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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Can we agree Nintendo should go third party, now?

Tagged games:

 

So?

Shaddup, you Pony! 676 36.13%
 
Switch > PC/PS4/XBO 376 20.10%
 
I can buy them all, anyway 99 5.29%
 
Nintendon't need more 29 1.55%
 
Keep only doing handhelds 81 4.33%
 
Maybe one more gen... 78 4.17%
 
Sounds good! 277 14.80%
 
I have always wanted it... 90 4.81%
 
Don't care about Nintendo 125 6.68%
 
Sonic > Mario 40 2.14%
 
Total:1,871
Hynad on 18 April 2017
RolStoppable said:
Hynad said:

Shoulder buttons are revolutionary because they add more buttons accessible to fingers that were then not used, but dual analog sticks aren't revolutionary because you can't think of games that exploited their full potential from the get go...

Go figure.

Well, can you think of games? Probably not, that's why your post didn't take the most obvious route of naming games as a rebuttal. You've got nothing and you know it.

That was a long time ago. But I'll mention Ape Escape and Alien Resurrection.

I also played GT1 and GT2 using both analog sticks as it provided more precise controls for both pedals and steering.

So yeah, you know nothing about what I have or not. So leave that kind of thing out of your comments from now on.



Around the Network
sc94597 on 18 April 2017
Superman4 said:
sc94597 said:
Nope. As far as I see it. Nintendo is the only company innovating.

 

So what your saying is you are blind? What is Nintendo innovating? Change isnt innovation. Change that makes something better, more useable, more powerfull etc. is innovation. Making a portable that you dock? Nintendo is grasping at straws hoping something sticks. The Wii, WiiU and now the switch are all gimmicks that draw initial support to see where it goes. In the mean time you have Sony and Microsoft actually innovating. Sony was the first console to bring cameras and motion control to consoles, advertising it and making it a focal point didnt really happen but the games it did have were fun. Microsoft expanded on that with a much better camera and tracking. Nintendo went with IR and Gyros for the Wii. Microsoft revolutionized the console markets online game play with cross game chat and a much better echosystem. NIntendo has yet to embrace this aspect of gaming while Sony has now surpased Microsoft. Sony introduced remoteplay via its handheld letting you take games with you or play games on your PS3 while you were away using your Vita. You could also use the vita as a second screen or controller while in game. This will be the last Nintendo home console.

Nice big rant to a one-liner made a month ago. I will stick to my claim here though and say that the experiences XBO or PS4 provide aren't vastly different from that which I obtain on my gaming PC. The same can't be said about the Switch. That you had to mention implementations of what were extant technologies fifteen years ago is telling. I used the present tense, not the past tense. As a sum of its parts, Nintendo provides a platform different from any other, consistently, whereas Microsoft and Sony focus on the tried and true formulae. Nothing is wrong with either strategy. I like both, and that is why I don't think Nintendo should go third party. They add value by successfully (rather than half-assingly) implementing edge technologies  



zorg1000 on 18 April 2017
ArchangelMadzz said:
zorg1000 said:

go back and read what i previously said, it seems like you have forgotten or you hoped that i had forgotten.

 

i have been saying they need to sell significantly more from the get go. this is what i said at the beginning of our discussion:

"Nintendo IP would have to sell alot more than they currently do in order for going 3rd party to be worthwhile"

 

i never said bigger install base cant potentially lead to higher sales, this is what i said:

"as for bigger install base automatically equaling bigger sales, thats not how it works."

 

as for 200m vs 10m install base, i already addressed that earlier:

"obviously when a game is stuck on a device with an extremely low install base like Wii U or Vita than it limits a games potential but there really isnt any reason to assume Switch will do as poorly as them."

 

at this point your arguments arent making sense.

How is ' as for bigger install base automatically equaling bigger sales, thats not how it works.' and 'you said bigger install base doesn't equal more sales' not the exact same thing? Honest, explain that to me. 

So you're saying you agree with everything I'm saying except the fact that they would sell enough on the other systems to make it worth it? Cause then we can just go on from there if that's accurate. 

Automatically is the key word, a bigger install base allows for a game to have higher sales potential but reaching that potential is not gauranteed. Earlier in this thread I gave multiple examples of franchises that did not see any notable growth by being on a significantly higher install base so you can not just assume that a game will sell better on a higher install base.

