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?

The expectations for what Nintendo games sell have been skewed by the ridiculous sales of a bunch of Wii and DS games. The gamecube and N64 didn't have have any 10-million sellers other than Mario 64. Handhelds also didn't have many games that sold that much other than Pokemon, the GBA didn't have any other than Pokemon. Then along came the Wii and DS and all of a sudden NSMB is selling 30 million on both systems, Mario Kart sells nearly 60 million combined on both systems. New IPs like Brain Age and Nintendogs sell around 20 million. This was when we started to see games like Prime 3 be called failures for selling 1.5 million when Galaxy 1 sold over 12 million when that would have been considered a big success in previous generations.

Things seemed a little different in the Wii U and 3DS days though. With the Wii U there weren't that many systems sold, so there was an upper limit on what games could sell that was clear to everyone. And while the 3DS had plenty of 10 million sellers, Fire Emblem Awakening was considered a big success despite selling around 2 million.

I guess in the Switch era since both hardware and software sales are high again like in the Wii/DS days - with Zelda selling more than it ever has before in particular, expectations have reset to those from that era as well.



Around the Network
OTBWY said:
BraLoD said:

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.

Truth of the matter is, you wouldn't dispute those two 97s if they came out on Playstation.

Yep.  And I would add people are making too big of a deal out of the number 97, really there isn't a meaningful different between a say a 95 and a 97.  Sony has plenty of games that reviewed incredibly well.  There is no industry bias, some developers are simply more talented than others.

Meta has 22 games at a 97 or higher, 7 of which are Nintendo games going all the way back to the N64 days.  I don't see the bias.  Rockstar is right up there with Nintendo and they only have to franchises (for the most part).

Last edited by Chrkeller - on 22 July 2019

Chrkeller said:
OTBWY said:

Truth of the matter is, you wouldn't dispute those two 97s if they came out on Playstation.

Yep.  And I would add people are making too big of a deal out of the number 97, really there isn't a meaningful different between a say a 95 and a 97.  Sony has plenty of games that reviewed incredibly well.  There is no industry bias, some developers are simply more talented than others.

Meta has 22 games at a 97 or higher, 7 of which are Nintendo games going all the way back to the N64 days.  I don't see the bias.  Rockstar is right up there with Nintendo and they only have to franchises (for the most part).

Rockstar has an average Metascore of 82, much more than Nintendos measly 76. So game reviewers must be biased against Nintendo and pro Rockstar, amirite.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

TheMisterManGuy said:
Louie said:

The problem with games like Pikmin is that they are high budget titles but don't sell well and don't sell hardware. That's why Nintendo shouldn't focus too much on them. A Pikmin 1-3 collection for Switch, made by a third party developer? Sure, I'll take it. But putting years of effort and millions of dollars into Pikmin 4 just for it to sell 1.5 million units? They could spend their money and time more wisely.

Not every in-house game needs to sell hardware. It just needs to be profitable. Nintendo games, even the highest budget ones, are actually nothing compared to what Western developers spend on their AAA games generally. There's a reason why Nintendo's made 3 in-house entries despite only ever breaking 1m sales. Also Pikmin 4 on Switch would probably do better than the previous 3 due to the Switch's better software sales. 

What does a console look like when it has a bunch of profitable games that don't sell hardware?  It looks like the Gamecube.  In fact, I am sure Wind Waker was a profitable game (and so was Skyward Sword).  But Wind Waker and Skyward Sword didn't move much hardware.  Nintendo realized that it needed to do something different with Zelda, and that is why they made Breath of the Wild.  That is a Zelda game that moves hardware.

And because BotW moves hardware, I don't need Nintendo to make fun 1-2 million selling games.  That is what third party developers are for.  When Nintendo sells a lot of hardware there are always a lot of third party games.  That is why I want Nintendo to make system sellers.  I want the console to have plenty of fun games of all kinds, but I only get that kind of console when Nintendo makes system selling games.  I don't need Nintendo to go third party.  I need the third parties to go Nintendo.  When they do that I get a console with tons of fun games (including all of the Nintendo games) and that is what I really want in a console.

Last edited by The_Liquid_Laser - on 22 July 2019

Lol I read the OP and just knew people would skip past it or misinterpret the point of the thread and talk about Nintendos games getting better scores than games they prefer.



Around the Network
The_Liquid_Laser said:

What does a console look like when it has a bunch of profitable games that don't sell hardware?  It looks like the Gamecube.  In fact, I am sure Wind Waker was a profitable game (and so was Skyward Sword).  But Wind Waker and Skyward Sword didn't move much hardware.  Nintendo realized that it needed to do something different with Zelda, and that is why they made Breath of the Wild. That is a Zelda game that moves hardware.

I'm not saying Nintendo shouldn't make system sellers, they absolutely need to. What I'm saying is that they should also make other smaller, more niche games as well. A software publisher is nothing without a diverse catalog of yearly releases.

And because BotW moves hardware, I don't need Nintendo to make fun 1-2 million selling games.  That is what third party developers are for.  When Nintendo sells a lot of hardware there are always a lot of third party games.  That is why I want Nintendo to make system sellers.  I want the console to have plenty of fun games of all kinds, but I only get that kind of console when Nintendo makes system selling games.  I don't need Nintendo to go third party.  I need the third parties to go Nintendo.  When they do that I get a console with tons of fun games (including all of the Nintendo games) and that is what I really want in a console.

