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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Are Nintendo games held to an unrealistic standard?

TheMisterManGuy on 21 July 2019
RolStoppable said:

Nintendo's best talent has to make games that sell the hardware, because if they don't, who else is going to do it on a large scale. The more hardware that is sold, the more games sell overall, and now there's also a subscription for online multiplayer. Software sells hardware is the most fundamental aspect of the business, so advocating that it is fine if Nintendo's top developers waste their time on IPs that didn't catch on is perplexing.

They can do both. It's not an either or situation, they can make system selling titles and niche 1-2 million sellers. Nintendo's not some indie developer who can't spread themselves too thin. They have 700 developers in-house. They're one of the most profitable publishers in the industry, they can afford niche titles in-house.



Around the Network
HoangNhatAnh on 21 July 2019
BraLoD said:
Chrkeller said:

I find it funny that people believe Nintendo gets a free pass from criticism on their games. The truth is Nintendo has been in this business a long time and simply makes superb games.  Nintendo is held to the same standard as everybody else.  

Except they do.

That doesn't mean Nintendo games doesn't deserve a lot of praise because they do a lot of time, but that it will take a damn lot to get it actual criticism. It'll get slammed 10s all over the place even if the actual review has some complants, meanwhile if it is a Sony game it'll get 9s even if the reviewers adored the game, because criticism will still take place.

The fact Sony still doesn't have a game with a 97 metascore while Nintendo can get it twice in a year is pretty telling.

I'm not saying Nintendo doesn't deserve it or that Sony games are better (even if they are my prefference, so you know my bias) but that it doesn't matter what Sony do, games regarded as pure works of art (SotC), as industry changing (GT), as technology marvels (Uncharted), as innovative experiences (LBP), as new standards to games (TLoU), and so on, Sony gets more GOTYs than anyone else, even against other companies games with superior scores by those same reviewers (where those other games can reach such high score).

There is no denying Sony games are the ones treated with unrealistic standards that others simply aren't, and Nintendo is actually the one with the least of that in a time where they have fallen behind in technology and investiment and that is held in such high regard to anyone else that is considered big.

Again, that doesn't mean Nintendo games doesn't deserve the praise/sales they get, but they get it without the same trouble anyone else has, because if the game is good that's all that matters, criticism will be basically non existent or irrelevant even if it is there.

"pure works of art" FFX and XII also have great art, "industry changing" changing what? "technology marvels" GTAV is more impressive to me tbh, "innovative experiences" so LBP is the first game ever did that in the genre, "new standards to games" what standard?

"fallen behind in technology and investment" high technology and big investment # great quality gameplay, low technology and small investment # bad quality gameplay



gamingsoul on 21 July 2019

Some Nintendo franchises get especial treatment from critics(rockstar too but that’s for another topic) for example the original wind water had a very tedious sailing mechanic still it got many 10s, skyward sword had terrible motion controls ign gave it a 7 but still the game has a 93 at metacritic, that’s higher than ff7, Metroid prime had awkward controls, terrible platforming, very boring Scan everything gameplay but it has like 98 at metacritic, Breath Of The Wild had terrible voice acting, boring story, boring music, similar enemies, repetitive fetch quest , but it got a 97. Meanwhile great games like resi2 and sekiro barely reach 90 at metacritic, and some people say there’s no Nintendo bias?



Chrkeller on 21 July 2019

Nintendo has a strong focus on art style, gameplay, level design and fun. Their focus isn't the same as the competition. Being different doesn't equate to falling behind. Different is just that, different.

The competition tends to focus on graphics and story. Neither of which do much for me.



gamingsoul on 21 July 2019

Nintendo fans always say it’s about the gameplay, yeah right only Nintendo games have great gameplay, crash team racing has probably the best gameplay of any kart racing game ever, devil may cry is easily one of the best hack and slash games ever, did those games reach 97 at metacritic obviously no, not even a 90.



Around the Network
SnesTea on 21 July 2019

I don't thinks so. Lots of games Nintendo has published have been trash.

