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

Forums - Nintendo - Nintendo wants more "mature" content on the switch

Areym on 18 October 2017

Let's get a game of Mario 'plumbing' Peach's 'Warp pipe' (I know he's not a plumber anymore but don't ruin this for me.) Maybe Zelda playing with Link's 'Link' like an ocarina. Or Kirby just sucking on shit for like 5 hours straight, cause who doesn't like vore.



"Trick shot? The trick is NOT to get shot." - Lucian

Around the Network
DonFerrari on 18 October 2017

Help finance some.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

GoOnKid on 18 October 2017
MajorMalfunction said:
GoOnKid said:

Those are not Sony's games. Sorry you want Nintendo to lead the way like Sony did but actually Sony did nothing lol

Sony made the platfrom and were the first to target the now huge 18-35 market. Sony didn't make those games themselves, but they set them up for success. If Nintendo did the same, and with similar commitment, they could find an audience for those kinds of games too.

No Sega was first. Sony simply didn't imply any restrictions towards 3rd party games and this led them to make whatever they saw fit. Mature games have always existed before, too. It's not like they just magically appeared when Sony entered the ring. And violent games gain attraction by shock value, that's a simple yet effective method of getting people to talk about stuff. Nintendo just has a different philosophy as they rather want to attract by fun.

Basically I also want some of those games on Nintendo platforms, too, because variety is king. We share the same thought here. But Sony didn't do shit actually back in the days. That's what I wanted to mention here.



Soundwave on 18 October 2017

Agreed Sega was first in targetting older players. Even Nintendo was doing it before Sony ... Killer Instinct, GoldenEye, Ken Griffey Jr. MLB, Star Wars ... these things were already happening at Nintendo before Sony was really anything in the business.

And they were targeting teenagers/adults with the "Play It Loud" marketing, clearly copying Sega but that too was pre-Sony.

Nintendo backed off that and went a more kiddie route with GameCube, particularly after Iwata took over.



MajorMalfunction on 18 October 2017
GoOnKid said:
MajorMalfunction said:

Sony made the platfrom and were the first to target the now huge 18-35 market. Sony didn't make those games themselves, but they set them up for success. If Nintendo did the same, and with similar commitment, they could find an audience for those kinds of games too.

No Sega was first. Sony simply didn't imply any restrictions towards 3rd party games and this led them to make whatever they saw fit. Mature games have always existed before, too. It's not like they just magically appeared when Sony entered the ring. And violent games gain attraction by shock value, that's a simple yet effective method of getting people to talk about stuff. Nintendo just has a different philosophy as they rather want to attract by fun.

Basically I also want some of those games on Nintendo platforms, too, because variety is king. We share the same thought here. But Sony didn't do shit actually back in the days. That's what I wanted to mention here.

They secured GTA as an exclusive. 

Soundwave said:
Agreed Sega was first in targetting older players. Even Nintendo was doing it before Sony ... Killer Instinct, GoldenEye, Ken Griffey Jr. MLB, Star Wars ... these things were already happening at Nintendo before Sony was really anything in the business.

And they were targeting teenagers/adults with the "Play It Loud" marketing, clearly copying Sega but that too was pre-Sony.

Nintendo backed off that and went a more kiddie route with GameCube, particularly after Iwata took over.

Can we agree that Iwata misread the market?  With the benefit of hindsight, mascot platformers and the like are dead if you're not named Mario.



Currently (Re-)Playing: Starcraft 2: Legacy of the Void Multiplayer, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past

Currently Watching: The Shield, Stein's;Gate, Narcos

Around the Network
curl-6 on 18 October 2017
freebs2 said:
curl-6 said:

That's assuming though that the audience Switch is attracting is the same group of people who bought Wii Us; I don't think that's the case, I think having Botw as the system's flagship and the shift in advertising focus to hip Gen Ys in their 20s and 30s has attracted a crowd who will be more receptive to the likes of Skyrim or Doom than the diehard Ninty loyalists who bought the Wii U would've been.

I do agree with you though that Nintendo should lead from the front and get Retro to create their own equivalent to Uncharted or Gears to help broaden their appeal.

Nintendo already did that on the Gamecube with games like Metroid Prime, Eternal Darkness, exclusivity deal for Resident Evil, collaboration to produce Metal Gear Solid Twin Snakes and it didn't help.

Imo there are 2 false assumptions on this matter.

  • Most people don't buy certain type of games because they fit thier platform of preference, it's the contrary. People already have a preference for certain games, certain genras and series, they buy the platform on which they are sure they can play those games in the most effective or beneficial way for them. So having one or two very good exclusive FPS games (for instance) is a weak argument for an FPS fan when 90% of its favorite FPS games are absent from the platform.
  • M-rated games are not a market segment. An M-rated game could be anything, an FPS, a WRPG a JRPG a racing sim a fighting game and market appeal of dark fantasy game like Bloodborne is highly uncorrelated to the market demand for a game like GT Sport. So instend of asking "are M-rated games viable on the platform? what they should do to make them viable?" the right question should be "is there a market for RPGs, for FPS games? etc. and what is needed to render each of these type of games viable?"

Some kinds of experiences can only be made with an M-rating though; many great games can only exist this way; Silent Hill, Bioshock, Gears of War, The Last of Us, Witcher 3, etc. By missing out on such a broad range of experiences Nintendo are leaving a gaping hole in their library, and gaping holes leave a system's lineup both worse for those who own it and less appealing to those who don't.