You realize Nintendo can do both. They can move systems with big surefire hits, AND provide some more niche 1-2 million selling titles in there for existing owners as well. You're essentially asking for Nintendo to stop taking creative risks and making niche games. Just make more safebet system sellers. Nobody wants ARMS and such /s.



The thing is, it's clear where your bias lands. But your argument falls flat.

You have been shown that Nintendo do in fact create and adapt new technology right up to the Switch and you seem to ignore this.

You seem very attached to a meta score of 97. When in reality it is only a score and not the be all and end all and most people couldn't care less about meta scores. I love videogames and own a ps4, a gaming pc and a Switch so I can objectively say that Nintendo is not given free passes just because its Nintendo. Their games score highly because they are justified at the time.

Naughty Dog games score very highly too, so does that really mean that they are also given free passes like Nintendo? Think about it for a moment. Its clear and obvious that no Naughty Dogs games score highly because they were deemed worthy of it. The same for those nintendo games like BoTW and Mario Odyssey.

Also you say about the Last of us set new gold standards in gaming. I love Uncharted and Naughty Dog but TLoU was actually one game of theirs I didn't enjoy. But I appreciate many people do and do not argue it doesn't deserve its praise and review scores. I personally can think of many games that told great stories, both on PlayStation and Nintendo throughout the years.

You mention dreams and LBP as new innovations. Nintendo so this too, whether you or I like them or not, Nintendo brought us Labo last year with new ways to play, Mario Maker to create 2d  Mario platform game much easier than other game makers I've tried before including LBP. There are innovative games all around on all game platforms.

I'm sorry but your argument just does not hold up.



BraLoD said:
OTBWY said:

Truth of the matter is, you wouldn't dispute those two 97s if they came out on Playstation.

"Nintendo is actually the one with the least of that in a time where they have fallen behind in technology and investiment " 

What do technology and investment have to do with making great games?

Well, GTA IV is quite overrated, so no, I would.

I also don't think Tony Hawk should have ever reached such scores.

I still like both, tho.

If you mean Sony own games, it'll very hardly get anything more than it should, because there will always be criticism around them. Always.

About your question, I never disputed that it have anything to do with it, I even said it doesn't make a game bad or not fun. What I said is that if other companies fail to meet such standards they'll get the criticism for it, and Nintendo won't. That's it.

Lol trying to praise Sony while playing down Nintendo is surely very objective. Don't ignore my comment, give a reply 



TheMisterManGuy said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:

What does a console look like when it has a bunch of profitable games that don't sell hardware?  It looks like the Gamecube.  In fact, I am sure Wind Waker was a profitable game (and so was Skyward Sword).  But Wind Waker and Skyward Sword didn't move much hardware.  Nintendo realized that it needed to do something different with Zelda, and that is why they made Breath of the Wild. That is a Zelda game that moves hardware.

I'm not saying Nintendo shouldn't make system sellers, they absolutely need to. What I'm saying is that they should also make other smaller, more niche games as well. A software publisher is nothing without a diverse catalog of yearly releases.

And because BotW moves hardware, I don't need Nintendo to make fun 1-2 million selling games.  That is what third party developers are for.  When Nintendo sells a lot of hardware there are always a lot of third party games.  That is why I want Nintendo to make system sellers.  I want the console to have plenty of fun games of all kinds, but I only get that kind of console when Nintendo makes system selling games.  I don't need Nintendo to go third party.  I need the third parties to go Nintendo.  When they do that I get a console with tons of fun games (including all of the Nintendo games) and that is what I really want in a console.

You realize Nintendo can do both. They can move systems with big surefire hits, AND provide some more niche 1-2 million selling titles in there for existing owners as well. You're essentially asking for Nintendo to stop taking creative risks and making niche games. Just make more safebet system sellers. Nobody wants ARMS and such /s.

I already said in a previous post that I am good with Nintendo making Labo, because it is so unique that it can attract new customers to the system.  Labo fits the description of creative and niche.  Arms is really just a fighting game.  I am ok that they made it once, but it shouldn't get a sequel.  Now that they know it won't sell a ton, then it shouldn't get a sequel.

Basically, not every game needs to be a "safebet", but every game needs to attempt to be a system seller.  A niche game that brings in a new type of customer can be a (small) system seller.  Obviously the top selling titles are system sellers.  These are the types of games that Nintendo needs to make.  A game that sells 1-2m and is in the same genre of a bigger game, like ARMS, should not get a sequel.  It is a waste of resources, even if it technically makes a profit.  Too much opportunity cost is lost.



The_Liquid_Laser said:

I already said in a previous post that I am good with Nintendo making Labo, because it is so unique that it can attract new customers to the system.  Labo fits the description of creative and niche.  Arms is really just a fighting game.  I am ok that they made it once, but it shouldn't get a sequel.  Now that they know it won't sell a ton, then it shouldn't get a sequel.

Basically, not every game needs to be a "safebet", but every game needs to attempt to be a system seller.  A niche game that brings in a new type of customer can be a (small) system seller.  Obviously the top selling titles are system sellers.  These are the types of games that Nintendo needs to make.  A game that sells 1-2m and is in the same genre of a bigger game, like ARMS, should not get a sequel.  It is a waste of resources, even if it technically makes a profit.  Too much opportunity cost is lost.

ARMS plays nothing like Smash though. The audience for both games couldn't be any more different. Nintendo's more than likely going to make a sequel to it because it sold well. It actually was more successful than they anticipated, that they added a few more things before wrapping up. Yabuki even said he wanted to make a sequel.