Sheikah

Mobile gaming has absolutely nothing to do with the sales of their Wii U games. If people who love home consoles find their Wii U games exciting enough, they will buy them. Sure, the people who have latched onto mobile are getting pulled away from 3DS, but a lot of the sorts of people who rushed to buy Mario 64 and OoT are probably the ones now playing their PS4s. You only need to look at PS4 sales to see that core gamers are still loving their consoles. Nintendo could attract them if they made games that appealed rather than sequel after sequel where not so much changes. Nintendo are also still clearly aiming at the traditional gamers otherwise they wouldn't still be making games like Zelda and 3D Mario games, so to say they're no longer after those people is misleading. Also regarding what Nintendo are doing new - they need to do a lot more new. New concepts, new IP, less sequels. What they are doing at the moment clearly isn't working. You know when Mario 64 came out and people were wowed with something totally new and amazing? THAT is their benchmark. Nothing less will do.

No, you see, that is the very thing I am arguing - they have stopped making groundbreaking games. Remember, groundbreaking does not just mean games scoring top marks. When you look at the Wii U these days it is almost entirely sequels from Nintendo and 2D platformers, which incidentally, are also often sequels. Talking about mobile is irrelevant at least for Wii U discussion; the PS4 shows that console gaming is alive and strong worldwide (even if less so in Japan) so for at least the purpose of the Wii U, we can assume people are primed and willing to accept console games as long as they have appeal and are exciting. The reason OoT and Mario 64 did so well was because they were groundbreaking. They were exciting because they did new things and were a joy to play. Nintendo just aren't doing that anymore. That's why when I see their 9/10 and 10/10 games it just doesn't really matter that they score so highly because they're ultimately more of the same game we have seen 5 times over. If a game scored 10/10 in 2002 and you take the essence of that game and polish the crap out of it, then release another sequel in 2015 then it reasons that that game will also score very highly. But that's not going to keep appealing to people forever! Also, those games aren't going to pull in people who aren't already on board with Nintendo right now; which is why I've pretty much been pointing to sales as a way of showing that Nintendo could do more to appeal. I'd also argue that they are making a lot of small scope games that don't have the same wow factor a game like OoT had. That somewhat lessens the appeal of some of those games you mentioned, like Captain Toad.

I'm about for 4. Also on earlier.

See I think it's quite rude to misconstrue somebody's point like that. The point is not that I think FIFA is the best game ever. It is that FIFA is made to be exciting and appeal to people, even if it is not as well polished as Nintendo games. Lots of people buy it as a result. Contrast this to PES, which for whatever reasons people do not buy in such numbers. It shows that there is something you can do to make your game more exciting and appealing to people, which is reflected in people going out to buy it. Depends on view but I'd still say the N64 games are far more epic and enjoyable than whatever you'd put forward for 3DS. For me, 3DS has been nowhere near as awesome. There's good games on it but an awful lot are sequels that closely follow the pattern of what has gone before. All appeal is is making a game exciting to people. You're basically saying that it's not Nintendo's fault that they don't make games that interest a lot of people that are gamers. That itself is a huge problem. It also doesn't make sense as an excuse because when they made OoT and Mario 64, they had huge appeal. The truth then becomes clear - it is not that the games they make now are incapable of appealing to people of a certain age, it is that they are doing the same things they used to. That might have been fine 15 years ago when that was what everyone else was doing to, but now people expect new concepts and features. Nintendo just don't deliver. As said before, they had mass appeal with OoT and Mario 64, so the idea that they can never capture a large audience like Bloodborne did is madness. It's not the demographic they're targeting, it's that they're not pushing the boundaries and coming up with new things anymore. They also used to have Rare make games like CBFD which did target an older group of people, which says to me that they should pursue developers that can make those sorts of games rather than say 'well, there's no way they can pull that demographic.' What is slightly depressing about this, and I don't blame you, is that you are probably thinking that's all Nintendo can do. Nintendo could very well make new IP, or team up with other developers that make new IP, to target those different demographics. In saying that though, the idea that they can't win this audience is again wrong; it just just needs games that push the envelope (yeah, we're going back to Mario 64 and OoT again). It doesn't matter if the game doesn't have violence, it just has to have appeal by being fresh and exciting as well as a joy to play. Heck, the most successful game in years has been Minecraft, which ironically looks like the very thing Nintendo could have created! But what you're doing here with the Destiny example is misinterpreting what I'm saying by linking observations in a poor way. The argument is not that highly scored games will always sell better than lower scored games, because we know that is not true. Games that are highly polished but altogether conservative and not very exciting can score higher but sell less than completely different games where developers have run with something much more fun and appealing, albeit buggy or rough cut. The point about score that I was making is that if the same game was released and received tons of 10/10 scores, it would sell considerably better than if it released to 7/10 or 8/10 scores. That is why they offer millions in bonuses tied to metacritic, and conversely may keep embargoes up until the last minute if it is a stinker. They know the review scores matter; they are not just throwing money about for a laugh. They will obviously have done their research before putting that much money on the table. I think you have a bit of a warped view of people in general. I just read this paragraph again and it seems you are saying that people would never buy Mario or Kirby in large numbere because they would not look cool, whereas they all rush to buy GTA so they can bang prostitutes. First, Mario was a big deal ages back when Nintendo were raising the roof, and loads of people was buying it. So really, that's not exactly true. Second, Minecraft. One of the biggest games in years where the only limit is your imagination. A smack in the face to any argument that people are shallow and mostly just like shallow games just feed their base desires. It shows that people will lap up games so long as they are fun and appeal to the modern gamer.

