Let's Design The Next Nintendo Console!

Viewing as a guest Viewing as Guest Last visit: 19.03.2024
Search this topic Search Topic

Welcome to the Cubed3 forums! Join us today - it takes just 20 seconds to start posting! Sign Up for Free Account Login

Here's an idea I've been thinking about for a while, but I didn't really know how to go about it. Basically the idea is, hypothetically, we are tasked with creating Nintendo's next home console. What features does it need to be a success? We might want keep certain ideas, such as Miiverse, but also ditch things like the gamepad (depends if you're a fan!). I guess we can dip into topics such as launch games, too! We can even draw some hardware and controller designs of our own and submit them here.

Share your ideas and wants for Nintendo's next home console!

Please don't take this too seriously, this is just all for fun! So hopefully there won't be any arguments!

( Edited 03.06.2015 13:16 by Marzy )

I'm going to start us off with something simple.

Get rid of the Wii brand and create a new identity. The whole Wii brand has done its course now (especially after the poor sales of Wii U), and arguably has negative thoughts attached to it for a lot of people. It was a great console and a success, but it shouldn't have been brought back for Wii U. Along with this, the hardware design needs a refresh, the Wii U looked far too similar to the Wii, and this may have cause some confusion about it being a new console. Both of these are linked really, so both should be changed next time around.

1. Ditch the Wii brand indeed.  Nintendos a gaming brand - far more then Sony or Microsoft. People think "playstation" or "xbox" or "Nintendo". Nintendo loses nothing by renaming.

2. Keep Miiverse or some variation of it.  Mii's are a great identity system and, if anything, should be used more. (only possibly with different styles to reflect different games - same features but proportions and render styles different).

3. Portable and Homeconsole should be much closer tied together. Hardware wise they should be binary compatible - that makes it vastly easier to port from one to the other.
Ideally running the same code just with a bit higher res,framerate or AA on the homeconsole.

3b. Emulators should also work higher res then the original games did. Unofficial emulators can do this, so why cant virtual console?  Just render those lines sharper, give us more framerate, and chuck in stupid amounts of AA! We have the power these days.

The BIG thing though is it needs a new central gimmick.
My preference is to fully embrace AR before Google and Microsoft get the market to themselves. AR has a lot more flexible, even mass market, potential then VR.

WiiSports was popular - think how successful a game system will be if your dinning room table turns into a ping-pong, snooker, or airhocker table right in front of your eyes? Or your smaller table becomes a piano? 
Theres a lot of very accessible use-cases for AR games that could have Wii-like appeal. 

Microsoft WILL be first with this stuff as Hololens will come out for their current gen system. But this means Nintendo can launch with it as their main system feature.....getting right any mistakes Microsoft made. 
Or they could just team up with Google, as their MagicLeap tech looks even more impressive.
 

http://www.fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
Last update; Mice,Plumbers,Animatronics and Airbenders. We also have the socials; Facebook & G+

1) Complete rebrand, ditch the Wii U name, accessories - the lot. The Wii U is still the most idiotic branding decision to date from Nintendo, by far. New Nintendo 3DS is just as bad.

2) A combined handheld/mobile/home console effort

3) Traditional controllers with touch-screen (small / think 3DS-sized screens in the middle)

4) Multiplatform releases with inter-connectivity - buy once on console, be able to play the game on handheld where possible.

5) Full accounts, integration with Twitter/Facebook, options to stream gameplay to YouTube/Twitch, Miiverse apps across all devices, built-in capture capability.

6) Mobile needs to become part of experience - imagine being able to login to Miiverse, or getting push notifications that your friends are playing in an online match.

7) Decent, capable tech - it's what's really let the Wii U down.

8) Back compatibility with some Wii U games, perhaps.

9) I really think Nintendo should consider more productivity and entertainment features - Android would have been so useful for people who don't wish to have a computer, but could have used an NX in the same capacity.

10) More games!

Cubed3 Admin/Founder & Designer

Realistically, I don't see how it can be done. "Gamers" aren't going to go exclusively Nintendo until Nintendo delivers them what they want (and Nintendo has pretty much spent the past three generations telling gamers that they didn't know what they wanted, that Nintendo knew better than gamers did what gamers actually wanted). Eliminating the gimmicks to focus on "something" would help, but that leaves the question... focus on what? First person titles? 

