Have Nintendo changed their ways?

[ssj]

With disaster day of crisis announced for a european release next month and mario rpg out on the european virtual console, does it mean that Nintendo are making up for their past mistakes with core and European gamers?

 

Can we expect a euro date for animal crossing city folk soon?

 

Discuss here

[Ren of Heavens]

I think we're seeing a trend here. Wii Fit, Mario Kart Wii, Endless Ocean, Mario Strikers Charged was released first in Europe. With the exeption of Paper Mario and Brawl bascially all big Nintendo games have been released around the same time or before the US release.

 

Btw, just noticed the official Norwegian Nintendo site changed the Animal Crossing date from "TBA" to "2008". They've added several dates. See the release list thread.

[Emasher]

I think Brawl only really got delayed in Europe because they didn't want it to compete with Mario Kart. I wouldn't hold that against Nintendo that much. They just wanted both games to do well.

[tapedeck]

Nintendo have changed in so many ways, all of which have been covered before.

 

In my opinion, mutiple retail releases will become less of a major focus for the "traditional" fans due to online setups. Coupled with the longer development cycles of the PS3 and 360 one single title will eventually last far longer. (I'm also not discounting that smaller, instant titles won't exist!) Yet the notion that titles are taking longer to make has enabled Nintendo to jump on the bandwagon and say "hey, games take a long, long, long time to make". And even though they've taken their time, I can't help but think Nintendo are ripping the arse out of this. Add in the fact that Wii is still selling and you can see that releasing "more" internally-created software isn't Nintendo's main concern.

 

So coupled with the online statement I made, I personally think that the Wii's online setup (VC/Wiiware) has the opportunity to bring "traditional" gaming to the core Nintendo fanbase. However, I think Nintendo are missing out here. They have really outdone themselves developing and releasing core franchises so early into the Wii's lifecycle. Qudos to Galaxy, Metroid, Mario Kart and Smash Bros coming out in such quick successions and with such high praise. But with the pools of talent and a "regurgitation" process involved for titles such as Brawl/Metroid/Mario Kart, they perhaps are slacking off a little.

 

At this point I must say that unfortunately it seems that if a developer doesn't release a AAA title for Christmas, they've done nothing for the year. Core gamers have never had it better and so they are getting greedy. The more they play the more they want. The amount of game consumption by the core player is getting insane. People forget the titles that came out in March (No More Heroes as an example) because the Christmas rush is here and it's expected that the best games will launch. (Even though we know most will be rushed, tarnished updates.)

 

Anyway, bar core gamers hunger, I believe that the online setup is where Nintendo should be using the Wiiware and VC services to appease the traditional followers. (Which will appease the lack of retail releases every 6/7 months!)

First of all, if they wanted to gain maximum profits they should bring an external hard drive out for christmas. Couple this with a launch of multiple AAA N64 games (alongside more classics/unreleased games and "big" exclusive Wiiware titles ala Megaman) and the online services will appease the mainstream fans until the big retail releases. Nintendo must know this. Yet they shroud themselves in their typically archaic cloak of mystery.

 

Unfortunately a lot of core gamers remain stubborn. There are the vast majority that will only buy Nintendo-made titles (shunning others as being poor) and then there are those who believe that Nintendo should be making X,Y,Z titles in line with whatever is currently fashionable.

 

Nintendo have gone after a new market. A viable market who don't look at the "high end" of the machine. They look at what gives them gratification. And if that comes from something different alongside traditional Nintendo titles, so be it. Nintendo are entitled to go after them. Certainly at the moment they seem to be the ones enjoying gaming with fresh insight and without the elitism that, sadly personifies the gaming industry as one which is full of "geeks and otakus".

 

My two cents.

[Girly hiyaz!~ Gamer]

No. NOE are likely to always be shit.

[Patch]

Nintendo have gone after a new market. A viable market who don't look at the "high end" of the machine. They look at what gives them gratification. And if that comes from something different alongside traditional Nintendo titles, so be it. Nintendo are entitled to go after them. Certainly at the moment they seem to be the ones enjoying gaming with fresh insight and without the elitism that, sadly personifies the gaming industry as one which is full of "geeks and otakus".

 

I loved what you said there. Nintendo are quite clearly having fun with their software lineup. They are embracing their creative freedom to the full.

 

As far as Europe are concerned, things do seem better. The delay of Brawl is the only thing that disappointed me and even then only slightly so. We all know Nintendo are raking in the cash; I suppose they are spending some of that money on improving NoE in all areas. I have certainly seen more Wii adverts than Gamecube adverts.