The best selling Zelda & 3D Mario games are on Nintendo's 8th best selling platform. The best selling Metroid is on Nintendo's 9th best selling platform. Kirby has consistently sold about 2 million give or take for 20 years on install bases ranging from 20-155 million. Pokemon has consistently sold 15-17 million for 15 years on install bases ranging from 65-155 million. Fire Emblem has sold over double on 3DS than it did on GBA, Wii & DS which each had higher install bases. The list goes on.

That is proof that a significantly higher install base does not guarantee that a franchise will have greater sales.

There are many other factors at play like does the platform have an active userbase interested in that genre? For example, can you show me any games similar to Nintendogs, Rhythm Heaven, Mario Party or Style Savvy that have done well on PS4/XBO? There aren't any that I can think of, these games belong to genres that have little to no presense on those systems so its illogical to expect them to see notable increases.

Will the game have stiff competition from other big franchises in that genre? I'm sure Breath of the Wild would sell great on PS4/XBO but at the same time PS4/XBO are pretty flooded with open-world/action/adventure/RPG games. Grand Theft Auto, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Dragon Age, Skyrim, Red Dead, Mass Effect, Final Fantasy, Dark Souls, Just Cause, The Witcher, Batman Arkham, Watch Dogs, Assassin's Creed, Far Cry, Metal Gear Solid, Shadow of Mordor, etc. Is it possible that these games could help boost Zelda sales? Absolutely possible but at the same time it could get lost in the crowd and the increase would be minimal.



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

SegataSanshiro on 18 April 2017
RolStoppable said:
Hynad said:

If you have a lick of sense, you will understand the significance of having two analog sticks and how it greatly improved input method precision and allowed the rest of the buttons to be used for something better suited to them. 

I played FPS games on various consoles. Replacing the C-buttons with a stick for movement made next to no difference because most of the time you were going to move at full speed anyway.

Now the difference you speak of isn't a question of the N64 setup for moving and looking vs. dual analog, but a question of how many buttons are available on a controller.

Well yeah play old school FPS games on PC and you use the keys for the same thing as the C buttons.



Hynad on 18 April 2017
RolStoppable said:
Hynad said:

That was a long time ago. But I'll mention Ape Escape.

Yup, it's looking really dire for your side of the argument. I am not sure what that game actually did, but it's hard to imagine that other games aped it or were influenced by it. Which would be why I am drawing such a blank on Ape Escape.

I'll give you a couple of examples for what isn't revolutionary for gameplay, but merely adding more functionality.

On the NES we had SMB3. d-pad to move, B button to run, A button to jump. The SNES gave us more buttons, so in SMW we had the d-pad to move, the Y button to run, the B button to jump and the A button to perform a spin jump. There's no reason to go "wow" over this.

The GC had analog shoulder buttons with a click when they were pressed all the way down. That [the click] was new and when pressing R all the way down in Super Mario Sunshine, it was possible to aim the water gun with the analog stick. By pressing the R button not all the way down it was possible to shoot water while running. Nothing revolutionary here. Not in SMS or any other game that used the click of the analog shoulder buttons.

Maybe this helps to get the point better across. The N64 FPS games focused on the essentials of the genre, but adding more buttons and being able to crouch or whatever doesn't constitute a revolution to gameplay.

I edited my comment prior to your comment to add two other examples. But you'll dimiss them, of course. Because dual analog sticks is a standard that wasn't brought forth by Nintendo... -____-

You mention revolution in gameplay. I'm talking about revolution in input methods. Sony released the dualshock. History speaks for itself. How many controllers do you see now having two analog sticks? Heck, even Rare thought it was a good input method, allowing you to use (lol) two N64 controllers to play Goldeneye with dual analog controls. Should I bring up the example of the 3DS, re-released with a second analog stick? What about the Switch? Which comes with two analog sticks but no proper Dpad?



Around the Network
Hynad on 18 April 2017
RolStoppable said:
Hynad said:

I edited my comment prior to your comment to add two other examples. But you'll dimiss them. Nintendo didn't create that control scheme, after all.

