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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Why is "Nintendo" used as a qualifier for games?

 

TL;DR?

white knight harder, OP 32 33.33%
 
what's a Nintendo 17 17.71%
 
I prefer Ouya games myself 17 17.71%
 
heard you were talkin shi... 30 31.25%
 
Total:96
the_dengle on 03 December 2014
binary solo said:

It's never used in that way. It's only ever used as a catch all for games made by Nintendo. Nintendo published Bayo2, but Bayo 2 is NOT one of the games people are thinking about when they say "Nintendo consoles are great if you like Nintendo games".

So your analogy to Random House is way off base. The analogy is "I like almost all of the books written by [insert name of author]". Now doesn't that actually make sense? If you've read a few books from one author and liked them all then you will be well disposed to buying that author's work in future. Alternatively if you've read one book from an author and thought it was not very good then you won't be trying them again any time soon.

Same would apply with Nintendo, you like the games they make, you are likely to keep buying their console. You don't particularly like the games Nintendo makes, more than likely the games you do like will be available, and run better, on a different platform.

Hence the main reason to get a Nintendo console is to play the games Nintendo makes. Hence 3rd party games sell quite poorly compared to Nintendo made games. Contrast to MS and Sony consoles where 3rd party games are typically the best selling games.

People obviously aren't thinking about Fire Emblem or Metroid Prime or Xenoblade, either, yet those games are definitely made by Nintendo.

Nintendo as a publisher is comparable to Random House. There isn't really a "developer" role in books as far as I'm aware, but the author would be more comparable to the director of a game, which varies depending on the studio. Every Nintendo game does not have the same director. New Super Mario Bros and Mario 3D World are from drastically different "authors," and the difference is even more apparent when comparing those to Pikmin or to Zelda.

As I've said, most Nintendo fans do not like every single game made by Nintendo. They dislike some of Nintendo's games based on experience with them. So why am I told that the Wii U is great for people who like Nintendo games? What about people who like some Nintendo games and dislike others, which is the majority of the system's users? And do people who say they don't like Nintendo games have enough experience with every individual game (or franchise) made or published by the company to make that judgement? Or have they identified some quality shared by every single Nintendo title? If such a quality exists, it is the answer to the question posed in the OP, and yet after almost 10 pages of discussion no one has come forward with a reasonable suggestion of what this could be.

It seems some gamers can't be bothered to try to tell two Nintendo games apart even when they offer completely different experiences.

 

cfin2987@gmail.com said:

All third party games are games not created by the system makers and therefore won't have a "specific use in mind that the 1st party has. Therefore, although Nintendo games are clearly defined, 3rd party games are harder to define and categorize, but they can still be categorized. It's not really anyone's place to tell someone what they can't dislike. I might like all cars that aren't Ford. I might dislike all cars that are not ford. It would be weird to tell me I'm not allowed.

I can certainly tell you that you are poorly informed if you say that you only like Fords because they have automatic transmission.

If you have driven every car that is not a Ford and have concluded with each one individually that you do not like them, I will agree that you only like Fords. If you have experience with Fords and have properly informed yourself on all other cars and confirmed that you like Fords because they offer some feature that is absolutely not found in any other vehicles, I'll stand by that.

But if someone starts saying they don't like Fords because X/Y/Z and the only Fords they have just described are Explorers and Expeditions, I'll object. I'll say but Ford also makes the Focus and a dozen other models that don't match your description.

And unless someone can identify to me what all Ford models have in common that they dislike about them, I will object to the generalization, "I don't like Fords." I will question why someone who only has experience with Explorers assumes that all Ford models are not for them.



Around the Network
the_dengle on 03 December 2014
curl-6 said:
Nintendo may produce a variety of genres, ranging from cartoon platformers like Mario 3D World to epic JRPGs in Xenoblade and its sequel and dark sci-fi in Metroid, but their design philosophy is generally consistent across their library; an almost obsessive level of polish, accessibility to both beginner and veteran gamers, tight controls, and elegant world design.

