Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Why I don't like Nintendo

1. Really? They almost never make two mediocre games in a row for the same franchise. Except NSBU.
2. I don't think you understand buisness. PEOPLE BUY MARIO games, so they MAKE SEQUELS. Why the hell would Nintendo stop making Mario games if its making them money?
3. Again, PEOPLE BUY POKEMON! I admit, Pokemon has gotten a little bit stale recently, but you can't make that arguement anymore because Pokemon X/Y got 87 on Metacritic.
4. Really? The latest MK and SSB games got 88 and 93 on Metacritic respectively.
5. You may not like them, but a lot of people do. Why would Nintendo stop making those games just because XB and PS gamers want them to.
6. Yes, because for the 500th time MARIO POKEMON AND ZELDA SELL!
7. If it aint broke don't fix it.
8. Maybe for you, but its been proven that Nintendo's old IP's sell better than their new IPs almost every time.

Around the Network
RCTjunkie said:
FragilE^ said:
Why is this thread even allowed to live? Kill it already o.o

While mods usually kill threads like this, they allow ones that have taken off to semi-decently behaved debates to continue, allowing the mass to be in awe of such like it's an intense GoT scene.

While the OP is filled with poor arguments, none of them are particularly inflammatory. Wearing my mod hat, i fail to see any issue here. Not doing so, now, hmm...

Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Mr Khan said:
RCTjunkie said:

While mods usually kill threads like this, they allow ones that have taken off to semi-decently behaved debates to continue, allowing the mass to be in awe of such like it's an intense GoT scene.

While the OP is filled with poor arguments, none of them are particularly inflammatory. Wearing my mod hat, i fail to see any issue here. Not doing so, now, hmm...

Fair enough. Thank you for the clarity. 

mii-gamer said:


Go play Xenoblade Chronicles... not a Mario in sight. There are other such games as well. You just have to look beyond your Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon hate.

My advice

Turn that hate into indifference, so you can see and enjoy the non Mario/Zelda/Pokemon games from Nintendo and continue to ignore the franchises which you feel have overstayed their welcome with you.

Around the Network

I think the exclusives just don't visually appeal to certain people and since games are partially driven by said visuals, it's a deal breaker. Obviously I'm talking about visuals traditionally associated with Nintendo, as they have stuff in the pipeline that looks to break the mold. Plus, it doesn't help that having a Wii U means you gotta have a second console for the third party releases or accept that you'll lose out on plenty of content out there.

BraLoD said:
Blob said:

I feel Sony needs to make new IPs at a steadier rate than Nintendo because when they do make one, they push it hard. A lot of their new IPs receive trilogys or more within the span of a generation and when the sales start sliding down due to burnout they have to make a new one to push. However when Nintendo gets a new IP they unfortunately don't push it hard enough or even at all (see Disaster/another code/pandoras tower/xenoblade/Last story). This often leads to rather low sales and they then get overlooked in arguments such as these because they only received a single entry that didn't light the charts on fire.

It's more like Sony refresh it's franchises when a new generation comes. That's why they usually go with trilogies that goes throught the whole gen.
GoW and Uncharted did so well still in their respective gen ends that Sony wisely come with more games in the next gen, but that didn't refrained then to make new IP's, in that case, ND already have TLOU and SSM is almost done with The Order 1886.
Sony can and will try to take the more of their franchises but even when they do it they deliver new stuff as well, and high quality stuff as we already see with TLOU success in the middle of another success that was Uncharted series.
Nintendo keep trying to achive success with new IP's and keep failing, because they focus too much in their already successful franchises that come again every single gen, theirselves shoot at their new IP's and make them lost space and die, then they come back to the old IP's and that forms a cycle that they couldn't get off in 30 years, and don't show a signal they will.
Nintendo is the only to blame in their tragic decrease over the years, a company that have almost the monopoly in the console gaming market now is irrelevant to most of the publishers and keep making the same mistakes over and over.
Nintendo has one of the most die hard fanbase that came along the years, but that's already too little to keep them healthy in the market, they need to bring new stuff to bring new people to them, otherwise they will be joining Atari and Sega in the one a time glorious gaming company's that faded away and will product their games to other consoles/plataforms.