You mention revolution in gameplay. I'm talking about revolution in input methods. Sony released the dualshock. History speaks for itself. How many controllers do you see now having two analog sticks? 

But in this case you are changing the argument. The point of contention needs to remain the same as with pokoko the other day. Said argument is the basis for your accusation that I consider Nintendo a god.

Revolutionary is and was always the key word here. 



160rmf on 18 April 2017
zorg1000 said:

Automatically is the key word, a bigger install base allows for a game to have higher sales potential but reaching that potential is not gauranteed.

This is fair good point that can't be refuted, yet people choose to ignore this or make dishonest statements  sothey can insist with their port begging and shit talking about Nintendo. This same argument that I quoted have been repeated several times in this thread alone. I also said that in another thread like this one a few months ago. Why can't we just stop feeding these kind of threads? I know I get tired of repeating myself and people in this  site should feel the same.

All these threads about Nintendo going full 3rd party just feel like a joke similar to the Sony going 3rd party. The only difference is that people roll with one and call out the mods with the other.



 

 

We reap what we sow

COKTOE on 18 April 2017

If we look at the COMG! situation as it's unfolded, it looks like Nintendo is fine. I realize that COMG! isn't the only metric one can use to determine success or failure, but COMG! is, at the very least, a nice indication of how healthy things are in one specific area.



- "If you have the heart of a true winner, you can always get more pissed off than some other asshole."

Hynad on 19 April 2017
RolStoppable said:
Hynad said:

Revolutionary is and was always the key word here. 

pokoko's argument was that dual analog enabled first person games to be played on consoles. That's why he called dual analog revolutionary. Revolution in gameplay, games in first person perspective being the first example he cited.

Now you either defend his argument if you want to keep this going or you concede that what he was saying wasn't right. Although I don't want to keep this thing going because it should have been settled a long time ago, considering how wrong pokoko was. Barkley had the decency to concede on the C-buttons after I had explained it, but not everyone is like that.

I want to conclude by saying something mean: You are bi-polar. You tend to accuse me of extreme Nintendo fanboyism, but inbetween that I am your go-to guy for recommendations for games on a Nintendo console because "Rol is the only Nintendo fan I can trust" or something like that.

Oh man, Rol.

I will start by pointing out that you can appreciate someone (or something) even if you don't agree with everything he says or does. But I must say I don't get how you got the idea that you are my "go-to guy" for anything or that you are the "only Nintendo fan I can trust". There are plenty of Nintendo fans here I like and trust (many of them I talk to daily on Discord). But I can say that I do appreciate your "biased reviews", even if I don't always agree with all the points you bring up for any given game. That's only a part of the contributions you bring to VGC that I find interesting or fun to read. And just because I may have come to you in private to discuss some games, that doesn't make you my "go-to guy" or anything like that. I do think you are a smart guy, and I do value your input on certain subjects. But you're not the only one here that I value for similar reasons.  So there's really no need for you to feel elevated above the mass, or to think that you're somehow in a unique position regarding me. xD


That being out of the way, I will ask you a few questions: Was the analog stick on the N64 revolutionary? After all, you could move your character or move the camera with simple buttons. How did the shoulder buttons revolutionize gameplay? You could achieve pretty much the same thing with face buttons. Nothing new from a gameplay perspective was brought forth by their inclusion. They were just a more ergonomic solution.

Of course, I think both were revolutionary, but I'm simply asking to point out your double standard.



0D0 on 19 April 2017
p0isonparadise said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Doesn't that make it less likely that they'd scrap PlayStation then?

I'm not an expert in business, so don't take my word as gospel.

They won't scrap PS if they don't have to. But if Sony goes under, wouldn't PS go down with the company? Unless they're really desperate to save the company they decide to sell the PS "brand"?

 

I don't know. lol

No, if all other Sony businesses die, they can keep PlayStation as a separate company. It'd be a smaller Sony, but PlayStation is an extraordinary product itself that can sustein a company. The same for other Sony business like its Hollywood divisions.



God bless You.

My Total Sales prediction for PS4 by the end of 2021: 110m+

When PS4 will hit 100m consoles sold: Before Christmas 2019

There were three ravens sat on a tree / They were as blacke as they might be / The one of them said to his mate, Where shall we our breakfast take?