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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nintendo Says It’s Looking To Appeal To Both Causal And Core Gamers With NX

TheLastStarFighter on 22 August 2016

A lot of the discussion on this thread is painful to read. The conclusions being drawn are ridiculous. Here's the topic of "Mums" from the interview:
 

 

One question that he was asked referred to how the interviewer had heard that Nintendo had aimed for the Wii to be in family living rooms, and therefore be a console that parents – specifically mums – wouldn’t hate. Nikkei Today wondered if there were the same ambitions with Nintendo NX

“I can’t talk about this in detail yet, but we are aiming so that neither people who like games nor mums dislike it,” Takahashi explained. “I think that I want to release a game device that both customers who have much experience in gaming and customers who haven’t played much can enjoy greatly.” 

So, just so we're all super clear here, Takahashi did not say NX was targeting mums. In fact, he didn't say Wii targeted mums. Even the interviewer didn't, he just said he heard it was designed in such a way that mums "wouldn't hate it". Takahashi, in turn, replied that he hoped the system would appeal to everyone, which if he and Nintendo have any brains whatsoever, should be their goal. It should be the goal of any product maker.

Nothing - absolutely nothing - in the article implies that the system will be weak. It doesn't imply anything whatsoever about the tech specs of the system being good, bad or made of peanut butter. He's simply saying that the system should have experiences for new and veteran gamers. He also says that he hopes they have created an environment that makes developing games smooth for their software teams. This probably means one, some or all of:
-easy to use hardware setup such as lots of RAM or other things devs like.
-One unified OS environment for both home and handheld systems, or just one system.
-support of third party software engines - Iwata had previously said they need to embrace this.
-stronger network and OS environments than Wii U and 3DS provided.

Everyone needs to reign in their imaginations on everything else. We're all anxious to know what NX is, but this articles says or implies little to nothing about the hardware, weak or strong.



Around the Network
Soundwave on 22 August 2016
RolStoppable said:
Soundwave said:

That's kind of the gripe I have ... this whole "now we're going to make a system that appeals to everyone including novice/casual/mom (whatever term you want to use)" strategy is basically really means: "We're going to make a casual/beginner style console, and don't you dare complain, just shut up and accept it if you're a Nintendo fan because we're still giving you Zelda and Mario, and maybe if you're realy nice and we feel like it we'll fart out a Metroid.". Experienced gamers are asked to make *all* the sacrifices in this supposed "marriage of casual and experienced" hardware philosphy:

1.) Remember how the NES, SNES, N64, and GameCube were all large hardware leaps in line with the other systems of the time ... well too bad. Now you have to accept hardware that's 1+ generation behind the other game systems on the market and is basically outdated on day 1. OK so no competently specced Nintendo hardware is in the past. 

2.) You still should pay full price though, the "cheap" Wii was $250 for the longest time, meaning people who bought the GameCube which was $99 by 2003, in 2006-2009 basically paid $250 for the same hardware moderately overclocked with a $20 plastic new controller thrown in to justify the difference in price. OK, so we want the outdated hardware, but you still gotta pay out the ass for it. 

3.) What aspect of the Wii or Wii U were really made with "core" players in mind? The terrible online setup? The "fridge" miniscule flash memory on the Wii that Nintendo refused to update for several years? Being stuck with SD graphics for 6 years longer than Sony/MS players? Oh, I guess Nintendo was kind enough to give us a Classic Controller. OK, so we get token throw ins. 

4.) Hope you like the same 10-12 Nintendo franchises .... and basically only Nintendo games because we're going to gimp our hardware so that third parties don't take it seriously. So basically Nintendo fans have been forced now to have to pay an extra $300-$400 to purchase a Playstation or XBox or gaming PC to get access to the top tier non-Nintendo gaming content basically. OK, so don't like any major third party games I guess. 

