Is anyone else quite glad when Nintendo posts underwhelming sales?

It's my confession. It gives me hope that it might get them out of their complacency, and sometimes it does.

I would be more than happy for Nintendo to be the underdog in the home console market as long as they're not financially at risk.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-01-25-nintendos-wii-u-sales-struggle

Sometimes I wonder what it would be like if Nintendo were to drop out of the home console market. If they started pumping out games for Sony and Microsoft systems, I'm adamant that we'd see more ambitious and quality games from the series we all love - I think they've neglected a lot of the big ones in recent times. It's extremely sinister, but at least it'd surely mean they'd kick the 'casual' and 'innovation' stuff to the curb and concentrate on the core games.

I almost feel the focus on some sort of innovation has caused development of these games to stutter - take Zelda for example, all the way up to Skyward Sword, we have that stale and rigid old formula at its core, covered up by lots of motion stuff and sword-waving. At least if Nintendo were making games as a third-party, you can see how these games could be refreshed more successfully. I.E. devoid of that pressure coming from Ninty themselves for those big games to prove that 'motion'/'tablet screens' are the future. I think people under-estimate how much that alone has effected the Nintendo games we've seen in recent times.

Not to say we haven't seen great games in recent times, but the ten year old in me expected Nintendo to go from strength-to-strength in terms of their game series - I figured lots of series would be expanded upon by now, but many seem to have disappeared all together which is sad. Now I feel with the Wii U they're in a situation where it would be a big gamble to release a new Star Fox or something. I'm not sure that situation changes whether they're coming in first or last. 


( Edited 29.01.2013 23:27 by The Strat Man )

The Strat Man said:
Sometimes I wonder what it would be like if Nintendo were to drop out of the home console market. If they started pumping out games for Sony and Microsoft systems, I'm adamant that we'd see more ambitious and quality games from the series we all love - I think they've neglected a lot of the big ones in recent times. It's extremely sinister, but at least it'd surely mean they'd kick the 'casual' and 'innovation' stuff to the curb and concentrate on the core games.

I seriously doubt all of what you just said. Why would their software development process suddenly radically change if they stopped making hardware? Why would games suddenly become"more ambitious"? And "more quality"? Are people seriously saying Nintendo games aren't quality?

Why would they kick the "casual" and "innovation" stuff to the curb? All their games sell like crazy as is - and that's being just on Nintendo systems nevermind if you're theoretically talking about moving to the massive Playstation and Xbox install bases. You also seem to forget that Sony and Microsoft are trying desperately to appeal to those crowds, so I seriously doubt that would discourage Nintendo from doing anything to help them accomplish that.

The Strat Man said:
I almost feel the focus on some sort of innovation has caused development of these games to stutter - take Zelda for example, all the way up to Skyward Sword, we have that stale and rigid old formula at its core, covered up by lots of motion stuff and sword-waving. At least if Nintendo were making games as a third-party, you can see how these games could be refreshed more successfully. I.E. devoid of that pressure coming from Ninty themselves for those big games to prove that 'motion'/'tablet screens' are the future. I think people under-estimate how much that alone has effected the Nintendo games we've seen in recent times.

Zelda is a terrible example considering that Nintendo literally just said that they are changing up the formula for the next game. Also, I again don't see why these games would suddenly be refreshed "more successfully". What is "more successfully" to you? You should define that since Zelda alone is a system seller. Just look at the comments for when a new Zelda game comes out. Even people who never buy Nintendo stuff for other games consider getting Nintendo hardware so they can play it.

The Strat Man said:
I figured lots of series would be expanded upon by now, but many seem to have disappeared all together which is sad. Now I feel with the Wii U they're in a situation where it would be a big gamble to release a new Star Fox or something. I'm not sure that situation changes whether they're coming in first or last.

I think Sly has a good point and in some ways I agree, as depressing as it is that the WiiU, a great piece of hardware, and the 3DS, already working up a good library, aren't faring that well, I can't say I'm too surprised as Nintendo have relied too heavily on branding to sell the systems for them.

