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

Blob said:
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.

Completely agree. Nintendo needs to create more new IPs and put substantial effort into marketing them. They also need to strengthen their relations with third-parties (though mostly for exclusives and multiplats with exclusive content). 

People really don't seem to understand the difference between Nintendo and Sony/MS. NIntendo built themselves on big first-party blockbusters. Their philosophy has always been to grow massive brands to attract consumers and if they do that, the third parties will come. That doesn't, of course, mean that you don't push new IPs , have bad relations with third-parties, and tailor your hardware solely to your own needs. Those are miscalculations/mistakes. But I think the core strategy is a viable one if properly executed. Some people may not like it, and I think they have a lot of credence in what they say.

But it doesn't change the fact that changing such a strategy would cost a lot of time, money and effort. They could radicallly change their strategy, invest millions into third-parties and new IPs, marketing, and R&D, and kill some of their existing franchises. Many gamers would love them for it, but would enough be willing to buy their products for it to have been worth it? How long would it take for those gamers to take Nintendo seriously, and how much will have changed by then. Can they, as a medium-sized, publicly-traded corporation, even afford to make such changes while not becoming even more unprofitable than they are right now? (This is why you see shareholders saying to go mobile rather than third-party). Would it even work (what do they do if they lose traditional NIntendo fans due to focusing less on beloved franchises)? And at the end of it all, can they say it would have been worth it? What if they don't want to take the company in that direction? And before people say that it doesn't matter, imagine how a AAA dev might feel when he's taunted for not joining the more profitable mobile game industry, or when a man who makes men's clothing is told to make women's clothing because they'll buy more. For the record, Nintendo would rather see their company go up in flames than develop for their competition (you'd MUCH sooner see them go handheld-only). As stupid as it sounds, that's the ideology that Yamauchi built the company on and I think it's quite amaiable.

Sony and MS, on the other hand, are very different in nature. They're divisions in large multinationals that have far more resources. Since they're just divisions, they can afford not to be profitable it means the company makes more money as a whole due to the commmercial purpose that the brand serves. They were built on third-parties and a variety of different games. As long as they have strong third-party support, they can afford to invest money in games they think will make their brand more popular even if they're expensive. Sony/MS and NIntendo may compete, but to hold them to the exact same standards given their differences is a bit disingenuous.

A lot of people own a Playstation and/or an Xbox without really caring much for first-party games, despite the success of games like TLoU or Halo 3. People who don't particularly like NIntendo games aren't going to suddenly start using their consoles as third-party boxes and to think that they realistically could in even the next ten years is flat-out delusional. And that's especially considering that their games target a very different crowd. Do people really think anyone but a small, tight-knit circle of hardcore gamers would play Mario, Zelda, Mass Effect and GTA on the same console anytime soon? 

I think the right path for Nintendo is to play to their biggest strengths while patching their biggest weaknesses. Improve online, take adavantage of their wealth of IP( make new and innovative IP; revive old ones), make a unique achievement system, reward loyal customers with game discounts, leverage mobile platforms, invest in third-party exclusive and exclusive "Nintendo-like" content for the biggest multiplats, and make consols components fall closer in line with industry desires. 

Around the Network
Cream147 said:
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.

Yeah. People tend to say Mario is shallow and then compare it more mature games in completely different genres. They forget that nearly all good platformers do that because Mario is one of the few relevant platformers that isn't on iOS. Want to know a universally-acclaimed platforming franchise that isn't made by NIntendo? Rayman. Very little story at all. Rayman & pals have to save the teensies. That's it. Why do you need a lot of story, when, for the style of the game, that would just make it worse? Call it lazy game design if you want, but it's industry standard.

deskpro2k3 said:

Annnnnnnnnnnnnd none of them is the same except for direct sequels or remakes. They share the same name yes. Try again.

You complain about Nintendo making "mediocre" games, but that list is full of mediocre and downright awful games!

       ---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---

Fusioncode said:

I'm starting to think you don't understand how sales figures work. 

I understand sales figures, my opinion is that you didn't understand our convo. DerNebel made it clear why he downplays the U, and it's because to him Nintendo always makes the wrong decisions.

I explained to him that it's not about them making the wrong decisions, but about them not being able to pull off the right decision (a steady flow of fun, high quality and fresh new games). They are trying and sure the sales figures show that they are falling flat, but it's not by virtue of a bad decision or a lack of effort.

Nothing to rag Nintendo on about at the very least.

Like I don't rag on the Vita because I thought it was well made, though let's be honest Nintendo is doing a much better job supporting the U albeit they are still falling short.