5.) B... bu ... but innovation! Wii and Wii U were so innovative! Really? Which "core" Nintendo IP really used the Wiimote centrally? Metroid Prime 3 and uh ... waiting five years for Skyward Sword controls that really no one is upset about not having back. Wii U touch screen that could have been used for a more powerful chipset instead ... uh ... we got maybe 1 game that really used it in a great way (Mario Maker) in 4 years. Pfffft. The NES, SNES, N64 had plenty of controller/control innovations without the trade offs. 

That's just my issue with it all. "Experienced" Nintendo gamers are expected to basically sacrifice any type of reasonably up to date hardware, kiss any chance of any good-to-great developer support (because apparently we should only play Nintendo games), so that "non-gaming housewife" can have a cute little console that doesn't make too much noise and doesn't look all threatening to her. 

I wouldn't have an issue with Nintendo pursuing a wider audience ... sure, great go for it, but why does it have to come completely at the expense of what "experienced" gamers want? It doesn't look to me like the casual/beginner audience is being asked to make any sacrifices. Wii U had a poor chipset because casuals don't care about graphics, no HDD because casuals don't care about storage, an expensive touch panel for casuals, came with Nintendo Land and NSMBU because casuals will love that ... but hey we got two analog sticks! Oh yippie, what a fair trade off. I'd have no problem with this strategy if it was sincerely *balanced* to meet the needs of both audiences in an honest way, not bending one section of the fan base and expecting them to sacrifice on several fronts so Nintendo can chase the next casual golden ticket. 

If you're going to make a console for "everyone" then make a console that is legitimately for everyone. Not one that has every major design decision made for casual/inexperienced players first and foremost, and the answer to experienced/core players being "well we're giving you Zelda aren't we? Just shut up and buy it already". 

This is the perfect example for what I've been saying in this thread, that there is a significant difference between gamer terminology and what Nintendo is saying. In a previous post you also called this difference "semantics" because you truly believe that the terminology is interchangeable. Everything you argued in the post above is from the perspective that PS, Xbox and PC are the only things that an experienced gamer would enjoy. That's incredibly ignorant and at the same time insulting to experienced gamers because it insuniates that they are very close-minded.

Point remains, I'm fine with Nintendo making accomodations for other audiences, my gripe is that we as experienced gamers or whatever term you want to use (go ahead and make one up) are the ones being asked to make every sacrifice. 

We used to get perfectly reasonable technology in line with the other systems on their day from Nintendo, now basically every aspect of their modern systems are really design first and foremost for beginner/non-gamers. I'm sorry if you don't like the distinction but it clearly exists. 

And basically for all these trade offs, what we're told is "shut up and accept the inferior hardware which is still pretty expensive and accept little to no third party support so we can make our hardware this way to suit this other crowd, but we're giving you Mario and Zelda, you should be happy enough with that."

Well you know what? The NES/SNES/N64/GameCube had Mario and Zelda too, saying "you're getting Zelda aren't you" isn't good enough. 

If Nintendo was genuine in this whole "we're making hardware for everyone" then the system would be legitimately designed for everyone's needs. Which the Wii and Wii U clearly were not, they were designed primarily for a beginner audience and their needs were put first in virtually every design decision, but we got a nunchaku or dual analog for core players, whoopity doo. 

Nintendo is being disingenious in making these kinds of statements. They are not making hardware with "everyone" in mind, they're making hardware very clearly for beginner/casual players in mind, and traditional/experienced players are the ones being asked to sacrifice on their expectations (don't expect good graphics anymore, don't expect great developer support, don't expect good online, don't expect a HDD storage standard, you have to pay extra for a traditional controller, you should be happy with Nintendo Land as your pack-in title, we don't need to give New Super Mario good graphics because casuals don't care about graphics, etc. etc. etc.). These aren't imaginary trade-offs, they are real and tangiable, since Nintendo went this "blue ocean" direction, Nintendo players who are enthusiasts have been asked to sacrifice their expectations while still paying top dollar. 