IamAwsome on 19 October 2017
MajorMalfunction said:
GoOnKid said:

Those are not Sony's games. Sorry you want Nintendo to lead the way like Sony did but actually Sony did nothing lol

Sony made the platfrom and were the first to target the now huge 18-35 market. Sony didn't make those games themselves, but they set them up for success. If Nintendo did the same, and with similar commitment, they could find an audience for those kinds of games too.

Are they not targeting that audience with the Switch? Just look at the ads. 



MajorMalfunction on 19 October 2017
IamAwsome said:
MajorMalfunction said:

Sony made the platfrom and were the first to target the now huge 18-35 market. Sony didn't make those games themselves, but they set them up for success. If Nintendo did the same, and with similar commitment, they could find an audience for those kinds of games too.

Are they not targeting that audience with the Switch? Just look at the ads. 

Ads are a good start, but they're not enough. Gamers buy games. Ads are good for getting people to buy the console, but, ultimately, it comes down to getting games for said audience. Whatever Nintendo has to do to get them, they should go ahead and do, even if it's outside their comfort zone.



Currently (Re-)Playing: Starcraft 2: Legacy of the Void Multiplayer, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past

Currently Watching: The Shield, Stein's;Gate, Narcos

freebs2 on 19 October 2017
curl-6 said:
freebs2 said:

Nintendo already did that on the Gamecube with games like Metroid Prime, Eternal Darkness, exclusivity deal for Resident Evil, collaboration to produce Metal Gear Solid Twin Snakes and it didn't help.

Imo there are 2 false assumptions on this matter.

  • Most people don't buy certain type of games because they fit thier platform of preference, it's the contrary. People already have a preference for certain games, certain genras and series, they buy the platform on which they are sure they can play those games in the most effective or beneficial way for them. So having one or two very good exclusive FPS games (for instance) is a weak argument for an FPS fan when 90% of its favorite FPS games are absent from the platform.
  • M-rated games are not a market segment. An M-rated game could be anything, an FPS, a WRPG a JRPG a racing sim a fighting game and market appeal of dark fantasy game like Bloodborne is highly uncorrelated to the market demand for a game like GT Sport. So instend of asking "are M-rated games viable on the platform? what they should do to make them viable?" the right question should be "is there a market for RPGs, for FPS games? etc. and what is needed to render each of these type of games viable?"

Some kinds of experiences can only be made with an M-rating though; many great games can only exist this way; Silent Hill, Bioshock, Gears of War, The Last of Us, Witcher 3, etc. By missing out on such a broad range of experiences Nintendo are leaving a gaping hole in their library, and gaping holes leave a system's lineup both worse for those who own it and less appealing to those who don't.

The PS4 is lacking some kinds of game experiences too, like RTS games, proper MMOs and MOBAs but I haven't see people lamenting about a hole in the library, and that's simply because the people who bought the Ps4 weren't looking into those kind of experiences (despite being very popular on other platforms). Building a robust library that values the strenghts of the console and define its identity is top priority. Patching holes of missing genres of playstyles comes way later.

Also, do you think a game like The Last Of Us would work well on the Switch? I don't, the game was designed to showcase the best state-of-the graphical capabilities while providing immersion and storytelling. This is an area where all the Switch shortcomings are put into evidence (lower graphical power) while all the streghts (portability, accessibility, local multiplayer) are irrelevant. It's basically like the rowing world champion doing a 100m run challange with Usain Bolt, it's a task set to fail from the beginning.

btw. This is also one of the main reasons imo why the PS Vita failed, beacuse Sony wanted to push Last Of Us-like experiences on a platform that obviously wasn't suited for that.



curl-6 on 19 October 2017
freebs2 said:
curl-6 said:

Some kinds of experiences can only be made with an M-rating though; many great games can only exist this way; Silent Hill, Bioshock, Gears of War, The Last of Us, Witcher 3, etc. By missing out on such a broad range of experiences Nintendo are leaving a gaping hole in their library, and gaping holes leave a system's lineup both worse for those who own it and less appealing to those who don't.

The PS4 is lacking some kinds of game experiences too, like RTS games, proper MMOs and MOBAs but I haven't see people lamenting about a hole in the library, and that's simply because the people who bought the Ps4 weren't looking into those kind of experiences (despite being very popular on other platforms). Building a robust library that values the strenghts of the console and define its identity is top priority. Patching holes of missing genres of playstyles comes way later.

Also, do you think a game like The Last Of Us would work well on the Switch? I don't, the game was designed to showcase the best state-of-the graphical capabilities while providing immersion and storytelling. This is an area where all the Switch shortcomings are put into evidence (lower graphical power) while all the streghts (portability, accessibility, local multiplayer) are irrelevant. It's basically like the rowing world champion doing a 100m run challange with Usain Bolt, it's a task set to fail from the beginning.

btw. This is also one of the main reasons imo why the PS Vita failed, beacuse Sony wanted to push Last Of Us-like experiences on a platform that obviously wasn't suited for that.

PS4 has a much more diverse library than Switch though; missing MMOs and MOBAs (genres that aren't really popular in the console space) isn't such a big deal compared to missing pretty much any content at all rated higher than PG, which as the sales charts attest, accounts for a huge proportion of what is popular in gaming today. Nobody benefits from Switch lacking these games; not Nintendo, not third parties, not gamers.

TLOU was never state of the art, when it came out in 2013 PS3 was ancient hardware, and its PS4 port wasn't technically high end even by the standards of the platform's early days. You don't need high end tech to create adult experiences. Even the Wii had a number of successful titles aimed at adults.

And Vita's failure has nothing to do with offering M-rated experiences. It has to do with a lot of things, from a lack of killer apps to overpriced memory cards, but not that.