Veknoid_Outcast said:
pokoko said:
It is absolutely not all that matters. That millions of customers went elsewhere is proof of that.
They're going to make a new Kart, a new Smash, and they're going to put Mario into new party and sports games. How is that different from the rest of the industry? How is that creative and risky? There will be a new Yoshi game, a new Kirby game, a new Donkey Kong game, all with game-play similar to what has been done before. It's the same blueprint as Call of Duty.
That you love their style of game-play does not mean that your opinion of enjoyment is more valid than that of someone who loves first person shooters, or hack and slash games, or checkers. It does not mean that what you like is better, only that you enjoy it more. Certainly, they've become polished at making the same types of games but, well, that's because they keep making them. That's great for those that like their games and meaningless for anyone who wants something different or interesting--but those consumers are already gone, anyway, because they already know most of what Nintendo is going to make.
|
I really don't care what millions of customers do. Millions of customers like Transformers 2 and blood sausage.
I can only speak for myself.
In any event, I never meant this to be a refendum on Nintendo's risk portfolio. I was responding to your post claiming Nintendo is a stagnant entity turning out samey, unambitious projects -- something I disagree with. I was simply defending Nintendo against that argument. I never meant to suggest Nintendo is some virtuoso making heads spin with its groundbreaking, earth-shattering ideas. It relies on formulas like any other video game company.
My point was explaining how PlayStation, and by extension, the entire industry became "dull," to use Reim's word. My answer: publishers investing too much money in project management and advertising that a bomb would cripple them, thus playing it safe; the shift toward games that play by the rules and structure of cinema; and studios falling back on glossy graphics to sell mechanically unengaging titles.
Because Nintendo doesn't fall into those traps, I hold it aloft as a publisher doing the right thing.
|
My post was a response to you mentioning Nintendo twice as something the rest of the industry should emulate.
But, see, I don't want that. Let Nintendo do what it does but I like other things better. I like when developers move on to new IP. I like when a new IP gets new characters instead of characters recycled from elsewhere. I like interesting characters. I like when different IP actually feel different. I like complex themes, I like emotion, I like when my imagination is engaged instead of just my fingers. I like when we get games like Journey, Valiant Hearts, or Persona. I like the humor of Borderlands and the introspection of Deus Ex. I also really dislike jumping as a primary mechanic and always have.
I quit gaming once before, with the SNES, when I got tired of game-play held together with cardboard characters and shoe-string plots. I found that I'd much rather be reading or playing with action figures. The rise of more immersive games on the PS1 is what brought me back.
Honestly, I find the way Nintendo operates to be "dull". Which is okay, people like different things. It doesn't make one approach better, it just makes it better for me, or you, or whomever.
Basically, I don't like when someone says the things I like are wrong and the things which they like are right, which is the feeling I got from your posts in this thread.