Soundwave on 22 August 2016
RolStoppable said:
Soundwave said:

Point remains, I'm fine with Nintendo making accomodations for other audiences, my gripe is that we as experienced gamers or whatever term you want to use (go ahead and make one up) are the ones being asked to make every sacrifice. 

We used to get perfectly reasonable technology in line with the other systems on their day from Nintendo, now basically every aspect of their modern systems are really design first and foremost for beginner/non-gamers. I'm sorry if you don't like the distinction but it clearly exists. 

And basically for all these trade offs, what we're told is "shut up and accept the inferior hardware which is still pretty expensive and accept little to no third party support so we can make our hardware this way to suit this other crowd, but we're giving you Mario and Zelda, you should be happy enough with that."

Well you know what? The NES/SNES/N64/GameCube had Mario and Zelda too, saying "you're getting Zelda aren't you" isn't good enough. 

If Nintendo was genuine in this whole "we're making hardware for everyone" then the system would be legitimately designed for everyone's needs. Which the Wii and Wii U clearly were not, they were designed primarily for a beginner audience and their needs were put first in virtually every design decision, but we got a nunchaku or dual analog for core players, whoopity doo. 

Nintendo is being disingenious in making these kinds of statements. They are not making hardware with "everyone" in mind, they're making hardware very clearly for beginner/casual players in mind, and traditional/experienced players are the ones being asked to sacrifice on their expectations (don't expect good graphics anymore, don't expect great developer support, don't expect good online, don't expect a HDD storage standard, you have to pay extra for a traditional controller, you should be happy with Nintendo Land as your pack-in title, we don't need to give New Super Mario good graphics because casuals don't care about graphics, etc. etc. etc.). These aren't imaginary trade-offs, they are real and tangiable, since Nintendo went this "blue ocean" direction, Nintendo players who are enthusiasts have been asked to sacrifice their expectations while still paying top dollar. 

You are a dudebro. Definition = Places high importance on gaming to be manly and mature, quickly dismisses anything that doesn't fit that mold. Consequently, plays only games of a few selected genres. Suffers from the teenager complex that the world should revolve around them, so they are incapable of viewing any given subject from the point of view of somebody else.

That you like a few selected Nintendo games doesn't change that you are a dudebro at heart. There are already two consoles that cater to the demands of dudebros, but that is apparently not enough because the world should revolve around them, so all consoles have to be the same.

So you do like categories, just when it suits your agenda, lol. 

I don't like Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto or Elder Scrolls or Battlefield. I'd rather watch paint dry than play a car racing simulator like Forza. I think I played Assassin's Creed for like 20 minutes and had an OK time, but have no intention of playing that for more than an hour. But I don't like Wii Sports, or Wii Fit, or Wii Party, or Mario Party either. 

My favorite franchises are Mario 3D, Mario 2D, Mario Kart, Advance Wars, Splatoon, F-Zero, Street Fighter, old-school Final Fantasy (SNES-to PSOne era), Donkey Kong Country, Killer Instinct, Fire Emblem, Ridge Racer, Punch-Out!, Soul Calibur, Zelda, (though I don't think Zelda is the be-all, end-all either), some Star Wars games, and uh ... I guess maybe the Batman games? Does liking Batman make me a "dudebros"? I've liked Batman for 30+ years. Star Fox used to be on my list but the last one while not entirely terrible has kinda soured me. I do like some sports games, like NHL and NBA and tennis but nope to Madden NFL and helllllllllll no to UFC (pretty sure that alone revokes my "dudebros" card). 

Maybe all consoles shouldn't be the same, but Nintendo is not plausibly making consoles for "everyone". They are clearly making almost every hardware decision for one group of people, while basically asking the other group to just suck it up and accept things when this is not how they ran their hardware business for almost 20 years. 