Let's just be honest.

deskpro2k3 said:
Hynad said:
Final Fantasy Dissidia
Final Fantasy Dissidia 012
Final Fantasy The 4 Heroes of Light
Final Fantasy Dimensions
Final Fantasy Airborne Brigade
Theatrhythm Final Fantasy
Final Fantasy All the Bravest
Theatrhythm Final Fantasy: Curtain Call
Final Fantasy Explorers
Final Fantasy XIII
Final Fantasy XIII-2
Lightning Returns - Final Fantasy XIII
Final Fantasy VII - Steam Edition
Final Fantasy VIII - Steam Edition
Final Fantasy XIV
Final Fantasy X Collection
Final Fantasy XV
Final Fantasy Tactics S
Final Fantasy Tactics: The War of the Lions (iOS...)
Final Fantasy Agito
Final Fantasy Type 0

I don't know why, but I see the OP having some outstanding double standards... ¬_¬

Annnnnnnnnnnnnd none of them is the same except for direct sequels or remakes. They share the same name yes. Try again.


Aaannnnnnnnnnd the same applies to Nintendo games. K. Thx. Bye.

Around the Network
Hynad said:


Aaannnnnnnnnnd the same applies to Nintendo games. K. Thx. Bye.

His argument is that Mario 64 is the same as Mario World is the same as Mario Kart, because Mario. Get it now?

Because I don't.

Man, you must really hate Madden/Fifa, Call of Duty, Battlefield, Uncharted, Gears, Halo, Infamous, God of War and every other game that has ever had multiple installments if you despise Nintendo that much.

I can't even imagine how much you must hate Sony; Microsoft, EA, Activision, etc. as well...

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.

I can see that, I guess. And Mr. Khan stepping in and clarifying as well, pretty nice.

OP's arguments boil down to "Nintendo games suck, because reasons." And then a ton of clever people destroyed those reasons, and OP replies "They(the games) don't appeal to me, therefore I am still 100% correct."

People here are at least very well beheaved and often provide well written and well thought out arguments. Happy arguing, I guess :)

Nothing destroyed here FragilE^

My opinion wont change about how bad I think Mario and friends games are. I will buy other Nintendo games that looks better. (as long as there is no Mario and friends in it)

deskpro2k3 said:
Carl2291 said:

That doesnt really matter because Final Fantasy games generally have the same gameplay philosophy much like Mario games, Pokémon games, Zelda games and so on. Unless of course, your only real complaint is that you dont like the character design of Mario/ Luigi, Zelda/ Link, Pikachu/ Whatever.

You dont see Mario in every Nintendo title. You don't see Link in every Nintendo title. You don't see Kirby in every Nintendo title. You don't see Pikachu in every Nintendo title. You will see them in games that require them. Mario Kart has always been a "get together" of popular Nintendo characters, so naturally it will feature characters from across a number of different games and genres. Same goes for Smash Bros.

The main thing you need to look at here is that Nintendo don't spam these games out. You get one Mario Kart per gen, per-platform. You get one Smash Bros. per gen (shifting to per-platform).

Now that I have your attention, look at this what you said -


How on Earth can you call them over-rated?

They review well with critics, they sell extremely well over and over again and they continue to be key IP for Nintendo. What is over rated about them, if they continue to sell Millions and Millions with each passing release while constantly picking up high scoring reviews and awards?

This links back to the whole Final Fantasy thing. What makes Final Fantasy different to Zelda, Pokémon or Mario other than the point that Final Fantasy sometimes introducing a new cast of characters?


Of course, my complaint is that there is too many Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, and not enough fresh new things like X. X as a matter of my opinion, looks so much better than Mario games.

Its fine if you don't like my criticism, but let me make myself clear. The difference between games like Final Fantasy, against Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon is clear as day for me. The storyline, action, graphics, progression, and characters is all better. The story is what makes Final Fantasy. The best thing is that the characters is always different. (unless its a sequel like the FF13 series). Mario in the other hand, all they do is throw in the same characters and a new plot, and upgrade graphics for the new nintendo console. I can almost guarantee you a new Mario is in the works. spoiler: Princess is going to get kidnapped again.

Perhaps you could read a good book instead of playing Final Fantasy if you like stories that much. Japanese RPGs are tailor made for teenagers, it is like listening to Linkin Park. The characters are always young people who fight weak enemies at the start of the game, and end up being ridiculously overpowered people who can even kill god or a god at the end of the game, during the game you have teenage drama between the characters.


All mainline Mario games except World (similar to Bros 3) and Galaxy 2 (similar to Galaxy) have been very different from their predecessors, and Bros 3 and Galaxy 2 in spite of that are seen as masterpieces generally. It is true that the New super Mario Bros games are rehashes, but the mainline ones are excellent (Bros 1, 2, 3, World, 64,Sunshine, Galaxy, Galaxy 2, 3d World) and not that many since 1986.


It seems like you people don't realize shooters have been the most popular genre for a decade and a half, their period of dominance will be or already is longer that the dominance platformers had till the late 90s. But you surely don't seem to be getting tired of games that have for cover art a white man in this 30s or 40s with brown hair holding a firearm.


I own Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze and it doesn't feel like a rehash to me because since the mid 90s 2d platformers with high budgets have been very few, the last ones I can think of are the first Rayman and Casltevania SON from 1996-1997