Yes--first person titles. Nintendo should stop making consoles and take a leaf from Sega's book. Nintendo saved the gaming world and delivered it to new heights. With the PSX, though, the gaming world began walking in a direction Nintendo clearly didn't want to go--and still goes only reluctantly, if at all. Forgetting about hardware is what I see as their best bet for longterm survival. I don't see them surviving another console generation, no matter what they do. 

Either they can jump into the same race as the X-Bone and Piss-Poor, or they can find some other gimmick that won't appeal to people any more than the Wii-U did. Jumping into the same race as MS/Sony would seem the best route, except Nintendo has been thumbing their noses at "that" for so long that I'm not sure many people would be so quick to forgive them, especially after the way they've been on YouTube this past year. Wii-U's are, to most gamers, an afterthought and purchased only after a primary console has been purchased. How long will first party exclusivity keep Nintendo afloat? Not long, I don't think, if the DS-series of handhelds weren't printing cash. 

Nintendo should definitely keep up the handhelds, though they should stop releasing Version 1, Version 1i, Version 1XL, Version 1b, Version 1bXL... That's a huge turn-off for people. Why should I buy a 3DS when I know that Nintendo will release the 3DSXL in less than a year, even if they haven't already announced it? They've been really bad about that since the Gameboy, and it's not doing them any favors. If they really want to keep that up, they should make their handhelds more modular so that one can simply be upgraded into the other. These aren't cell-phones, and seeing them released at a steady stream as though they were cellphones doesn't exactly inspire brand trust. 

Meanwhile, having connectivity between their games, as third-party games on other consoles, and their own first-party handheld devices would further encourage people to buy those devices. Sort of how the 3DS and Wii-U versions of Super Smash Bros. can play together, except Nintendo's games would be on another system. 

They should stop being stubborn and arrogant, though. This fiasco on YouTube is only destroying them to mainstream gamers, and refusing to re-release their games to mobile phones is a ridiculously poor business decision. If Nintendo would loosen up and try to accept the way the gaming world has evolved in the past decade, they would find that the gaming world is willing to loosen up and accept them. But I don't see them doing anything but bleeding money through another console generation. The re-release of Wind Waker didn't motivate many people to buy a Wii-U, and the lack of attention Smash Bros. and the new Zelda are getting on YouTube is seriously going to hurt them. 

TL;DR: They should stick to handhelds while releasing their huge library of classic games onto mobile phones and while becoming a third-party developer for PC and the two slimmed-down-PCs-that-sit-in-the-living-room-with-gimped-PC-functionality.

Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?

and refusing to re-release their games to mobile phones is a ridiculously poor business decision

Playing Nintendo games with controls crazy-not-suitable is not going to sale Nintendo for people that haven't experienced it properly. Very few Nintendo games are touchscreen suitable. :-/

And how much money will it even bring it?
Nintendo lose's 30% of the money straight away to Google or Apple for their app-store fee,and the mobile market is willing to pay jack-shit for games to start with.

They could try the advertising model that a lot of Android games go for, but thats still not much.
The mobile market is simply not the cash cow people thing it is - its a bigger pond, for sure, but its near impossible for anything to make money in it.

How long will first party exclusivity keep Nintendo afloat?

Quite awhile.
Sega had a series of failures in a row, not just 1.
Nintendo has some "catching up" to do before they get to that point - Nintendo is currently profitable remember, with a very large stack of cash, despite the WiiU not selling that great. They even bought a big new building last year - specifically to help their portable and home console teams work together.

You are correct the other consoles are basically just PCs, however not quite sure how it follows that Nintendo should do the same though. :?
Until we have fully functioning Holodecks, theres plenty of improvements to gaming hardware possible beyond power. Doing the same as the others wont give people a reason to buy Nintendo.

Just because the WiiU failed at delivering doesn't mean the principle of trying to deliver new experiences doesn't pay off. The Wii and the DS were successful because of exactly that fact. They gave people something that felt new.

And Id argue the WiiU failed because it wasn't new enough - people have used touchscreens and tablets - its not really a fresh new experience like motion controls, or even touchscreens were on the (pre-iPhone) original DS.


 

( Edited 06.06.2015 13:44 by Darkflame )

http://www.fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
Last update; Mice,Plumbers,Animatronics and Airbenders. We also have the socials; Facebook & G+

My point wasn't that Nintendo should do the same thing as the other consoles at all.