Making a console for beginners in basically every design decision, but saying "hey we're giving you Zelda, so shut up" isn't a balanced hardware design philosophy. That isn't "making a console for everyone". It's not wrong to want hardware that isn't 6-10 years behind the industry standard and still being asked to pay up $250 or more. I'm not even asking for a PS4 Neo speced Nintendo console, but would even 1 TFLOP (this is below even an XBox One, which was a poor piece of hardware for 2013) in 2017 kill them? How low of a bar do we need to set for Nintendo? 



Wyrdness on 22 August 2016
RolStoppable said:

Nothing sarcastic about it. Nintendo believing in the messed up terminology of casual and core is what gave birth to the Wii U. Before the Wii, that terminology didn't even exist. The whole thing was invented to explain why the Wii succeeded and why its success doesn't really count. Third parties started to develop Wii games based on this terminology and failed time and time again to find any form of sustainable success. They were unable to identify what would be successful, and worse, they rejected examples of success because it didn't fit their narrative. For example, Resident Evil 4 was very successful early on, but nobody even tried to make another game like it for the Wii. But the stupidity of third parties doesn't matter for this thread, so back to Nintendo's stupidity.

The Wii U was created with the mindset that the casual and core terminology is correct, meaning that not many core gamers owned a Wii, therefore the system wasn't really a success, therefore there needed to be drastic changes made in order to win back core gamers. The result of all those thought processes was a piece of trash that nobody really wanted, because so many things about that system shouldn't even be there in the first place. The only reason why it sold as much as it did is because some of the games were too good to be passed up, hence why the Wii U commands attach rates that have never been seen before.

And now I will explain in a very succinct manner why the headline and the actual Nintendo quote do not mean the same thing.

Gamer terminology: Core = Gamers who play PS, Xbox or PC. They play Call of Duty, FIFA, Battlefield, Madden etc. Conclusion: What Nintendo is saying is that they want those games on their platform and "steal" parts of that audience from PS, Xbox and PC.

Nintendo's actual quote: Customers who have a lot of gaming experience = People who have played video games for many years and have diverse tastes. Such people do not want all gaming devices to do exactly the same thing. Conclusion: Nintendo won't make a console like Sony and Microsoft would, but that doesn't mean that experienced gamers will feel left out. That that is not going to be the case is already guaranteed by virtue of NX launching with the new Zelda.

The beautiful thing about Nintendo's terminology in the interview is that it is legitimately binary. You either have experience or you don't. On the other hand, core and casual are terms with floating definitions because they are wide open to interpretation.

This pretty much.



Soundwave on 22 August 2016
RolStoppable said:
Soundwave said:

So you do like categories, just when it suits your agenda, lol. 

I don't like Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto or Elder Scrolls or Battlefield. I think I played Assassin's Creed for like 20 minutes and had an OK time, but have no intention of playing that for more than an hour. But I don't like Wii Sports, or Wii Fit, or Wii Party, or Mario Party either. 

My favorite franchises are Mario 3D, Mario 2D, Mario Kart, Advance Wars, Splatoon, F-Zero, Street Fighter, old-school Final Fantasy (SNES-to PSOne era), Donkey Kong Country, Killer Instinct, Fire Emblem, Punch-Out!, Soul Calibur, Zelda (though I don't think Zelda is the be-all, end-all either), and uh ... I guess maybe the Batman games? Does liking Batman make me a "dudebros"? I've liked Batman for 30+ years. 

Maybe all consoles shouldn't be the same, but Nintendo is not plausibly making consoles for "everyone". They are clearly making almost every hardware decision for one group of people, while basically asking the other group to just suck it up and accept things when this is not how they ran their hardware business for almost 20 years. 

You specifically asked me what you are if you aren't an experienced gamer who speaks for all experienced gamers like I said in the post you quoted.

Previously in this thread I've pointed out that appealing to experienced gamers (what Nintendo says) is not the same as the headline of this thread implies, because the words "core" and "casual" have floating definitions. In your specific case, you identify "core" as what dudebros want, but while dudebros may fall under the umbrella of experienced gamers, they are certainly not the only kind of experienced gamers. So if Nintendo doesn't make a console like the PS4/XB1, it doesn't mean that they are lying about their intent to appeal to experienced gamers or that they will fail at appealing to experienced gamers.

