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

DevilRising said:
@OP

Okay look. You certainly have wiggle-room to argue that points 2. and 3. are true or not. Those are a bit more subjective in nature to be sure. Though honestly it's still a valid point that Nintendo DOES always tend to be the most inventive/innovative, and it's a fact that their games are almost always of the highest quality/some of the highest rated in any given year.



BUT, I'm sorry, point #1. is not arguable. Nintendo absolutely is indispensable to the industry, and if you don't understand why, then I'm afraid you don't truly understand video games. I'm not saying that to be a prick....but there's just no two ways about it. I cannot think of a single other video game company MORE indispensable than Nintendo. That is to say, I can't think of a single game company who would have MORE of a negative impact on the industry by "going away" than Nintendo would.

Well, If you say it is not arguable, then I guess no one can argue with it.

Thank you for the productive and respectful discussion. It's been illuminating.



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

Around the Network
Pristine20 said:
osed125 said:

Nah, we'll either see big AAA blockbuster tittles (your GTAs, CoDs, FIFAs etc) or indie games. Middle end software will disappear or become extremely rare. Games will either have to sell 5 million units to become profitable or become failures. Publishers will take even less risks than now. 

That's how I see the future of the game industry.

But the show will go on, yes? If it's nintendo  you're trying to defend, they're the masters of taking no risks on software.

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. 



Nintendo and PC gamer

Although not the makers of my favorite games. Even I can admit the importance of Nintendo. would gaming continue if they were gone? sure, but no other company is bigger for gaming. Do others make better games? here and there for various peoples tastes sure, but no one company has as many widespread universally acclaimed games as Nintendo.



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.


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.



menx64 said:
I disagree, if nintendo falls then I wii skip gaming all together!

same here plus no reason to hang out on game sites

 



    R.I.P Mr Iwata :'(

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

I recognize it's not being stated as fact, but in a conversation, an absolute opinion has the force of fact. You can only consider it right or wrong, and there is no middle ground. It may not be objective, but it is no less absolute. Intransigence kills conversation. :P

I'm not demanding that you agree, and I'm open to discussing why I think so, that's grounds for a conversation. ;)


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



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

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.



osed125 said:
Pristine20 said:
osed125 said:

Nah, we'll either see big AAA blockbuster tittles (your GTAs, CoDs, FIFAs etc) or indie games. Middle end software will disappear or become extremely rare. Games will either have to sell 5 million units to become profitable or become failures. Publishers will take even less risks than now. 

That's how I see the future of the game industry.

But the show will go on, yes? If it's nintendo  you're trying to defend, they're the masters of taking no risks on software.

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.



"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

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.



Nintendo and PC gamer

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.)



Nintendo and PC gamer