Nintendo is on a clear path, though; it's not the Wii-U that is the failure--it's the path that Nintendo is on. The Wii was successful because it was the Tickle-Me-Elmo/Firby/Whatever for a while and because it had a price point of only $200. It brought in a mass of people who otherwise weren't playing games, and that was successful--however, those same people have now moved onto whatever the current fad is. Nintendo seemed to think that those people were going to hang around and buy the next system. They didn't. They went to Skylanders or that Doggie Poo board game or whatever the craze is right now. While gamers got the Wii because of its motion controls, this crowd of non-gamers that made the Wii the best-selling system of the last generation bought them because it was the "in" thing. One of my clients is a 50 year old man. He and his wife own a Nintendo Wii. They have 3 games for it: New Super Mario Bros., one of the Call of Duty games, and Wii Sports. There was never any chance that people like him were going to buy a Wii-U--they weren't gamers who were intrigued by the motion controls. They were non-gamers brought in by the ease of motion controls, the family friendly nature of the system, the casual-ness of the system, and its low price. When I was last at that client's, he had me change the batteries in his Wiimotes (Yeah, he's that kind of client), and the batteries had totally rotted away, leaving that white powdery stuff everywhere. He reported that he hadn't played his Wii in at least 4 years. 

They are not alone in that. The Wii brought gaming into living rooms that were otherwise devoid of gaming, and that was undoubtedly a good thing. However, it was never going to last, just like Tickle-Me-Elmo and Firby didn't last. Nintendo owes the Wii's success to those who wanted to use Wii Fit and maybe play one or two other games, once they had the system, but who would never have sought a gaming console otherwise. 

Gamers still bought the Wii, yes, but very rare is the gamer who bought a Wii unless he/she already had a 360, PS3, or gaming PC. If the Wii hadn't been a mere $200, gamers would not have purchased as many, and the non-gamers probably wouldn't have either. Then comes the Wii-U, with a number of failures:


  • As you rightly point out, it wasn't different enough. But I don't think we mean that in the same way. A lot of people had no idea what the Wii-U even was, and to this day I know three people who still think the Wii-U is the gamepad and that it is an attachment for the Wii.
  • The price of $400 meant that even those non-gamers who had entered the gaming world were not likely to buy the Wii-U. $200 on something that was "nice to have but not a critical entertainment staple" was one thing; $400 is quite another. Those clients I mentioned earlier would never shell out $400 for the Wii-U (and they are loaded, owning the most successful liquor store in the state), especially after they saw how the Wii turned out (they purchased 2-3 games, used it for a week/month, and then never touched it again unless they used Wii Fit).
  • The hardware is laughable, and was even when the Wii-U was released. This is where Nintendo is screwed the most. Trying to compete with the hardware of the One and PS4 drives the Wii-U's pricetag to $600-700 (one of the other two prices, plus the added cost of the gamepad). Such a price just shoots Nintendo in the foot.

  • Without having hardware that competes, though, Nintendo is already being left out of the loop again. The third-party library for the Wii-U consists largely of last gen titles, and we're undoubtedly going to see games continue to be for "PS4/One/PC" without Nintendo being listed because modifying the games enough and lowering their graphics isn't something that developers were interested in last gen--they won't be interested this gen, either. Nintendo should have known this.

Many classic games function just fine on mobile phones with touch controls. Square-Enix has released pretty much their entire lineup. Grand Theft Auto III, Mega Man X, GTA: San Andreas, Minecraft, Terraria, the Final Fantasy games--these are all available on mobile. The only one I know of that really has problems with the controls is San Andreas. The legality of it is questionable, but emulators exist for Android phones that, if rumors are to be believed, render most NES games playable; I imagine it's platformers that are most difficult. Any, releasing games on Google Play is obviously quite lucrative, as well: Square-Enix wouldn't keep releasing their games on mobile if they weren't making money from it. 70 cents per dollar is better than zero cents. Their main issue with this would actually be that they think their games are more valuable than they really are. $5.00 for NES titles in the Nintendo e-Shop? 

I think Nintendo's biggest hurdle is that they're control freaks. There's no reason they shouldn't release their games onto other consoles except to try to push people to buy their own. This really gets into an argument involving numbers I doubt anyone has compiled, but I don't think it's more lucrative to release first-party games only on Nintendo consoles and hope that players buy the consoles to play the games. I wanted to play Skyward Sword, but nowhere near badly enough to buy a Wii. So I didn't play Skyward Sword*. If it had been released on 360 or PC, that's money in Nintendo's pocket. I can't say whether number of people would buy the console to play this game or that game versus how many people would buy this game or that game if it was on a console they already have.