Like I said above I don't need even a bleeding edge system, but wanting something that's even remotely modern is wrong now? Why is it that core gamers needs must be pretty much completely ignored for them to make something acceptable to beginners/casuals?

I would be OK with a 1 TFLOP NX ... that is even less performance than 4 year old XBox One which most people consider to be under-specced to begin with. No one's asking for a Nintendo PS4 Neo here. 

This is not asking for a lot. If you want to put some magic wonder-dildo controller in the box, hey have at it Nintendo, I'm not even saying they can't do that. 

Super Mario Bros. would not have been as good of a game had it ran on Atari 2600 level hardware. Super Mario World and Earthbound and Zelda: LttP and Final Fantasy VI would not be as good of games had they ran on the NES instead of Super NES. Mario 64 and GoldenEye and Zelda: OoT wouldn't run on a SNES period. Super Smash Bros. Melee or Metroid Prime wouldn't have been nearly as good of a game on the N64 versus GameCube. 

Being a full hardware generation behind has consequences for the types of games and experiences that can be had. 

A balanced approach would consider the needs of all audiences, not just one set of the audience, which is more accurately what Nintendo has done the last 10 years. The only reason they are able to still have a (small) console audience is because there are those of us who are willing to put up with all kinds of bullshit so we can enjoy Mario and Zelda and a few handful of other Nintendo IP. 

Even Apple in making devices for "casual" types with an emphasis on user friendliness, still makes sure their devices have a good deal of horsepower and gorgeous displays for example ensuring a satisfying user experience. They may not match every spec point, but it's not like when buy an iPhone you're buying something 5 years behind any other phone or tablet. But for Nintendo this has somehow become acceptable. 



Around the Network
Soundwave on 22 August 2016
RolStoppable said:
Soundwave said:

Like I said above I don't need even a bleeding edge system, but wanting something that's even remotely modern is wrong now? Why is it that core gamers needs must be pretty much completely ignored for them to make something acceptable to beginners/casuals?

I would be OK with a 1 TFLOP NX ... that is even less performance than 4 year old XBox One which most people consider to be under-specced to begin with. No one's asking for a Nintendo PS4 Neo here. 

This is not asking for a lot. If you want to put some magic wonder-dildo controller in the box, hey have at it Nintendo, I'm not even saying they can't do that. 

Super Mario Bros. would not have been as good of a game had it ran on the Atari 2600. Super Mario World and Earthbound and Zelda: LttP and Final Fantasy VI would not be as good of games had they ran on the NES instead of Super NES. Mario 64 and GoldenEye and Zelda: OoT wouldn't run on a SNES period. Super Smash Bros. Melee or Metroid Prime wouldn't have been nearly as good of a game on the N64 versus GameCube. 

Being a full hardware generation behind has consequences for the types of games and experiences that can be had. 

You should have continued with the generations. The Wii offered new types of games and experiences despite its lack of a full generational jump for its hardware. That raises the question how important is processing power in this day and age. Console generations prior to the Wii could offer new types of games and experiences in large part due to the increased processing power, but since then it has been first and foremost about prettier coats for gameplay that we have already seen before.

See my Apple example above. They lean heavily towards user friendliness and "mom approval" but they still offer modern, functional hardware. The iPhone may not match spec for spec every thing, but it's not like it's 5 years behind either. That's a balanced hardware design, what Nintendo offers is not. 

Nintendo is the one asking people to put up with badly out of date hardware, no other company really operates that way and is successful doing so. 

I also question the Wii's lasting legacy, Zelda BoTW was announced with no motion controls and basically no one complained. No one is ripping down Nintendo's doors for Wii Sports 3 or Wii Fit 3. 