However I totally disagree with Strat. For one thing, Nintendo have always adamantly said they'd sooner leave the gaming business altogether than go third party. For another thing; Nintendo's most unsuccessful era by far was Gen5-6, and they were still perfectly comfortable financially all that time. They ain't goin' anywhere anytime soon, Sony is far more likely to fold than Nintendo are (for better or worse)

On the case of game freshness, I definitely agree that Zelda needs freshining up, and 2D Mario. However I believe those are the only franchises that really need it (and Pokémon, but that's not really Nintendo's jurisdiction as the main series developments are decided by a third party). Metroid gets freshness coming out of its armpits, it's so fresh that sexism is new to the series (and we'll hopefully never see another Metroid like that again!)
3D Mario continues to innovate and I have faith that, while 2D Mario becomes more and more stagnant, the next 3D Mario won't just be "another Mario Galaxy". 3D Mario is successful, but not on the same level as 2D Mario. Nintendo can continue pushing NSMBU for another 6-7 years if they feel like it and that casual fanbase who just want a basic Mario romp are satisfied while Nintendo work on how to really work new things into the 3D formula.

As for Zelda, after Nintendo outright said "we want to change Zelda's fundamental formula" on Nintendo Direct to a massive hyped audience, they better fuckin' do it. Skyward Sword made changes, like adding running, small parkour elements and admittedly really clever motion control, but even Nintendo acknowledges that it was still too formulaic. Doesn't anyone else find this promising?

As for other smaller series' I'm not worried. We have Shin Megami Tensei x Fire Emblem being hyped up, FE isn't exactly Nintendo's most popular series. Nintendo seem to go on a sort of roulette with their franchises. Kirby was dead in the GC era where StarFox got 2 titles, and StarFox has been quiet lately where Kirby has been booming. I expect Fire Emblem will get a bigger focus soon, along with a new Yoshi title and I'm certain a new StarFox or F-Zero can't be too far off considering how quiet they were during Wii/DS Gen.

EDIT: And Kid Icarus is full of fresh originality, it really pushes what we expect of handheld experiences while not quite feeling like a blockbuster home console game either. Kid Icarus proves that Nintendo definitely "still got it"; it's just a shame that it's a little underrecognised.

EDIT2: PS. "Casual" is not a derogatory term. It just means it's a fuckin' wide demographic. CoD is the most "Casual" game of the generation.

( Edited 30.01.2013 19:11 by SuperLink )

The Strat Man said:
Sometimes I wonder what it would be like if Nintendo were to drop out of the home console market. If they started pumping out games for Sony and Microsoft systems

To think of Sony or Microsoft boasting Zelda, Metroid, Mario or more on their consoles, those names appearing under their brands, it's just not right. 30 years of Nintendo's work, commitment, writing, developing, creation, just to be passed off to other companies? It's hard to put into writing how much I disagree with the concept. It simply wouldn't be fair!

The Strat Man said:
I'm adamant that we'd see more ambitious and quality games from the series we all love - I think they've neglected a lot of the big ones in recent times.

The Strat Man said:
It's extremely sinister,

The Strat Man said:
but at least it'd surely mean they'd kick the 'casual' and 'innovation' stuff to the curb and concentrate on the core games.

The Strat Man said:
I almost feel the focus on some sort of innovation has caused development of these games to stutter - take Zelda for example, all the way up to Skyward Sword, we have that stale and rigid old formula at its core, covered up by lots of motion stuff and sword-waving.

How can you argue these games are not substantially different? Yes in each one you have a large open area to explore, dungeons, items to collect. But without these core concepts a title wouldn't be a Zelda game. It's one of the longest running, highest rated, best selling series ever to have existed because of these fundamental aspects of the game. 
But the difference, innovation and originality is there. Hell, it's changed from mainly top down adventure, to side scroller, to third person, to third person with boats, or flying. Each one introducing new items, beautiful music, transport, locations. What more do you want?