But no doubt: Nintendo has money. As I said, the DS line of handhelds basically prints cash, and so did the Wii. They are not profitable because of the Wii-U or any of its games at the present time, though, and it's unlikely that the Wii-U is going to prove a profitable endeavor when it's all said and done. And I don't think their next one will be profitable, either, because I don't think they have a valid angle for it. Can they pull out another gimmick and appeal to the non-gamers again? Or will they attempt to emulate the One and PS4? I don't see either avenue being successful. The non-gamers have moved on, and $400 is a big chunk of cash for people who just want to play a few games. 

Nintendo just kinda exists off to the side now, away from the "console wars." Nintendo is just doing their own thing. But the Playstation 2 destroyed the Gamecube. The Wii did great, but not with gamers, though it did "good" with gamers--and this only because of its low price tag. The Wii-U is doing abysmally. The Wii did exceptionally well; I don't deny that. But it's also an anomaly because it broke into the mainstream and brought in huge numbers of non-gamers. Note, however, that even costing 1/3 of what the other two consoles did, the Wii didn't outperform them by that much of a margin. $200 v $500 v $600, and the end result was a victory by 130%--when the console cost 33% as much. When price is factored in, as a huge motivation for buying a Wii in the first place, then the Wii didn't perform nearly as well as the units sold would indicate. Being 1/3 the price, we could expect it, if it was truly an equal console (meaning: if the motion controls made up for the hardware's shortcomings), to sell 300% as many units. It didn't come close to that. 

Using entry prices, we find:

Wii - 101,230,000 x $200 = $20,246,000,000
PS3 - 84,600,000 x $600 = $50,760,000,000
360 - 84,400,000 x $500 = $42,200,000,000

My point isn't about who made the most money or who "really" won the console war last generation or anything like that. My point is that people spent a lot more money on the PS3 and the 360 than they did the Wii. And it's looking pretty bad for the Wii-U. The upcoming Zelda might sell some more Wii-U consoles, but the Zelda fans who would buy a new console just to play a Zelda game probably did that with Hyrule Warriors. We've got Mario Kart, Mario Party, Smash Bros., Hyrule Warriors, Wind Waker, two new Mario games, and a Zelda on the way... Nintendo has already brought out their big guns. But we all know the Wii-U is selling terribly. There's no need to harp on that. 

But the next console will do exactly the same thing, because Nintendo has no options. They can continue with the gimmicks, which failed with the Wii-U. If they can come up with some new gimmick and keep the price of their consoles around $200, that might work, but Nintendo will never again be the primary console for mainstream players if they do that. And it might not work anyway. For that matter, why continue investing so much money in that (because those non-gamers are not coming back) when they can just focus on their handheld lines and transition their games to other consoles, using tie-ins with their handhelds to boost the sales for their handhelds? That's certainly the more profitable route. Or they can jump into the game with Microsoft and Sony, but that would end very, very badly. Although it was necessary in the mid 80s for Nintendo to stay on top of developers and interfere constantly, it's not necessary today, and developers aren't liking that. But they'll go where the money is--if more people are buying Nintendo's consoles, then they'll develop for Nintendo's consoles. But people aren't buying NIntendo's consoles because there are only first-party games for it; this lack of third-party games is a vicious cycle. They need players to entice third-party developers, and they need third-party developers to entice players. Eventually, someone's going to have to lose a lot of money bringing in a ton of players or third-party developers. That's going to have to be Nintendo. They're either going to have to drop the Wii-U enough to get one in the hands of every gamer, or they're going to have to pay third-party developers personally to make Nintendo games. 

* I actually did eventually play SS. I beat the Forest Temple and then quit, disgusted and disheartened. I'd had the game for one day before I traded it in at Gamestop. To me, it looked and felt just like ALTTP/OOT/TP. I don't know how many people felt the same, but it did not at all feel like playing a new game for me. I know other people have that complaint with the Mario games. I honestly do not see a difference between New Super Mario Bros. Wii and New Super Mario Bros. Wii-U. I mean, one has better graphics, sure. But... they're the same game. Mario Kart 8 boasted 50% old tracks, 25% of the characters being Bowser's kids, and blatantly cheating AI. These... are not the kinds of things that are going to entice people. I couldn't recommend purchasing the Wii-U to play New Super Mario Bros. Wii-U if the person had already played New Super Mario Bros. Wii, nor could I recommend it for Wind Waker if they'd played it on GB, and nor could I recommend it for Mario Kart if they had MKWii or MK7.

I would definitely recommend it for the new Smash Bros., though...