Metroid Other M
Disaster Day of Crisis
Devil's Third
Every Pikmin game

I could go on but I won't.



The_Liquid_Laser on 21 July 2019
TheMisterManGuy said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:

It has more to do with the question, "Why do people play this game?"  People play ARMS mostly for competitive fighting.  That is also the same reason they play Smash Bros.  It's kind of redundant to make another ARMS, because fighting fans just want to play Smash Bros anyway.  Nintendo would be better off making a unique type of game than making another ARMS.  ARMS doesn't really bring in new people to buy a console.

But ARMS is still a completely different game from Smash. Them both being fighting games, doesn't change that. The fact that it sold 2 million copies worldwide is enough for them to make a sequel. Even creator, Kosuke Yabuki would like to make one.

Sonic and Mario are completely different games, but they are both 2D platformers.  They compete with each other, because people play them for the same reason.  

Smash Bros and ARMS have the same relationship.  They are completely different games, but they are both fighting games.  People play them for the same reason.  Since Smash Bros is waaaay more popular it is just better for Nintendo to make Smash Bros. 

Instead of making ARMS they should try developing a new IP.  That would be a wise use of resources.  I'm sure ARMS made a small profit, but that is not the purpose of first party software.  First party software is meant to move hardware.  That is why it is better to develop new IP than to make an ARMS 2.  Sure the next IP might not explode in sales, or maybe it will.  Who knows?  That gamble is better than making another ARMS.  Games like Smash Bros, need to keep having sequels because they are so popular.  But for a game like ARMS which is clearly outshined by Smash Bros, Nintendo is better off rolling the dice and trying something new instead.



curl-6 bet me that PS5 + X|S sales would reach 56m before year end 2023 and he was right.
My Bet With curl-6

My Threads:
Master Thread, Game of the Year/Decade
Switch Will Be #1 All Time
Zelda Will Outsell Mario (Achieved)
How Much Will MH Rise sell?
My Bet With Metallox

Chrkeller on 21 July 2019
BraLoD said:
Chrkeller said:
Nintendo has a strong focus on art style, gameplay, level design and fun. Their focus isn't the same as the competition. Being different doesn't equate to falling behind. Different is just that, different.

The competition tends to focus on graphics and story. Neither of which do much for me.

Nothing wrong with either focus but Nintendo has definitely fallen behing in technology.

Until the GameCube they were not Nintendo? They were, and they also had the technology and investiments backing that up, which just stopped since them, and they have fallen behind.

Are their games bad or not fun because of that? Of course not.

But they did fall behind, and that was not a design choice, at all.

I completely disagree, Nintendo simply focuses on different technology.  The problem is you are viewing technology exclusively as better graphics.  From a technology perspective Nintendo focuses on ways to play.  Off the top of my head Nintendo developed shoulder buttons, analogs, rumble controllers, 4 controller ports, multiple screens, motion controls and now a hybrid console.  All that is technology, just not 'better graphics.'  

Personally I love Sony and Nintendo, what makes owning both such a great experience is the fact they focus on different things.  Nintendo doesn't need to be another "me too" console.  The Xbox X is a power beast, too bad MS has little to no exclusive content.  At the end of the day Nintendo develops software, than creates hardware to play their games.  This is different view compared to Sony/MS.  

For those who think there is a Nintendo bias, do you think there is a Naughty Dog bias because almost everything they release is reviewed 90+?  I'm guessing not.  

Either way, there is no Nintendo bias.  Nintendo makes superb titles.  

Last edited by Chrkeller - on 21 July 2019

d21lewis on 21 July 2019

Aside from Smash, Mario and Zelda, Nintendo games actually get "average" scores. You can't tell me those three franchises don't deserve the scores they get. They're so polished and replayable. I personally dislike the Smash series but I know quality when I see it.



KLXVER on 21 July 2019
Snesboy said:
I don't thinks so. Lots of games Nintendo has published have been trash.

Metroid Other M
Disaster Day of Crisis
Devil's Third
Every Pikmin game

I could go on but I won't.

and what makes you right and people who like Pikmin wrong?