If Sony owned Spyro and Crash I garuntee you they wouldve been making those during the PS2 era. Instead they bought the companys who made them and got them to make new platformer ips in their stead. Then during the PS3 they decided to change their market and had to make these new IPS to appeal to a different market. Sony can also afford to make IPS that aren't likely to explode into the sales charts as third party sales are really where the bulk of their money comes in. Im also positive the order will get multiple sequels unless it absolutely bombs.

Nintendo on the other hand have to make Mario, Zelda, Pokemon as they don't get this buffer from third partys, something they desperately need to fix. Not only that you often see comments were people are waiting for these franchises to come before they buy the console. I mean what is Nintendo supposed to do? They need to push their new IPs more, its a travesty how little effort theyve put into promoting them, but this cannot come at the expense of the bulk of their cashflow which is currently keeping them afloat.

So basically the OPs argument can be summed up as such:  "The games are mediocre because they come out too often and repeat too many elements. I might be interested if they retire them and replace them with new franchises." And that's compeletely fine, but your reasoning is very subjective, which is why few people are taking you seriously.

The introduction of new characters and story can add tremendously to the feeling of freshness of a new game. However, at the end of the day, these are games. New characters and story actually do nothing to change the gameplay unless such gameplay is directly related to the story - and it isn't always. Many studios create new IPs that have interesting stories and charcters but do very little in the way of gameplay innovation. Some new IPs are very innovative. Yet regardless of gameplay, they are deemed original by default. The ones that have innovative gameplay, are, of course, looked at more favorably, but studios get seem to brownie points for simply making a game with a different name.

Take, for example, the bunch of action games that come out of the industry. Companies make action games with the same stealth mechanics, the same third-person shooter mechanics, the same parkour mechanics, etc. and yet it's supposedly something completely new. And Final Fantasy. I love that franchise too - it's among my favorites. But how does varying casts and stories make the gameplay any more original? Standard turn-based for 1-3 and 10; ATB for all the other main ones. Variations on how you level up and gain abilities. Treasure-hunting, occasional boss fights, missions, weapon customization... Sounds like a pretty run-of the-mill JRPG to me. Yet while NIntendo games do introduce new mechanics , art styles, etc. that alter gameplay, sometimes more effectively than other companies in the industry, you automatically dismiss them because they they have Mario and LInk in them.

Why do you care so much about characters and story? It's a game, not a movie. You can get as much from Let's Play for the same amount you charge for Internet.

And while you may want them to foergo these franchises and replace them with new ones, the statistics make such a suggestion nonsencial. As has already been pointed out to you, Nintendo found success with these franchises in numerous different generations. They continue to be well-received by both critics and fans, and continue to sell millions. They certainly have their titles that didn't do so well, but if you look at the circumstances, they're on consoles that didn't do so well. If anything, there's more an issue of making consoles that people want and proving a variety of different games (whether through first- or third-party), not a fundamental decline in core franchise interest. I think most everyone - NIntendo fans and otherwise - would agree that NIntendo needs to focus less on core franchises and make more new IPs. But even then, it isn't all that simple. New franchises, with a few exceptions, don't just underperform, they do bad (all the ones that do well are casual). Do the research and you'll find a ton of new IPs in the GameCube and Wii eras that did terribly. That isn't to say, of course, that they should make new IPs, they just have to make sure their concepts for new IPs are really good and they appriopriately balance investments with old IPs. And this, again, is the general consensus.

I can understand your fatigue with Mario and Zelda. But get rid of them entirely because you can't stand them anymore, when so may others love them? What makes you that special?