I can't say what percentage of gamers feels like Nintendo is just doing the same stuff over and over and riding on past successes, rose-tinted glasses, and nostalgia, but that percentage, whatever it is, exists and Nintendo needs to take that into consideration before they release New Super Mario Bros. Wii-U 3D Galaxy 2. They do release some games that are fun and fresh: Super Smash Bros. (though I wouldn't call it fresh), A Link Between Worlds, and I really enjoyed Super Mario 3D World, to the extent that I have 3 more worlds to beat with Toad before I'll have 100%'d the game.

I'm also really looking forward to the next Zelda, but I'm absolutely TERRIFIED that they're going to go what *I* would call the lazy route (but no one else seems to mind it) by implementing a Quest System a la Kingdoms of Amalur, Skyrim, or Dragon Age. That's a different rant, and this wall of text already crits for over 9000 so I won't say much about that, but something just tells me that it's going to be a lot like Skyrim or Dragon Age: Inquisition, but with Link.

( Edited 07.06.2015 04:36 by Anema86 )

Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?

For that matter, why continue investing so much money in that (because those non-gamers are not coming back) when they can just focus on their handheld lines and transition their games to other consoles, using tie-ins with their handhelds to boost the sales for their handhelds? That's certainly the more profitable route.

I think Nintendo could win these gamers back - potentially - if they branched out and really got the Western studios involved with hardware creation. Has the audience left? Perhaps, but with a few timed exclusives and solid hardware, Nintendo could claw back - I feel. They need to show an interest in really getting these developers on board - but at a hardware level first and foremost. At the end of the day, am sure there are studios who would have liked to work on Nintendo systems, but it just didn't prove viable because Nintendo insist on doing their own thing when it comes to tech.

The point on handhelds does make sense - as in having that as a core focus, but perhaps if Nintendo were able to offer developers a means of quickly being able to port a console title to the Nintendo portable, and vice-versa, that could perhaps entice lost studios back to Nintendo.

Eventually, someone's going to have to lose a lot of money bringing in a ton of players or third-party developers. That's going to have to be Nintendo. They're either going to have to drop the Wii-U enough to get one in the hands of every gamer, or they're going to have to pay third-party developers personally to make Nintendo games.

Nintendo need a game plan, and they need to start NOW. If they're going to release a new console, or pair of consoles, by the end of 2017 - they need to have a launch selection of games in place - at least one that spans a solid 6 months, and a loser 12 months, for sure. 

They'll refuse to do it, but I agree - they're going to have to pay studios/publishers to get the big names on launch. If they can bring on a solid RPG like Final Fantasy, a new Monster Hunter (likely), a high profile sports release (like FIFA/Madden), a big 3D Mario, a Zelda, a new Mario Kart, one of the lesser key games (like F-Zero / Metroid / Star Fox) at launch, I think they'd stand a chance. A gritty shooter full of greys/warzones etc would be good, too.

I honestly do not see a difference between New Super Mario Bros. Wii and New Super Mario Bros. Wii-U. I mean, one has better graphics, sure. But... they're the same game. Mario Kart 8 boasted 50% old tracks, 25% of the characters being Bowser's kids, and blatantly cheating AI. These... are not the kinds of things that are going to entice people.

Totally agree - would have at least liked them to have changed the art-style enough, something painted, or a blend or 2D/3D mechanics - perhaps. Rayman did a cracking job with a visual shift, I wish Nintendo had considered something like that.

As for MK8 - I haven't played it near as much as I did Mario Kart Wii - perhaps it is a bit too similar, maybe, for me it's the balancing that affected my enjoyment of the game. But still, it's a good step up from Mario Kart Wii - I feel. New modes like a track builder or something like that could have been the added extra. Difficult to really shift away from what works, though. Can't quite imagine a Mario Kart game that's much different from what we've seen since MK64.

Though I do wish they focused on solo missions, or had an adventure mode - that would have been cool.

They do release some games that are fun and fresh: Super Smash Bros. (though I wouldn't call it fresh), A Link Between Worlds, and I really enjoyed Super Mario 3D World, to the extent that I have 3 more worlds to beat with Toad before I'll have 100%'d the game.

I think Smash was okay, a good step up in ways from Brawl but still too familiar. I felt ALBW was good, but still very much Zelda of old. SM3DWorld is great though, too short! Would love to see more of that. Captain Toad is a great game - love the concept.

Splatoon is a great, fresh Wii U game that I hope Nintendo will bring more of these - all they need to do is convey the concept well in marketing, in hands-on sessions and say "The next big game from Nintendo". It has had decent sales so far, so more of that please. 

by implementing a Quest System a la Kingdoms of Amalur, Skyrim, or Dragon Age. 

