot of other great games. Compare this to how Nintendo makes games in genres that feature almost nothing except for Nintendo games and when other games enter the genre, they are always compared and almost always come up short (not always mind you...).

Nintendo is a huge player in the industry and the industry would suffer without them. We would still get a ton of great games from other companies but we would be missing a piece of what makes this industry great (many other companies also contribute to this). Saying Nintendo isn't THAT important seems quite silly to me, like you are trying to bring them down for no apparent reason and like you are only comparing them to some ridiculous standard set up by who knows who. On almost every level I can think of, Nintendo is THAT important.



curl-6 on 11 January 2014
leyendax69 said:
curl-6 said:
leyendax69 said:

It's just an expression. What I meant is, if you think Nintendo's games are better than the rest of industry... ok. But Nintendo fans usually say that like a general consensus.

Well, it tends to be one of the reasons they're fans in the first place. ;)

That's not the important thing of why I quote you, but no problem :)

Did you mean that because I'm a Nintendo fan, it's expected that I'd say they make the best games?



Around the Network
osed125 on 11 January 2014
Mythmaker1 said:

Mario is probably the only one that really sticks, but I think a lot of the way other publishers neglect the genre is because Mario has a stranglehold on it. Everyone knows you can't compete with Mario, so no one tries. Yet look at all of the indie-platforming games that have flooded the market in recent years, outside of that competition. For a couple of years, there might be a void, but I don't expect it would have serious long-term consequences. It's sort of like World of Warcraft. If WoW fell tomorrow, just about every company would leap at the chance to take its place.

if that's the case, you can say that for absolutely every game in existence, or hardware for that matter.

Say Sony stops making consoles and after a void, Apple, Samsung, Google or whatever comes with another console. If that's your perception of something not being important then anything is not important in life, because practically everything can be replaced.



Nintendo and PC gamer

Mythmaker1 on 11 January 2014
curl-6 said:
Mythmaker1 said:
curl-6 said:
Mythmaker1 said:  

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.

So much incorrect assumption here.

I do not have narrow interests or little exposure. I enjoy everything from FPS games to platformers to racers, and I've owned and enjoyed non-Nintendo consoles in the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th gens.

And I yet I still hold that Nintendo make the best games in the industry bar none.

If you're saying you enjoy Nintendo games more than any other publishers in the industry, that's certainly fair. But "best" is an entirely different beast because quality is subjective, which was the point I was trying to make. Some people prefer games with more depth, or more complex mechanics, or a more mature or thought-provoking narrative, so to say one company, which specializes in games typically weaker in these categories, is "best" seems to be to be a very narrow view. It's like saying Pixar is better than Warner Brothers, despite the fact they make very different movies.

Quality is indeed subjective; hence it is my subjective view that Nintendo's games are the best in the industry, and I say that as someone with extensive experience in non-Nintendo games.

It's fair that that's your opinion. I just get an itch when I see absolutes applied to subjective views because it basically gives them the force of fact; there's no opportunity for middle ground.

When you say "Nintendo games," do you mean that collectively, or individually?



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

Azhraell on 11 January 2014
curl-6 said:
leyendax69 said:
curl-6 said:
leyendax69 said:

It's just an expression. What I meant is, if you think Nintendo's games are better than the rest of industry... ok. But Nintendo fans usually say that like a general consensus.

Well, it tends to be one of the reasons they're fans in the first place. ;)

That's not the important thing of why I quote you, but no problem :)

Did you mean that because I'm a Nintendo fan, it's expected that I'd say they make the best games?

Not necessarily, but actually that's what you said in the first place. It helps to point out that the op is right in the third affirmation.



curl-6 on 11 January 2014
Mythmaker1 said:

It's fair that that's your opinion. I just get an itch when I see absolutes applied to subjective views because it basically gives them the force of fact; there's no opportunity for middle ground.

When you say "Nintendo games," do you mean that collectively, or individually?

I feel like I kinda need to put a disclaimer in my sig, that any view I express is simply my opinion and I do not claim it as fact. XD It was not my intention to express it as an objective absolute.

I mean both the average quality of their output, and the amount of all-time greats they develop.



Mythmaker1 on 11 January 2014
osed125 said:
Mythmaker1 said:

Mario is probably the only one that really sticks, but I think a lot of the way other publishers neglect the genre is because Mario has a stranglehold on it. Everyone knows you can't compete with Mario, so no one tries. Yet look at all of the indie-platforming games that have flooded the market in recent years, outside of that competition. For a couple of years, there might be a void, but I don't expect it would have serious long-term consequences. It's sort of like World of Warcraft. If WoW fell tomorrow, just about every company would leap at the chance to take its place.

if that's the case, you can say that for absolutely every game in existence, or hardware for that matter.

Say Sony stops making consoles and after a void, Apple, Samsung, Google or whatever comes with another console. If that's your perception of something not being important then anything is not important in life, because practically everything can be replaced.

That was more or less the point. That there isn't anything that makes Nintendo immune to that.



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