And you have a lot of misconceptions about NIntendo games. You seem to be one of those whose attitude towards NIntendo games is "you've played one, you've played them all" yet you can't even fairly make that judgement if you haven't played them all. Sure, people make mistakes, but it's hard to think you know what you're talking about when you say "Zilda". The Wonderful 101 is an RTS, not a platformer. The mechanics of Pokemon have evolved so drastically that it's hardly the same game anymore. If you think all of the following changes/ additions since the original games: of breeding, EVS, IVs, happines, ribbons, double battles, triple battles, sky battles, rotation battles, new abilities every gen, mega evolutions, weather, the physical/special split, new moves and teaks to those moves' effects, contests, battle facilities, strolling with pokemon, variations on safaris, three new types, and over 550 new pokmon (whether you like them or not) didn't change the game at all, then I have no idea what to say to you. Zelda nd Mario may have similar structures, but they've changed a lot over different installments. Different levels, different worlds, control variations, art style, different items/power-ups have made pretty big differences in how you play. While I agree that they re-use way too may assets (New playable characters in Mario? Why are almost all the locations in Zelda the same? Why 8 gyms with linear connecting paths?), to say that the games are all the same is not just opinion - it's simply false. 

I'm not denying that Nintendo has a lot of problems, but the notion that their core franchises have declined in quality mainly because they've existed this long has very little basis in reality. And even if they have declined in quality, that amount is far from substantial. What's far more likely is that is that your interest has declined - to which I acknowledge that you're definitely not alone, but you're not going to taken seriously if you use that as a basis for arguing that the games are bad.



If you think Nintendo should create a new character as the star of a platformer because that stops it from being a rehash then you're deluded. The point of the platformer is the simple fun of the genre. I've yet to play a platformer where the story doesn't just get in the way. You would see Nintendo release a game that would get a tenth of the sales of a Mario game and be no better. I'm glad you're mot making the decisions.

Soriku said:

I don't know why I'm bothering, but I'll respond seriously anyway.

1. They keep making mediocre games.

OK? I don't think most people agree, otherwise many of Nintendo's games wouldn't continuously get high scores (from critics and fans) and sales would have fallen off a cliff a long time ago.

2. I played Mario games since I was 8 years old.  Fast forward 20 years later,  they're still making Mario games. Princess Peach.. that bitch keep getting kidnapped.

So? Many IPs are very old and are still getting games made, like SMT, Tales....FF like in your avatar. Don't see the issue as long as people keep buying them (if you were in charge of a video game company, or any other company, would you complain that one of your popular IPs has been making a lot of money for many years? If you would, you're a poor businessman.)

3. Yes, they continue to copy their own mediocre games after copies after copies, so many copies.  Pokemon red, blue, ruby, yellow, gold, silver, X, Y, Crystal, green, pearl, emerald, black and white, Black and White 2..(there is more) from 1996 to present. I was happy with just 150 Pokemon.

They keep making the games because millions of people still buy them. See above. Whether you were happy with just 150 Pokemon or not is irrelevant. You realize this right?

4. The series of Supersmash Bro is mediocre just like Mario Kart. The Motor Bike chase in FFVII is better, Power Stone, Chocobo Racing, Marval Vs Capcom, Capcom Vs SNK, Crash team racing is all better.


5. Zelda, Pokemon, and Mario is over rated. They need to retire already.

See #2 and #3.

6. Let me tell you what Nintendo cares about. They care about their own IPs. They make their system for their IPs. They don't really care about anything else because they know pokemon, zelda, and mario is all they need.

Every company ever cares about their own IPs. You think Sony and MS don't care about their IPs? You think they don't have their own IPs in mind when making new consoles? If Nintendo knew Pokemon, Zelda, and Mario is all need they wouldn't have made any more IPs...that isn't the case. They have many more IPs than just those three. Both developed in-house and contracted (like Last Story, Wonderful 101).

7. When I look at Mario games, kart, smash, pokemon etc. I see nothing new.

This point is redundant.

8. If Nintendo is going to make a new RPG game, then I hope they leave Mario out of it. Anything with Mario or Zelda is a turn off.

Fire Emblem, Advance Wars, Pokemon, Xenoblade, X, The Last Story (contracted), Pandora's Tower (contracted), etc. - no Mario and Zelda.

Finally, if you don't like the games, don't play them. Nobody's forcing you...I think. You don't have a gun to your head at this very moment, right OP?

No no no, I'm not leaving that to chance at all.  Op, if there is a gun to your head making your write all this stuff, i want you to spell wink sad face us ;( .  That'll be my queue to have the popo drop in on the guy holding the gun to your head for making you write such stupid remarks with no credible points overall.  Don't worry, we will get you the help you need.