I'd actually play that! I'd love a Zelda that has a stronger focus on NPCs, quests and side-missions, post-dungeons as once you've done the whole 3 gems, plot-twist, 5 gems, Ganondorf (or his multiple personality disorders), that's pretty much it. SS did well in providing more outside-dungeon experiences, but the side quests were abysmal. Shite. Really quite bollocks.

And Id argue the WiiU failed because it wasn't new enough - people have used touchscreens and tablets - its not really a fresh new experience like motion controls, or even touchscreens were on the (pre-iPhone) original DS.

That's true - and the pad feels really quite clunky, and I feel they really should have stuck to a more conventional controller with a smaller touch screen inside.

-------------------------

The main issue for me with Nintendo is consistent direction. The Japanese side, UK side, North American sides may seem similar when they do Nintendo Directs, but they really are not. The marketing teams really should take a good, hard look at some of the terrible decisions that have been made in recent years - big releases not promoted well enough, a considerble lack of direction in Wii U advertising, and - most importantly - idiotic naming conventions.

The Wii U name was one of the company's biggest flaws to date - so much so that they had to stumble around advertising it. Same with 3DS, in a way.

Why can't Nintendo just have done what others do? Increment the bloody number - PS2, PS3, PS4. iPhone 3,4,5,6 - it's basic maths. People get it. Consumers understand. Everyone gets it. By adding a U, what the hell does that even mean? Still bugs me today, as you can see!

They need to really start afresh, have a setup that's highly community driven - catering for playthroughs, live-streams, commentary, tournaments - try to build that social aspect into the box. Get achievements right. Get user systems right. Then people, and hopefully developers, will start to flock to the system. Support easy, simple porting and use a common arcitecture.

And ditch the older people making the decisions. This isn't the bloomin' 80s any more, and at times it seems that Nintendo really are playing it too safe, and too darn conservative.

Finally - their arrogance, or stubborness, to "copy" others is a HUGE downfall - MS and Sony have done some great things in the achievements/social side of gaming, why not be inspired by some of these features? Miiverse is a step up, but Nintendo keep on insisting on inovating with gimmicks that sometimes it looks as if they're trying too hard to be different that it lacks some core features in their approach.

They're pouring lots of dosh into this new development house, so let's hope they really pull their finger out and be great again. 

Cubed3 Admin/Founder & Designer

This video opens with a discussion pretty similar to how I feel about Nintendo actively moving against the grain and doing their own thing while ignoring what gamers request:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alcxiiN6xkU

Whether right or wrong, it's something to think about. And I'm really, really, extremely impressed with how deeply they dug into official sources to put this timeline together. Even if one disagrees with the "You've been bad, Nintendo" stuff at the beginning, the remainder of the video is very fascinating.

( Edited 11.06.2015 01:02 by Anema86 )

Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?

I think one of the most important things Nintendo need to do is to create some excitement for the brand again. The promotion for the Wii U has been incredibly lacking and they never really tried to sell the system from the get go. The most exciting moment of the reveal was the short Zelda demo running on the hardware. The rest was just NSMB and Wii Sports, which didn't really get anyone excited. I remember most people coming out thinking it looked okay, but it was nothing like the Wii reveal, which was incredibly exciting. They pushed that system so well, and people really took to it.

How they do this, I have no idea. It's a tough situation they're are in at the moment. I think it definitely needs better launch games. That was something Nintendo didn't learn from the 3DS launch (despite Iwata saying they had done). A decent 3D Mario, that's more inline of doing something new and fresh rather than another 3D Land/World styled game. Also, they can go the Twilight Princess route and release the new Zelda on the Wii U and the NX (maybe with some improved visuals). Those two games would be big alone, but they also need to get third parties back onboard and make the hardware easier to work with.

Online needs to be further improved, cross-play functionality with the new handheld system and also Miiverse need to stay for sure, that's one of the Wii U's stand out features and is still such a great idea.

After the success of Splatoon, I really think Nintendo needs to get their younger developers working on another new IP, as well. I know people always go on about Nintendo making new IP, like Code Name S.T.E.A.M and such, but I'm talking about mass appeal IP. Stuff like Splatoon is something that has mass appeal. Code Name S.T.E.A.M is very boring looking, it's not something that looks exciting to play. I'm not saying it's a bad game, but it's not something a casual gamer can get into. There's a reason why Mario Kart does so well, it's a well made series and it can be enjoyed by everyone.