In my opinion, the Wii was really a rip off. Nintendo basically took a GameCube which was a $99 system by that point and charged $250 for a repackaged version of it with a controller, that probably cost $10 a pop to make and was fortunate to hit pay dirt with the motion gaming craze, which had the perfect small window to thrive in before smartphones began offering thousands of games to casuals for 0 dollars in a more convienant form factor. Nintendo fans were asked to put up with SD graphics for six years for really no good reason. 

Even if they wanted to make the Wiimote the center piece of the system, there was no reason for the hardware to be that shitty, $250 was only $50 less than the XBox 360 vanilla system released a full year prior. 



oniyide on 22 August 2016
zorg1000 said:
Soundwave said:

That's kind of the gripe I have ... this whole "now we're going to make a system that appeals to everyone including novice/casual/mom (whatever term you want to use)" strategy is basically really means: "We're going to make a casual/beginner style console, and don't you dare complain, just shut up and accept it if you're a Nintendo fan because we're still giving you Zelda and Mario, and maybe if you're realy nice and we feel like it we'll fart out a Metroid.". Experienced gamers are asked to make *all* the sacrifices in this supposed "marriage of casual and experienced" hardware philosphy:

1.) Remember how the NES, SNES, N64, and GameCube were all large hardware leaps in line with the other systems of the time ... well too bad. Now you have to accept hardware that's 1+ generation behind the other game systems on the market and is basically outdated on day 1. OK so no competently specced Nintendo hardware is in the past. 

2.) You still should pay full price though, the "cheap" Wii was $250 for the longest time, meaning people who bought the GameCube which was $99 by 2003, in 2006-2009 basically paid $250 for the same hardware moderately overclocked with a $20 plastic new controller thrown in to justify the difference in price. OK, so we want the outdated hardware, but you still gotta pay out the ass for it. 

3.) What aspect of the Wii or Wii U were really made with "core" players in mind? The terrible online setup? The "fridge" miniscule flash memory on the Wii that Nintendo refused to update for several years? Being stuck with SD graphics for 6 years longer than Sony/MS players? Oh, I guess Nintendo was kind enough to give us a Classic Controller. OK, so we get token throw ins. 

4.) Hope you like the same 10-12 Nintendo franchises .... and basically only Nintendo games because we're going to gimp our hardware so that third parties don't take it seriously. So basically Nintendo fans have been forced now to have to pay an extra $300-$400 to purchase a Playstation or XBox or gaming PC to get access to the top tier non-Nintendo gaming content basically. OK, so don't like any major third party games I guess. 

5.) B... bu ... but innovation! Wii and Wii U were so innovative! Really? Which "core" Nintendo IP really used the Wiimote centrally? Metroid Prime 3 and uh ... waiting five years for Skyward Sword controls that really no one is upset about not having back. Wii U touch screen that could have been used for a more powerful chipset instead ... uh ... we got maybe 1 game that really used it in a great way (Mario Maker) in 4 years. Pfffft. The NES, SNES, N64 had plenty of controller/control innovations without the trade offs. 

That's just my issue with it all. "Experienced" Nintendo gamers are expected to basically sacrifice any type of reasonably up to date hardware, kiss any chance of any good-to-great developer support (because apparently we should only play Nintendo games), so that "non-gaming housewife" can have a cute little console that doesn't make too much noise and doesn't look all threatening to her. 

I wouldn't have an issue with Nintendo pursuing a wider audience ... sure, great go for it, but why does it have to come completely at the expense of what "experienced" gamers want? It doesn't look to me like the casual/beginner audience is being asked to make any sacrifices. Wii U had a poor chipset because casuals don't care about graphics, no HDD because casuals don't care about storage, an expensive touch panel for casuals, came with Nintendo Land and NSMBU because casuals will love that ... but hey we got two analog sticks! Oh yippie, what a fair trade off. I'd have no problem with this strategy if it was sincerely *balanced* to meet the needs of both audiences in an honest way, not bending one section of the fan base and expecting them to sacrifice on several fronts so Nintendo can chase the next casual golden ticket. 

