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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Among the big Japanese publishers, is Nintendo the least creatively risk-averse?

Capcom are the worst.

How many versions and remasters of RE series have we got so far lol.



Around the Network

I think Nintendo often takes more risks in terms of gameplay and hardware because they don't follow industry standards, which is also a major weakness. On the other hand, I think there is a major difference in hiring staff since they often tend to hire designers and non-gamers to make games. Companies that hire game fans of their previous works tend to stagnate and usually end up improving or enhancing what those already loved during childhood. This new IP thing is pretty new since Splatoons success. In recent years Nintendo also experimented with plenty of ideas just adding Mario or Pokemon to the formula. Having such strong mascot(s) that usually push sales easily over 1 million, helped Nintendo a lot over the past decades. While the Monster Hunter spinoff, for instance, flopped hard.

SKMBlake said:
DonFerrari said:
You kinda contradict yourself. If they put very little budget on their not well recognized franchises then they are being very conservative on avoid risk.

Certainly I can agree that Nintendo makes more varied titles than most if not all Japanese developers. Still Capcom and Sega aren't limited to the 2 IPs each you have put.

But yes, we can agree with the premisse you put on general terms.

Yeah but when you see Sega doesn't wanna fund Bayonetta 2 and rather pay for another shitty Sonic game that almost no one even want or care, you realize they aren't always good risk takers.

In fact, the Bayonetta case is a good point for the thread

They took the risk in Bayo1 and it didn't pay out. Bayo2 wasn't a risk for Nintendo it was a calculated loss on the game to increase game count and diversity on WiiU.

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

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"

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

I don't see much point in that comparison, to be honest. Nintendo has far more money to spend, a build-in platform for pushing their own content, and a need to produce software to sell their console. Not even close to the same starting point.

And as far as comparing game budgets between third-party and first-party efforts, first-party titles do not have the same overhead. It's not the same situation and people need to stop acting like it's not going to be more expensive for a third-party publisher to produce the same content.

Besides, you can't much fault companies for Yakuza or Monster Hunter when Nintendo has developed over 11,000 Mario-themed games in the same timespan.

Nintendo does as Nintendo does, simple as that.

The Democratic Nintendo that a paradox? I'm fond of one of the more conservative companies in the industry, but I vote Liberally and view myself that way 90% of the time?

Around the Network

Still waiting on an in house developed M rated game given the full marketing support and power of the Nintendo brand.

Please Watch/Share this video so it gets shown in Hollywood.

They're a bit of a mixed bag. They push the envelope in many ways because they rely very much on their tried and true formulas and franchises to fund some of the riskier endeavors. Ever publisher does this, but they've had a bit more success in recent times with Splatoon.

"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

A few factors to consider:

Nintendo is WAAAAAAY bigger than all of those companies. Their executive staff has WAAAAAY more influence.
Corporate third parties, even though they may still have a lot of money, are driven to keep consistent and predictable incomes - otherwise, shares drop in value and the board fires the executive staff.

Nintendo's executive staff apparently has a lot more power and influence than others (in most industries), this is why they can give the board the middle finger and do what they want... I remember people, even in this forum, were angry about Iwata keeping his position and wanted the board to fire him - but basically, he had to die in order to lose his position no matter what those assholes demanded. Even crazy old Yamauchi managed to stay in power after numerous controversies throughout the 1990s, and only retired from the position when he felt he as too old and had it effectively given to his hand-chosen successor. I think things are a little shaken up in Nintendo right now, though. It's my doubt Iwata planned to give up his position in the next 20-30 years if not for his illness.

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Eh, I'd still say they're pretty risk averse. They're still afraid to release a 1st party M/18/Z rated game. They're also afraid to put a AAA budget behind a Pokemon game, instead choosing to make safe, iterative AA Pokemon games.

Last edited by shikamaru317 - on 16 December 2018

I generally agree with the OP. But, it must be remembered that Nintendo's whoring out of Mario is in a whole different ballpark than everyone else in gaming. They shoehorned him into racing, fighting, sports, turn based RPGs, action RPGs, puzzles, party games, and just about every major genre out there, excluding shooters. I'm surprised Splatoon isn't set in the Mario universe, frankly.

Nobody else does anything like this. So, in some senses, Nintendo is the least adventurous.