A wild Anema appears!
Anema uses Wall of Text!
It's super effective!

I don't know, Marzy... I know that won't be buying another Mario Kart. Having an AI that is programmed to punish me for being in first place totally ruins it for me. I simply can't handle being blown up three times in the final turn of the last lap once more. I simply can't handle it. It's cheap, fake difficulty, and it starts at 100cc. I placed 4th two races in a row tonight on 100cc. It's not because the game was hard; it's because the game didn't want me to win. I don't care what anyone says; it does not matter how skilled a person is at Mario Kart: if the game doesn't want them to win, they're not going to. No one can take a Spiked shell, Lightning Bolt, and green shell nine seconds from the finish line and still come in first. It simply doesn't work that way. 

In fact, one of the strategies used by players is to play poorly in the first two laps, just so the game doesn't punish them for being good at it. And however we want to dress it up, in the end that is what Mario Kart does... It punishes players for being good at it. The player in first will get blown up, often consecutively and often on the final lap when there's not enough time to recover and still get first, and the player in first will almost always get worthless Coins as their item--worthless because it usually takes maxing out coins to get enough speed to claim first.

Why would they program it that way? Why would Nintendo program it to give players in first useless items and to blow them up to keep them from winning? 

To ensure that less skilled players can still win. I play Mario Kart 8 with my nephew a lot, and I've never seen the AI hit him with anything, even when he is in first place--almost certainly because he doesn't drift around turns and because he never stays in first place for long. So Mario Kart 8 blows up players who do stay in first place a while and who do drift around turns, because those are the two primary differences between a skilled Mario Kart player and an unskilled one, and Nintendo wants the unskilled one to still be able to win--even against the skilled one. 

That's messed up.

I'm not being elitist when I say that my nephew should try harder and get better at the game. But he doesn't have to, because Mario Kart 8 was intentionally designed so that he doesn't have to try harder and improve to win. You should watch one of our circuits some time. You'll see my drifting, cutting corners close, maxing out my coins as soon as possible, and all that good stuff, and then you'll see him--bumping into walls, never drifting, never letting off the accelerator, using whatever vehicle he wants, driving through grass (He is only six years old...), and then you'll watch, horrified, as I'm punished by a spiked shell, a green shell, and a bomb 8 seconds from the finish line, and as he's rewarded with a star, then a bullet bill, and then a golden mushroom. Then gasp in horror as I place 5th and he places 4th. This has happened so many times it gives me a headache just thinking about it.

Sadly, that is intentional. Nintendo this knowingly and on purpose. 

[Let me interject here, lest you get the image of a jerk-ass screaming at the television about getting blown up and steamrolling his six year old nephew while telling the poor kid, "Try harder! Get better!"... Although it is a case of not letting him win, if he has any decent chance of beating me, I'm going to "accidentally" drive into a banana peel or something. But, more importantly, he's aware that whichever one of us is at the top of the leaderboard and capable of earning the gold trophy is the one who needs to win the race so that we can unlock all the stuff we haven't unlocked. That is usually me, but because of the above scenario, it isn't always]

My biggest complaint with Super Smash Bros. 4 is that it takes the same route. Simply bee-lining for the items will help even the worst player take out the most skilled player. The Mario Party series does this, too. Nintendo doesn't like the hardcore community--they removed snaking from Mario Kart, wavedashing from Super Smash Bros., and they thought they were giving a "Take That!" with the "For Glory!" move rendering all stages as a "Final Destination" version. Randomness is the bane of competitive/hardcore gamers. While Super Smash Bros. is currently limiting itselt to excessive randomness and isn't actually punishing skilled players, I'll mention that Mario Kart began by first introducing more randomness, too--the Mario Kart series didn't always give the best items to the last place players and didn't always repeatedly blow up the first place player. 

I really don't think we have long until the items in the Super Smash Bros. series are replaced with item cubes, where touching the item cube gives the player a "random" item--and from there, we'll just be one game away from SSB giving the good items to the players with the most deaths and fewest KOs, and giving the Fan to the players with the most KOs and fewest deaths. Or they'll recode the Final Smashes so that they automatically are awarded to any player whose KO count <= Death Count / 2 + 1 when on their last Stock or when only 30 seconds remain. 

Considering that Super Smash Bros. Melee had the absolute best system for leveling the playing field that I've ever seen in any game, the solution is literally staring Nintendo in the face. Seriously: the Auto-Handicap of Super Smash Bros. Melee is the reason that my wife, her sister, our friends, and me got thousands of hours of playtime out of Melee. It kept me from winning every match (which would have made me a jerk) without me having to throw matches and take dives (which would have made me a patronizing jerk). And seeing my wife at Handicap 3 after she'd pushed me up to Handicap 5? So proud...