But who would admit to disliking any of these things? It doesn't make much sense in the context of "if you like this then you should get a Wii U."



curl-6 on 03 December 2014
the_dengle said:
curl-6 said:
Nintendo may produce a variety of genres, ranging from cartoon platformers like Mario 3D World to epic JRPGs in Xenoblade and its sequel and dark sci-fi in Metroid, but their design philosophy is generally consistent across their library; an almost obsessive level of polish, accessibility to both beginner and veteran gamers, tight controls, and elegant world design.

But who would admit to disliking any of these things? It doesn't make much sense in the context of "if you like this then you should get a Wii U."

I'd actually say it does make sense to get a Wii U if you like polished, accessible games.



ijustlikegames:) on 03 December 2014

Nintendo=casual, light games that don't have a lot of story depth



ijustlikegames:) on 03 December 2014

Nintendo=casual, light games that don't have a lot of story depth



Around the Network
curl-6 on 03 December 2014
ijustlikegames:) said:
Nintendo=casual, light games that don't have a lot of story depth

Xenoblade. ;)



Zekkyou on 03 December 2014
JazzB1987 said:

Nintendo = polish (no not the nationality) + little details that are completely irrelevant but still there because they love making games.

Another thing that comes to mind is this:
Platinum Games works with publisher Nintendo
= Bayonetta 2

Platinum Games works with publisher Activision
= Legend of Korra

One gives you enough money most importantly enough time the other one does not.

That's hardly a fair comparison. Korra was a download only license title. Platinum will have known the budget and development time frame before signing the deal. If it wasn't enough, then that's their own fault.



the_dengle on 03 December 2014
Zekkyou said:
JazzB1987 said:

Nintendo = polish (no not the nationality) + little details that are completely irrelevant but still there because they love making games.

Another thing that comes to mind is this:
Platinum Games works with publisher Nintendo
= Bayonetta 2

Platinum Games works with publisher Activision
= Legend of Korra

One gives you enough money most importantly enough time the other one does not.

That's hardly a fair comparison. Korra was a download only license title. Platinum will have known the budget and development time frame before signing the deal. If it wasn't enough, then that's their own fault.

Are you suggesting that in 2 days on a budget of 35¢ Platinum should be able to make a game as good as Bayonetta 2, provided they are aware in advance that those are their budget and deadline?

Nintendo gave them more time and more money to make their game, and probably less direction (I kind of doubt it was Platinum's idea to throw in those runner segments on Naga...). I don't see why that makes the comparison unfair, although I would suggest that the limited time (and perhaps the budget as well) is much more the fault of Nickelodeon than of Activision.

If we want to compare Bayonetta 2 to a recent Platinum game published by a third-party, I suggest Metal Gear Rising. Both are probably at about the same level of quality in my opinion. I think Bayonetta has more content though?



the_dengle on 03 December 2014
curl-6 said:
the_dengle said:

But who would admit to disliking any of these things? It doesn't make much sense in the context of "if you like this then you should get a Wii U."

I'd actually say it does make sense to get a Wii U if you like polished, accessible games.

But that's not what people usually mean when they say 'the Wii U is great if you like Nintendo games.'

People who define "Nintendo games" as polished and accessible experiences would usually be content to just say "the Wii U is great" and leave it at that.



DevilRising on 03 December 2014

You want an answer? It's a stupid statement for anyone to make anyway, but the real answer is that Nintendo makes their own style of games. Regardless of what genre or IP it is, they make "Nintendo" games. No other developer seems to put out truly Nintendo style games, and that's kind of always been the case. That certainly doesn't imply "all their games are kiddie" or some other such childish nonsense that some immature games like to toss around. Liking one console over another doesn't make anyone "hardcore", nor does it make anyone a superior gamer. I do tend to buy Nintendo consoles for Nintendo games, that in is fact why I generally go with Nintendo consoles.

I've had a PS2 and PS3 the last two gens, but I don't have any real reason or hurry to rush out and get a PS4 any time within the next couple years, probably, because I'm just fine with my Wii U and PC as it is.