If you're going to make a console for "everyone" then make a console that is legitimately for everyone. Not one that has every major design decision made for casual/inexperienced players first and foremost, and the answer to experienced/core players being "well we're giving you Zelda aren't we? Just shut up and buy it already". 

You are perhaps the most inconsistent person on this site, for weeks/months you have been talking about how its redundant for Nintendo to make a PS/XB clone and they should be different, now you're saying essentially the opposite.

This myth that Wii didnt have software aimed at "core" gamers needs to stop. It had Zelda, Metroid, Tony Hawk, Spider Man, Prince of Persia, Mortal Kombat, Crystal Chronicles, MLB 2K, One Piece, Dead Rising, Need for Speed, Dragon Ball Z, Trauma Center, Little King's Story, Harvest Moon, Resident Evil, Bleach, SSX, Marvel Ultimate Alliance, Pandora's Tower, Battalion Wars, WWE, NBA 2K, Tiger Woods, Dirt, Cabela, Rune Factory, No More Heroes, Spore, Sims, Zack & Wiki, Nights, Medal of Honor, Sin & Punishment, Samurai Warriors, PES, Tomb Raider, Silent Hill, Dead Space, Madden, Fire Emblem, Bully, GT Pro Series, Tales of Symphonia, Manhunt, Tatsunoko vs Capcom, Rayman, Conduit, Muramasa, Okami, Red Steel, 007, The Last Story, Dragon Quest, FIFA, Star Wars, MadWorld, House of the Dead, Endless Ocean, Call of Duty, F1, Xenoblade, Sonic, Monster Hunter, Fatal Frame.

Its not so much that it didnt have games aimed at "core" is that it had a LOT more games NOT aimed at the "core". Nothing wrong with that, it is what it is, but lets not pretend like it was equal. It wasnt even close. The games are usual inferior to other versions if they came at all and it still missed KEY core titles, like Elder Scrolls, Assassins Creed and GTA



TheLastStarFighter on 22 August 2016
RolStoppable said:
Soundwave said:

Like I said above I don't need even a bleeding edge system, but wanting something that's even remotely modern is wrong now? Why is it that core gamers needs must be pretty much completely ignored for them to make something acceptable to beginners/casuals?

I would be OK with a 1 TFLOP NX ... that is even less performance than 4 year old XBox One which most people consider to be under-specced to begin with. No one's asking for a Nintendo PS4 Neo here. 

This is not asking for a lot. If you want to put some magic wonder-dildo controller in the box, hey have at it Nintendo, I'm not even saying they can't do that. 

Super Mario Bros. would not have been as good of a game had it ran on the Atari 2600. Super Mario World and Earthbound and Zelda: LttP and Final Fantasy VI would not be as good of games had they ran on the NES instead of Super NES. Mario 64 and GoldenEye and Zelda: OoT wouldn't run on a SNES period. Super Smash Bros. Melee or Metroid Prime wouldn't have been nearly as good of a game on the N64 versus GameCube. 

Being a full hardware generation behind has consequences for the types of games and experiences that can be had. 

You should have continued with the generations. The Wii offered new types of games and experiences despite its lack of a full generational jump for its hardware. That raises the question how important is processing power in this day and age. Console generations prior to the Wii could offer new types of games and experiences in large part due to the increased processing power, but since then it has been first and foremost about prettier coats for gameplay that we have already seen before.

The key is content.  Nintendo's last two systems to varying degrees have lacked content.  Wii was pretty good, but not great, while Wii u is downright dreadful.  I personally like all games, especially adventure and RPG.  Wii and Wii U have both offered at least one exceptional game in each genre in Zelda and Xenoblade.  The problem is, one game for the life of the system is not enough.  Nintendo needs to find a way to either produce more games or get third party support.  Third party support is superior, because you get more innovation and variety.   The next best thing in videogames could come from anyone, anywhere, but if non-Nintendo developers aren't putting their content on the system, a Nintendo-only gamer will miss it.