*wipes tear*

That is how to even the gap between skilled and unskilled players. It forced me to continually try harder and improve, especially at Handicap 2 when any two hits would KO me, and it gave everyone else plenty of chances to win while not just giving them the freaking match and, most importantly, while giving them the chance to improve. And while giving them incentive to improve--no one liked seeing their Handicap at 6, but it was a necessary evil to let them have fun at all, and they knew that if they kept trying they would win, they would improve, and their handicap wouldn't get that high again. It was beautiful. It was the best part of Melee.

With the steps Nintendo is taking, though, it's hard for me to sit down and play with my nephew. My wife always beat me at Mario Kart, so that's nothing new, but it only means she gets punished worse than I do. The difference is that Melee was subtle. Once the match began, only the player with the dangerously low handicap knew that things were off, but the player with the low handicap expected things to be skewed--the player signed up for things to be skewed in the interest of fun, fairness, and enjoyment. It wasn't frustrating to be KO'd at 9% by a light attack because I knew what I was in for, I accepted it as a necessary evil because I wouldn't enjoy winning all the time any more than someone would enjoy losing all the time. But the latest iterations of Handicap throw the subtlety out of the window by simply starting players with damage, so that number is there staring everyone in the face constantly--"He has to start with damage because he is better than you and otherwise you won't kill him." It's insulting and patronizing. Those kinds of things should be subtle--in fact, the only way Melee's could have been improved was by giving the option to hide the current handicaps from view. 

I think, though, that Nintendo's animosity toward "serious players" (who still have plenty of fun) is going to be what hurts them the most going forward. They seem to have the attitude that competitive players aren't elitist. They're/we're not. It's just a matter of taking pride in seeing our skills improve and wanting to reap benefits from that. But Mario Kart is designed to punish us instead of rewarding us, and it is designed to reward those who don't try rather than punishing them. 

It's also worth mentioning that I've seen my nephew play Mario Kart 8 against his cousins. When he tries, the kid is good

He died against the first Crazy Hand 8.0 transformation tonight when we did a Classic mode together. Shortly after, I got destroyed by Crazy Zelda (Is it just me, or is Zelda crazy overpowered in SSB4?). But when he was KO'd, he was watching me... carefully. When we continued, I saw him jump into the air, attack the thing, and then immediately dodge the counterattack, drop to the ground, and throw up a shield--exactly as I had done while he was dead and watching me. He then died against the Scorpion/Alligator transformation, but he again watched how I did it, and I would be more than willing to bet that the next time he and I fight the thing he'll carefully stay away from it and use ranged attacks when possible. Because Super Smash Bros. isn't going to just hand him a trophy for participation (yet...), he had to learn and he had to improve--and he did. 

But he still plays Mario Kart the same way he did when I first got the game. Unless he's playing against his cousins and trying to show off, he only puts in the bare minimum amount of effort, and he still occasionally places higher than I do. That is the direction Nintendo appears to be taking their games. And I think they're future of making games looks bleak as long as they are doing that, because there will come a time when my nephew won't want to have victory handed to him, when he comes to enjoy the rush of trying and trying and trying, failing and failing and failing, and then finally succeeding (He's started playing Super Meat Boy, so that will help).

TL;DR

I don't blame you. It was too long to write,too, but the reply I wrote first was even longer. Probably should find something constructive to do. But I'm too tired to write and I'm too tired for chess. So Cubed3 gets critted by a Wall of Text. Them's the breaks.

Super Smash Bros. Melee was enjoyable by everyone, too, but it had a clever way of evening the playing field between skill levels that didn't punish skillful play unless the player, in the interest of fun and not being a jerkwad, voluntarily signed up for it. Even then, the leveling factor was subtle and didn't feel unfair. Nintendo has instead started leveling the playing field between skill levels through unfair tactics, and I think this is ultimately going to push people away and might leave even making games as unviable for them. 

( Edited 10.07.2015 06:27 by Anema86 )

Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?

Reply to this topic

To post in the forums please login or sign up to join the Cubed3 community! Sign Up for Free Account Login

Subscribe to this topic Subscribe to this topic

If you are a registered member and logged in, you can also subscribe to topics by email.
Sign up today for blogs, games collections, reader reviews and much more
Site Feed
Who's Online?
Insanoflex

There are 1 members online at the moment.