[tapedeck]

Yeah, look at the advert situation. We've seen more ads for the Wii and DS in these past two years than we ever saw for the N64/GC. It's unreal when you think about the imrovements in that area.

 

We can bitch about release dates and all, but Nintendo have done well. We've seen Mario Kart before the US and actually had 3rd party software to "plug" gaps. We've just had summer which is always a dry time for games. But look at the VC and, even with it's lack of titles, we've seen Sin and Punishment and Super Mario RPG.

 

If that's not a changed Nintendo I don't know what is.

[Chris the great]

hum, it haddent occured to me untill now, but perhaps your right. after putting up with crap for years to do with game releases, not to mention the consoles, nintendo finaly seem to have started to see europe as an actual viable market, rather then the cherry on the cake it seemed like before.

 

certainly, release dates have seemed closer, which a couple of exceptions, even games here first.

 

i think this may have more to do with the growing import market then anything else, lets not forget ninteno are a bussiness, nintendo of europe may be getting a little worried about fed up customers using the internet to get games from america, thus lowering profits.

 

as for mario rpg europe release. at roughly £7 for every download, and everyone whos been following nintnendo for more then 10 years foaming at the mouth over the game, i have a feeling that has been a rather sweet deal for nintendo. not that im complaining mind, its a great game.

[Grazza]

I've got no problem with the release dates. The one thing I really want is a fullscreen, 60hz mode for the Virtual Console games.

[Hellfire]

Short answer: yes.

Brawl asides things have been much better for Europe (and would be stupid of Nintendo not to keep improving things as Europe is now a bigger market than USA.

They realised that only when the planets are aligned will the community actually praise them for something (i.e. Galaxy) regardless of the quality or lack of it, so by announcing a game and releasing it shortly after that is the ideal strategies for games that would only sell to a "niche" market anyway. You can advertise the hell out of a game, give it huge coverage, release screens everyday, if it's the type of game that only the attentive crowd would buy anyway, it's just a waste of money and generates hype and expectation that will make room for ridiculously unwarranted negative reactions (i.e. Twilight Princess).

 

You notice this because games that are obviously gonna sell to a more broad audience and by broad I don't mean soccer moms, I mean, a lot of demographics, like Mario Kart, Brawl or Galaxy, there was no lack of information about those games.

The lack of core arguments is just bullshit, we've been getting the same core games from Nintendo as before and faster, so there's really not that big of a need as people make it seem to make up for mistakes with the core market.

If we had the release lists we've been having back in GC days, everyone would be orgasming.

[darksnowman]

...we've been getting the same core games from Nintendo as before and faster...

 

Yeah we seem to have higher demands these days. Before, I was able to cope with a handful of big games scattered throughout the year- even on the GC I was ok with that mentality... though I've amassed a heck of alot of GC games, lol. Its just the modern thing for people to want more more more.

[Hellfire]

Yeah we seem to have higher demands these days. Before, I was able to cope with a handful of big games scattered throughout the year- even on the GC I was ok with that mentality... though I've amassed a heck of alot of GC games, lol. Its just the modern thing for people to want more more more.

 

Damned capitalism :P

[Grazza]

They realised that only when the planets are aligned will the community actually praise them for something (i.e. Galaxy) regardless of the quality or lack of it,

 

I don't mean to be argumentative, but I must reply to some of these points:

 

Galaxy is pretty much the only proper game that Nintendo has designed purely for the Wii. Metroid Prime 3 is close - I don't see much complaint about that. The "Prime" series is not for everyone and never has been.

 

Smash Bros, Mario Kart and (probably) Animal Crossing are more straightforward updates, with less need for thoughtful design.

 

You can advertise the hell out of a game, give it huge coverage, release screens everyday, if it's the type of game that only the attentive crowd would buy anyway, it's just a waste of money and generates hype and expectation that will make room for ridiculously unwarranted negative reactions (i.e. Twilight Princess).

 

Squarely Nintendo's fault. They hyped it up since E3 2004, delayed it one year too many and took out the "GameCube" bits. The 30 month wait for it was extraordinary and artificial - not the fans' fault. There's nothing wrong with knowing about a game 18 months or so before it's out.

 

Secondly, the game simply wasn't that good. It was very good, perhaps great, but not excellent. It was like an overworked painting rather than a single artistic vision. Fair enough, you can't make a masterpiece every time. No one hates Nintendo or the development team for making what is, afterall, a very good game. People are just honest about it, that's all.