Films don't tend to suffer from framerate issues, blocky models and lack of twin sticks to control a character, do they? We have moved on considerably from the early 3D days but that doesn't mean we shouldn't give credit where it is due. Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Smash, Mario Kart (in 3D). These were genius creations and the generation deserves full credit for what has essentially served as the archetype for Nintendo's bread and butter franchises ever since.

Why do you think games that you think are 'garbage' sell well? We are left with two options. The first is that people are bizarre and enjoy playing shit games to torture themselves. The second is that people actually get a lot of enjoyment from those games and you are being a snob. The truth is that it doesn't matter if Nintendo make polished games, because if they're not making games that elicit the same level of excitement and appeal as those 'bad' games then they are doing something wrong; people really want those 'bad' games, thus they buy them, thus they sell systems. The thing is, Nintendo used to make more original games with epic appeal. Games like Mario 64 and OoT did things games never did before and pushed the boundaries. People would buy the console based on those great titles; they had real appeal. Now you look at their games and just see mostly the same games you have already played loads of. It's just so...meh, for me. And for loads of others...you see people jumping ship all the time. I personally dislike review scores for a number of reasons that I won't go into again. That said, yes, games that yourself or critics personally did not call out as a masterpiece can still sell well. But again, even if you don't like them, they appeal to people - which is why they sell, and the systems with them. Ask yourself this - why do Nintendo games not appeal in a similar way to shift so many units? Can it really be that they have the perfect games as the 10/10 scores may suggest? Or could something be missing if they are not captivating many a gamer, old and new? While I don't like scoring, to respond to your point, there is no doubt it has considerable influence on sales. If a game scores very highly then it is more likely to do well than if scored low. We already know this is true because a number of publishers offer developers big bonuses tied to metacritic scores. If it wasn't the case then why bother? They must offer these incentives based on market research; they must know that if their game is revered by critics, it will most likely go on to sell quite a lot more. Conversely, this is also the reason why they will have embargoes right up until release on buggy/shitty messes; because they know review scores do impact game sales. Really though, critic scores are just a small slice of the truth. What's really important is where the gamer puts his money, because that's the thing he wants to play, isn't it? Something about those games has appeal, even in cases where games do not score well, if a lot of people rush out to buy them (and also to buy the system to play it). TL;DR: Sales are intrinsically linked to a combination of factors but we cannot ignore that a large part of this is whether the game is exciting, fresh and entertaining. When you look past the small pool of Nintendo fans for life, gamers are only going to hold interest with the same sorts of sequels for so long.

Dazzybee, do you honestly think that there is no connection between games being very good/desirable/appealing and sales? In that case, why make a game good at all? Why offer bonuses for games getting 90+ metacritic (like we know they do). Common sense and reality go against everything you say.

Man, agree so much with this. You're so right that the best games on the 3DS are the N64 remakes. :P To the other peeps; talking about total numbers of games on a system is a bit of a stretch. Total number of amazing/wowser/God tier games is what matters.

Can you imagine the outrage if Nintendo implement a messaging system and people use it improperly to send indecent material to others? There will always be loudmouth SOBs. Nintendo need to not pander to these foo's.