Should they remove dungeons? God forbid a game series include areas of item acquisition, puzzle solving, exploration, combat and boss battles all in one.
Shall they remove Hyrule or the equivalent? What a great idea, let's just progress from stage/level to stage/level in a loading screen's linear progression like every other game that isn't an Rpg in existance from Shooters to Platformers. 
Maybe get rid of this ridiculous notion of collecting an assortment of different tools and weapons. Because variety is bad, right? Let's just have a sword, that's a unique way to change the "tired" Zelda formula. 
Honestly, people see core concepts of a franchise in each game and complain that it is tired and stale. Absolute rubbish - you know what you get if you remove these concepts? Link's Crossbow training. Fun enough game for a bit sure, but not the grand, beautiful adventure that Zelda fundamentally is. It's like people want the next Zelda game to change genre to an FPS or Platformer, because sure, that's what Zelda is for.

In over 25 years there have been 15 titles excluding remakes. Each one is substantially different from the last, excluding some core principals that make the series what it is.
How do you complain at lack of originality or innovation. Look at other franchises.

Call of Duty, Battlefield, Worms, StarCraft, Age of Empires/Mythology, Darksiders, Jak & Daxter, Tomb Raider, Ratchet and Clank, Banjo, Fifa, Pro Evo (in fact, any sports game series ever from Football to Hockey) James Bond titles, Dark Siders, Mass Effect, The Elder Scrolls, Need for Speed, Armored Core, Spyro, Gran Turismo, GTA, Mario kart, even Mario Bros and Metroid, any game series with more than one or two sequels. In what way has any series changed as much as Zelda has?

Hell, Call of Duty releases a new game EVERY year and they are the exact bloody same, to the extent that they even use the same engine. That's not called stale and Zelda is. 
Just... what.

Rant
 over >_<

Also looked for forum rules but didn't see any. This thread is a month old, not sure if I we are allowed to comment on threads this old.

As far as I'm concerned the idea of nintendo failing to the point where they have to go software only is really depressing. If that were to happen Iwata, Miyamoto, Aonuma and a lot of Nintendo developers would retire. Its not the franchises people love its the ideas behind them. Games are more than just a brand name.

As for Zelda, the people willing it so much to 'change' and do something new. Tend to be people who don't want a Zelda game but want Elder Scrolls with Zelda characters. Skyward Sword was a massive step forward in terms of combat and level design, so much better than Twilight Princess. In my opinion what Zelda needs is less cinematics and explanation.

I was thinking why do I like a link to the past so much, I think its because there was a sense of mystery, as well an underlying darkness in the world. I think this is the problem with constantly doing prequels, that sense of mystery isn't there.  

I do not mind my thread de-railing. 

Renagade said:
Stuff.

I think you're deliberately being obtuse about Zelda. There is certainly an argument for saying the series has stagnated.

Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, Skyward Sword, Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks have all followed a familiar foundation laid by Ocarina of Time, or arguably, laid by ALTTP. I think that when people do argue that Zelda has stagnated, they are referring to these games quite specifically, which does comprise a large part of the catalogue.

We can ignore any games produced prior to these ones, because nobody's complaining about them.

Your argument can be summed up by saying: Yes, they did follow a similar narrative/game structure which I'm going to downplay, but some new evolution in hardware makes this one completely different and unique. Or, they have a totally new setting and you can fly in this one. That doesn't happen very much!

Yes, utilising new control inputs can be fun and interesting, and changes in setting are not insignificant, but for many people, these changes aren't very meaningful to the experience of playing a Zelda game. What makes a Zelda game a Zelda game, is a surprisingly complex question which I won't delve into.

I agree however that Majora's Mask was brilliant and different, though. Particularly considering the time of its release. It was both incredibly similar to Ocarina of Time, while also being incredibly different. Why? It had changes that were meaningful to the experience of playing a Zelda game. It took enough of the core mechanics, but corrupted it all in a very clever way. Everything felt sinister and odd, and different, but it completely remained a Zelda game. 