If more power is what is needed to bring more content to their platform, Nintendo should build a system with more power.  If another solution is superior, Nintendo should take this path.  But I can say that 192 retail releases for Wii U is an embarassment.



Soundwave on 22 August 2016
TheLastStarFighter said:
RolStoppable said:

You should have continued with the generations. The Wii offered new types of games and experiences despite its lack of a full generational jump for its hardware. That raises the question how important is processing power in this day and age. Console generations prior to the Wii could offer new types of games and experiences in large part due to the increased processing power, but since then it has been first and foremost about prettier coats for gameplay that we have already seen before.

The key is content.  Nintendo's last two systems to varying degrees have lacked content.  Wii was pretty good, but not great, while Wii u is downright dreadful.  I personally like all games, especially adventure and RPG.  Wii and Wii U have both offered at least one exceptional game in each genre in Zelda and Xenoblade.  The problem is, one game for the life of the system is not enough.  Nintendo needs to find a way to either produce more games or get third party support.  Third party support is superior, because you get more innovation and variety.   The next best thing in videogames could come from anyone, anywhere, but if non-Nintendo developers aren't putting their content on the system, a Nintendo-only gamer will miss it.

If more power is what is needed to bring more content to their platform, Nintendo should build a system with more power.  If another solution is superior, Nintendo should take this path.  But I can say that 192 retail releases for Wii U is an embarassment.

That's also one other thing that I think is a legitimate gripe with the modern state of Nintendo, for people who like certain genres, like you mentioned RPGs, it's basically become "well you got Xenoblade didn't you?" ... as if one great game in that genre for 5-6 whole years is some how now become acceptable. 

Like I've said for Nintendo to pursue this "blue ocean" has basically meant that "experienced" gamers have had to lower their expectations virtually all across the board from the NES/SNES/N64/GCN era because Nintendo is not able to recoginize a happy medium (and no, the Wii U is not even freaking close to real medium, it was designed just like the Wii the only difference is the controller gimmick blew up in their face instead of taking off). The N64 era had its issues but that was largely a correctable mistake in using cartridges. 



zorg1000 on 22 August 2016
oniyide said:
zorg1000 said:

You are perhaps the most inconsistent person on this site, for weeks/months you have been talking about how its redundant for Nintendo to make a PS/XB clone and they should be different, now you're saying essentially the opposite.

This myth that Wii didnt have software aimed at "core" gamers needs to stop. It had Zelda, Metroid, Tony Hawk, Spider Man, Prince of Persia, Mortal Kombat, Crystal Chronicles, MLB 2K, One Piece, Dead Rising, Need for Speed, Dragon Ball Z, Trauma Center, Little King's Story, Harvest Moon, Resident Evil, Bleach, SSX, Marvel Ultimate Alliance, Pandora's Tower, Battalion Wars, WWE, NBA 2K, Tiger Woods, Dirt, Cabela, Rune Factory, No More Heroes, Spore, Sims, Zack & Wiki, Nights, Medal of Honor, Sin & Punishment, Samurai Warriors, PES, Tomb Raider, Silent Hill, Dead Space, Madden, Fire Emblem, Bully, GT Pro Series, Tales of Symphonia, Manhunt, Tatsunoko vs Capcom, Rayman, Conduit, Muramasa, Okami, Red Steel, 007, The Last Story, Dragon Quest, FIFA, Star Wars, MadWorld, House of the Dead, Endless Ocean, Call of Duty, F1, Xenoblade, Sonic, Monster Hunter, Fatal Frame.

Its not so much that it didnt have games aimed at "core" is that it had a LOT more games NOT aimed at the "core". Nothing wrong with that, it is what it is, but lets not pretend like it was equal. It wasnt even close. The games are usual inferior to other versions if they came at all and it still missed KEY core titles, like Elder Scrolls, Assassins Creed and GTA

I dont see how that really changes anything. If a console has 25 games that appeal to you than why does it matter if it also has 50 games that dont appeal to you?



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.