So far from the truth. Firstly - marketing, really? You can't really think that that is the reason for their failings. If a game is amazing it has a very good chance of pushing sales. This has happened time and time again. At the end of the day, if you have a console that has lots of games that everyone thinks are great fun and exciting, lots of people will buy your console. You see it all the time on PS4, and to a lesser extent on X1. People want big games; new and original games like Bloodborne, Witcher, Star Wars Battlefront. But when you look at Nintendo, so many people are fed up with them. We've done Smash time and time again. Same for Mario Kart. And 2D side scrollers in a similar style. What is there to entice? Tell me, what should I be excited about that I have not played before? Splatoon is about it. Before you counter - yes, shit can sell well as well. Yes, critically acclaimed games can not do so well. But the argument here is that if you have a console packed with supposedly groundbreaking games then everyone would be buying it. This situation highlights the disparity between how critics review games and how the average modern gamer perceives those games; while a critic might gush about the level of polish to a game and the fact it still has very sound and tight gameplay, your average gamer sees it as more of the same. Because these are important criteria too - freshness and appeal. So often overlooked in the arguments about quality. IMO, Nintendo fans here are falling back on the 'quality' argument as something Nintendo can 'win', which is somewhat bullshit as it doesn't matter a jot. You can polish a game to the nth degree but it doesn't matter a fuck if the game you're polishing is something people are burnt out on because we've had it 5 times already, you know? Let me round off by addressing the points that I was pretty confident would be made: 1. Just because another company is doing something, doesn't make Nintendo's example OK 2. Nintendo are supporting their console almost singlehandedly and the Mario Kart situation is the same with most of their other series. It doesn't matter if Assassin's Creed also offend because there are plenty of games on other consoles that don't do this to balance things 3. Pointing out the number of years in between releases does nothing. If anything, it shows that they are recycling an extremely old formula that we have seen enough of ever since we were kids. Wii U has a very small library of mostly Nintendo games. The point is not the high attach rate versus other games of other consoles (again, a poor comparison). Of course it will have relatively high attach rates because of the fewer games and the more core audience that remain. The point is that there are clearly only one or two big hitter games coming per year and most Wii U owners aren't buying them. This has been discussed over and over on these forums. Yeah great comment. Stick to the discussion.

Subjective musings backed up by the fact hardly anyone is buying the thing. Not craploads at all. The Wii U is Nintendo's worst selling main home console. If people thought their games were so must have then they would be buying the console in huge numbers, as well as the games. Also, less than 50% of Wii U owners are buying the so called 'must have' games on the system (in fact, much less, in many cases), and this is a system with mostly just those Nintendo games, unlike the other systems which have a huge diversity. Owners of the console can't even be tempted to hold interest in Nintendo to buy their games. But if you want to believe Smash 4, New Super Mario Brothers 5 (or whatever), another Mario Kart and endless amounts of 2D side scrollers are not proof that Nintendo pretty much just recycle their series over and over these days then who am I to stop you.

If a generation of games wows you like nothing else ever has than what does it matter if in 20 years it doesn't feel as good? Just because games age, it doesn't detract from their status as being god tier.

I think a fair number of people here, for various reasons, have convinced themselves that the following two lines of thinking are gospel truth: - What Nintendo games we get now are some of the best we have ever seen - The problem is simply the amount of games we are getting as well as the poor online infrastructure. The reality is that point one is far from the truth, and point 2 is but a small piece of the problem. Even if the Nintendo games we are getting at the moment came thick and fast and with decent online features, it wouldn't change the fact that Nintendo aren't trying anywhere near like what they used to. Forget genre-defining titles like Mario 64 that made the world sit up and listen, conservative 2D sequels are Nintendo's bread and butter these days. Not just that; so many other titles they release are cookie cutter expansions to previous titles. It's actually a joke. Indie devs have several times more imagination and ambition than Nintendo these days. And before the usual trolls come along with their 'what about these other developers/the PS4' comments, bear in mind that Nintendo support their console almost singlehandedly, so it's up to them alone to make sure they get these original games.

N64 was Nintendo's most epic console in terms of games. A true powerhouse; a console never to be denied.

Walking Dead Season 2, very happy with that. Enjoyed the first season, never got round to the second. The PS3 games are an absolute treat for anyone who hasn't already played those.

You're confused now, you're confused now, you're confused, you're confused, you're confuuused now.

I enjoyed this because it was different. I am tiring of AC a little because you are basically doing the same things most of the time, and bar Black Flag most of what you do feels unimportant (like looting treasure or doing small bounties. This had you hacking to do a variety of things and it felt pretty intuitive, like changing traffic lights or pulling up bollards as you drive, or taking control of cameras. I think because people were quite negative I went in with low expectations, and was pleasantly surprised.

No, when referring to quality he also listed a number of gameplay issues he had not related to online infrastructure as well as multiplayer aspects. I personally wouldn't say most of the Wii U games are of high quality. Polished from a technical/no bugs perspective, sure. But that's not the only criteria I go by when determining quality.

They definitely need to compete with the other consoles. This is essentially as good as they can do by relying on Nintendo loyalists.

I can do them all. Looks like Sun then?

Yeah, would have loved to have seen The Tomorrow Children. I heard it's out this Autumn though?

I can see this easily as having been something small originally (in the sense of features/things you do, even though it was procedural). Then when the massive hype built up following its reveal, Sony mentioned they were then treating it like they would a first party exclusive. Basically, I think they've massively stepped it up as a result, and that's why it's taking them a lot longer to make it.

June 2016. Fucking lawl.

I might be able to make it for half 7. We'll see!

Nope, didn't manage to play yesterday. Didn't see anyone mention it though!