I think that's the kind of thing people are looking for.

Saying Zelda has stagnated somewhat also doesn't mean that anyone thinks that they're bad games, it's just that they're disappointingly familiar, and they could be even better than they are. I like Skyward Sword a lot, but it could've been better.

I hope this helps your understanding.

Late edit: I also think Wind Waker was, in some ways, a great example of change. Again, it probably could've been better, but it was a fantastic game nonetheless, mainly because of what made it different.

( Edited 28.02.2013 22:46 by Slydevil )

SuperLink :

For one thing, Nintendo have always adamantly said they'd sooner leave the gaming business altogether than go third party.

I can't imagine the shareholders agreeing to this! If people don't buy the Wii U in significant numbers then logic would dictate they make games for the XB1/PS4/PC!? It sounds somewhat petulant to say otherwise. 

 Metroid gets freshness coming out of its armpits, it's so fresh that sexism is new to the series (and we'll hopefully never see another Metroid like that again!)

Surely sexism in games is the antithesis of 'freshness'?

As for Zelda, after Nintendo outright said "we want to change Zelda's fundamental formula" on Nintendo Direct to a massive hyped audience, they better fuckin' do it. Skyward Sword made changes, like adding running, small parkour elements and admittedly really clever motion control, but even Nintendo acknowledges that it was still too formulaic. Doesn't anyone else find this promising?

Talk is cheap. Let's wait and see what actual changes occur. 

( Edited 12.06.2013 12:45 by Ikaruga )

For me, what is important is that Nintendo keeps making great games. It matters not one jot which bit of hardware they are released for. I would love to see what Nintendo's games would look like on some proper hardware! I remember the days when Nintendo consoles were cutting edge and superior to the competition even. For example, Imagine Metorid Prime on XB1/PS4... It would be amazing! 

From what I've seen from the XBox1 and PS4, they're graphical capabilities are nothing to write home about. It looks like the days of significant step forwards in visuals are a thing of the past. 

Diminishing returns. Of course, but with the option of cloud gaming there are no limits.... 

JayUK said:
From what I've seen from the XBox1 and PS4, they're graphical capabilities are nothing to write home about. It looks like the days of significant step forwards in visuals are a thing of the past. 

Yeah, there were only 2-3 games that I thought looked really impressive graphically and I'm not positive that at least 2 of them weren't prerendered either since they weren't gameplay.

If you told me the rest of the games were for current gen, I would believe you. Maybe in person they might look more impressive, but not from videos.

I'm not sure it makes any difference, they really don't seem to have a direction at the moment. They really created this mess themselves. They were sitting on top with the Wii and what did they do? Where did all that money go? Why didn't look into buying up some studios, forging new partnerships, getting publishers on side. Instead they put money into a console they don't know what to do with. The only idea they have at the moment is to churn out sequels of 3DS to the Wii U. What have they been doing for the past few years?

I think it's early to write-off the graphical advances the new hardware will provide. I've already seen significantly better lighting than would be possible on current gen platforms, and the possibilities with larger RAM resources are already evident. That said, there were certainly some games that didn't look "next-gen" - perhaps a result of starting development on current gen hardware before switching to the new platforms. I'd say give it some time.

I remember Wii fans (myself among them back in the day) at the start of the last console cycle who were all too eager to talk about things like diminishing returns and how Wii games would look just as good - only at a lower resolution. Of course that was a load of rubbish, and over the course of a generation we've seen vast advances in rendering technology. Compare the stuff they're doing now on current gen hardware (Halo 4, Bioshock Infinite, Uncharted 3, The Last of Us, etc) with the first wave of games that came out this generation and you'd think they weren't even on the same system.

Bottom line is that it's understandable that you haven't been blown away yet, but the added power these systems have is​ going to make a difference. That 8GB of RAM especially will give developers a lot of good headroom.