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
DevilRising said:
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.

Even though you aren't using the label against Nintendo, you are making the same mistake others have been making. You are defining Nintendo games as games with "Nintendo" style. This kind of circular logic does not answer any of my questions.



Around the Network
FayeC on 03 December 2014

I don't see why someone saying they don't like Nintendo games is silly. Its not that they don't like Nintendo as a developer or as a publisher, but that they don't like Nintendo as a taste maker. The types of games they choose to highlight just are not appealing to them. People who like Nintendo games, just the opposite.



Mr Khan on 03 December 2014
Kresnik said:
In the same way that "indie games" is now a genre.

And yet people yell at me when i try to typecast AAA games.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Zekkyou on 03 December 2014
the_dengle said:

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?

No, i'm saying PG will have known their budget and development time before signing the deal. If it wasn't enough (something you'd expect they'd have a good idea of by now, it being their 9th game), then they shouldn't have signed the deal. I expect they did know, but felt the money was worth making a game they knew would be rushed. 

It was essentially a crash grab (like most licenced titles), both on Activation's part and PG's. Not really a fair measure of the quality of either, thus not a fair point of comparison to Nintendo funding the sequel to an already critically acclaimed AA/AAA IP.



FayeC on 03 December 2014
zorg1000 said:
Ka-pi96 said:
zorg1000 said:
Ka-pi96 said:

This is what I've been trying to say. Like Disney movies you can look at them and think 'that looks like a Disney movie' and more often than not you'd be right, it's the same with Nintendo games. They look like Nintendo games, take Splatoon as an example. Brand new ip, no ones seen it before, but if you showed that to someone that didn't know about it and asked them who they thought was making it there is a decent chance they would guess Nintendo.

Would the average person look at games like Xenoblade Chronicles, Metroid Prime, Fire Emblem and assume it was made by Nintendo?

Metroid Prime... maybe, depends just how 'average' this person is. The other 2, probably not. But that's the point I was making, not all of their games fit in with what would be considered a typical Nintendo game but the core ones that seem to be their main sellers definitely do fit in with that as well as some of their smaller games.

I doubt it, take Metroid Prime and compare it to Mario/Donkey Kong/Kirby and most non gamers would probably think it's not made by the same company.


Any more so than LBP, TLOU and DriveClub? Or Child of Light, Assasins's Creed and Beyond Good and Evil?



Around the Network
the_dengle on 03 December 2014
FayeC said:
I don't see why someone saying they don't like Nintendo games is silly. Its not that they don't like Nintendo as a developer or as a publisher, but that they don't like Nintendo as a taste maker. The types of games they choose to highlight just are not appealing to them. People who like Nintendo games, just the opposite.

So when someone says they "don't like Nintendo games," they aren't saying they dislike the games Nintendo makes or that they dislike the games Nintendo publishes, but that they dislike... the games Nintendo "chooses to highlight?" And when someone says the Wii U is great if you like Nintendo games, they don't mean if you like the games Nintendo makes or that Nintendo publishes, but that the Wii U is great if you like the games Nintendo "chooses to highlight?"

What types of games does Nintendo choose to highlight? As far as I can see, Nintendo highlights all of the games they publish (which are far too broadly varied to narrow down to a specific type or "taste").



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

Xenoblade. ;)


The exception that proves the rule, thanks:)  Besides that isn't even out yet. A vast majority of Nintendo games are games you can sit down and have a blast with for a short period of time. Nothing wrong with that, just the truth. Although Nintendo did say they wanted to win back more of the core audience so maybe we will see that change. The common perception right now though is that Nintendo is the more casual of the three, just like X1 is more for fps and competitive gaming and the PS4 is the all around go to system, no need to be upset by that.



the_dengle on 03 December 2014
FayeC said:
zorg1000 said:

I doubt it, take Metroid Prime and compare it to Mario/Donkey Kong/Kirby and most non gamers would probably think it's not made by the same company.

Any more so than LBP, TLOU and DriveClub? Or Child of Light, Assasins's Creed and Beyond Good and Evil?

First of all, we are not non-gamers here on this website. We do not have to pretend that any of us are so uninformed as to not recognize Metroid as a Nintendo game. OP isn't referring to a Walmart clerk recommending a Wii U if you like Nintendo games, it is referring to discussions taking place in this very forum.

I don't see what you're getting at. That's correct, other companies have fairly varied output (despite the fact that BG&E is over 10 years old... whatever). But people rarely group the works of Media Molecule, Naughty Dog, Sucker Punch, and Japan Studio under a single blanket term of "Sony games" when making broad generalizations about whether or not they like these games.

Hell, I wouldn't even generalize about the works of a single one of these studios. I like inFamous 2 but I'm not crazy about Second Son. Why would I make a generalization about Sucker Punch when I am sufficiently informed to be more specific?

Certainly we generalize "Ubisoft games" when discussing Ubisoft as a publisher. That is a different context from discussing Nintendo as a content-creator. It's common recently to say you don't like Ubisoft; not so much to say you don't like Ubisoft games.



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

Xenoblade. ;)

The exception that proves the rule, thanks:)  Besides that isn't even out yet. A vast majority of Nintendo games are games you can sit down and have a blast with for a short period of time. Nothing wrong with that, just the truth. Although Nintendo did say they wanted to win back more of the core audience so maybe we will see that change. The common perception right now though is that Nintendo is the more casual of the three, just like X1 is more for fps and competitive gaming and the PS4 is the all around go to system, no need to be upset by that.

There are enough exceptions to disprove your rule, and Xenoblade in fact came out several years ago. Fire Emblem is a casual game without much story depth? Metroid? Zelda? Kid Icarus? Pikmin? Mother?

Casual is an undefined term which I will ignore. "Light" is also not a term I'm familiar with with regards to defining video games, maybe you can help me out with that one. If lacking story depth makes a game a Nintendo game, damn son, why didn't anyone tell me Nintendo had gone third-party? There are so many Nintendo games on non-Nintendo systems it's blowing my mind.



jetforcejiminy on 03 December 2014

b/c some people have trouble with adjectives