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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - What made the great Nintendo games great?

JRPGfan on 26 November 2015
Werix357 said:

It seems when Nintendo made the Wii they had a clear goal of making gaming accessible to a broader audience with a simplistic control interface. The question is though did that result in better games, or just games that grandma could play too?

Def. Better games as well.

 

 

Werix357 said:

Nintendo tried to hit the sweet spot with the Wii U gamepad by having complex controls (dual analog stix) mixed with simplistic controls (motion+touch). And the casual audience that owned the Wii, they've largely moved on to other things smartphones tablets being the most likely candidates. The Wii U sales tell the tale of Nintendo's attempt to make a controller interface for everyone.

 

No Its not a tale of a controller interface ment for everyone... and the main complains is its never really used for anything.

The 2nd screen and complexity of the unit drove the price of the Wii U up higher than it should have been.

 

Werix357 said:

Imo all great games have one thing in common. Easy to learn hard to master.

Being able to achieve that is something that is limited more by imagination and less by a controller interface.

Of course I could be completely wrong

 

1) all great games dont have that in common.

2) your right, achieveing a great game, or just a game with a "easy learning curve, and hard mastery" takes more imagination than it takes controller interface design choices.

 

 

But what was the point of this thread?



Around the Network
jason1637 on 26 November 2015

Its Nintendos secret ingredient called magic.



Werix357 on 26 November 2015
Cloudman said:
I guess the best answer I can give is with the Wii, they made games more accessible and easier to understand for the general audience to enjoy, and that is what was the Wii's biggest strength.

The Wii U however was kinda the opposite, being kinda daunting to them. The games were well designed though, and fun.


Yeah definitely agree 



Werix357 on 26 November 2015
TruckOSaurus said:

For the N64, I believe they thought of what Mario 64 would be and then designed a controller to suit the needs of that game (and 3D games in general).

For the Wii, I believe they thought of the concept of Wii Sports and then designed a controller that allowed for that vision to come true.

For the Wii U, it seems like they designed the gamepad first and then created Nintendo Land to justify its existence. They reversed the order of things and that obviously didn't work.


Yeah my thoughts exactly though you expressed them with a bit more clarity :)



Werix357 on 26 November 2015

JRPGfan said:

But what was the point of this thread?

Well I was trying to make this point. That every tool has limitations, but only a master craftsmen can make a masterpiece, even out of the simplest of tools. Putting superior tools in the hands of a amateur will not yield the same results.

In short I'm saying innovation is driven by the craftsmen (gamedesigner) not the tools (hardware).

Just a opinion 



Around the Network
Paatar on 26 November 2015

They're never afraid to try something different. Regardless if it succeeds or fails.



[Switch Friend code: 3909-3991-4970]

[Xbox Live: JissuWolfe]

[PSN: Jissu]

Pavolink on 26 November 2015

Ambition, something that they lacks this gen, with some few exceptions.



Proud to be the first cool Nintendo fan ever

Number ONE Zelda fan in the Universe

DKCTF didn't move consoles

Prediction: No Zelda HD for Wii U, quietly moved to the succesor

Predictions for Nintendo NX and Mobile


Volterra_90 on 26 November 2015

Their games are extremely polished at launch. Excellent gameplay mechanics. The obsession to put something new or different in their franchises (though that, sometimes, is a double-edge sword). They are not afraid to make changes to the hardware (motion controls, double screen, 3D...), not merely graphic power upgrades, something that actually affects to the gameplay. And games for everyone. Really, look at the state of the game industry nowadays, it's complicated find great games that are suitable for everyone. Almost every AAA is +16, and have violence in any way. Plus their main focus in their games is "fun", not competition.



curl-6 on 26 November 2015
Pavolink said:
Ambition, something that they lacks this gen, with some few exceptions.

Sad but true.

Don't get me wrong, Tropical Freeze, Mario 3D World, et al are fine games, but they lack the ambition that made games like Ocarina of Time, Metroid Prime, or Super Mario Galaxy so great.



TheLastStarFighter on 26 November 2015

It's interesting seeing people say things like "accessibility" or "easy to start, hard to master". As an older fan who grew up with the "great" games, terms that I would use would be big, challenging, groundbreaking, technologically advanced and well-executed. I can remember when SMB came out it was a technical marvel and absolutely massive compared to anything that came before it. Like 100X the size of Mario Bros. People would talk about secrets in the various worlds, and they seemed endless.And then SMB3 came and put it to shame. Zelda 1? Well that was on another level of complexity and epicness of any title.

I also remember the great level of polish on those titles. Picking up Castlevania after playing Mario was like walking in quicksand. The controls were brutal in comparison, and the levels far more unfair and flawed. Few games could match the execution of concept, Mega Man, Contra and Final Fantasy being notable exceptions.

Moving forward to later great games, DKC had CGI graphics beyond anything on the market, and F-Zero was nothing short of revolutionary. Mario64 and Zelda OoT basically destroyed anything on the market for complexity and production values.

So what made them great? Everything about them. If judging by modern AAA standards, they would be AAAA games. Graphics, sound, challenge, control, size and value. The most ambitious games in the industry, and it showed.