 

The lack of core arguments is just bullshit, we've been getting the same core games from Nintendo as before and faster,

 

Apart from the fact we haven't had a Zelda yet.

[tapedeck]

I don't mean to be argumentative, but I must reply to some of these points:

 

Galaxy is pretty much the only proper game that Nintendo has designed purely for the Wii.

 

What about Wii Fit, Sports, Play, Music, (to come:Resort/Disaster Day of Crisis), Excite Truck, Wario Shake? Or are they not "games"?

 

Nintendo have given the Wii plenty of love this year alone, it's not like the DS after all:p

[spirited away]

Yet they shroud themselves in their typically archaic cloak of mystery.

 

 

How very poetic.

 

One thing: what point were you trying to get across in your first paragraph - something along the lines of: 'the void of first party games being filled by the added longevity of online implimentation and extra focus on microtransactions'? I really hope they step up on this front and sort out the memory problem quickly and make online games more user-freindly and focused.

 

Great post btw - it hit the nail on the head on many issues in my opinion.

[Hellfire]

I don't mean to be argumentative, but I must reply to some of these points:

 

Galaxy is pretty much the only proper game that Nintendo has designed purely for the Wii. Metroid Prime 3 is close - I don't see much complaint about that. The "Prime" series is not for everyone and never has been.

 

Smash Bros, Mario Kart and (probably) Animal Crossing are more straightforward updates, with less need for thoughtful design.

 

 

 

Squarely Nintendo's fault. They hyped it up since E3 2004, delayed it one year too many and took out the "GameCube" bits. The 30 month wait for it was extraordinary and artificial - not the fans' fault. There's nothing wrong with knowing about a game 18 months or so before it's out.

 

Secondly, the game simply wasn't that good. It was very good, perhaps great, but not excellent. It was like an overworked painting rather than a single artistic vision. Fair enough, you can't make a masterpiece every time. No one hates Nintendo or the development team for making what is, afterall, a very good game. People are just honest about it, that's all.

 

 

I won't opinate too much as opinating is frowned upon.

 

First, galaxy wasn't that much designed solely for Wii, although the Remote and shake parts are very fun and great, that's not the main design of the game, all those concepts have been brewing since GC era. This doesn't make it less of a Wii game. (Refer to tapedeck's post) Point is, people complain about the lack of core games or that they were abandoned when they weren't, regardless of whining or not, all these games and more were released and are available to play. What you say needs less thought in design, might actually take a lot more than you're thinking for all the obvious reasons (online, motion controls, gameplay changes, etc...).

 

Taking time to make a game as good as possible and then delaying it in order to release it for a console where people will actually buy it, doesn't seem artificial to me. Long waits always existed, even longer than TP's. The game wasn't that good? Subjective, to me, it's the best game created so far, thus, to me, the wait was more than worth it and I see most of the disappointment (not disappointment as in not thinking it's the best game ever, but saying it's not great and, well, the criticisms you're saying which I disagree completly) people feel is due to the hype they created and let out of control and lack of perspective. (offtopic: Should I write "IMO" before the posts not to make people angry btw?)

Apart from the fact we haven't had a Zelda yet.

Twilight Princess was released for Wii at launch, it has Wii features (removed GC bits? What the hell are you even talking about?). The fact that the game was planned to GC and that it took a lot of time to develop it, doesn't make it less of a new Zelda game. So, we haven't had a Zelda yet? Yeaaah.

[Grazza]

What you say needs less thought in design, might actually take a lot more than you're thinking for all the obvious reasons (online, motion controls, gameplay changes, etc...).

 

Fair enough, the games tapedeck mentioned are a bit of a laugh. Wii Sports is a work of genius in its own way (albeit with disappointing controls).

 

My point is that the reason Galaxy unites gamers is nothing to do with luck or the planets aligning (good pun though). It's because it's one of two traditional games with thoughtfully designed levels purely designed for the Wii (Metroid Prime 3 being the other one). Sure, it could mostly have been done on GameCube, but that doesn't matter because Nintendo would never have released a 2nd Mario game on GC.

 

I'm not criticising the other Wii games. Just don't be surprised that Mario Galaxy is the sort of thing people truly want more than the other games.

 

Taking time to make a game as good as possible and then delaying it in order to release it for a console where people will actually buy it, doesn't seem artificial to me. Long waits always existed, even longer than TP's.

 

You're right, it sold better on Wii than it probably would have done on GameCube. Let's recognise it as a business decision, then, but I seriously doubt it was to improve the game. Optimise for Wii, yes. Improve? No.

 

The game wasn't that good? Subjective

 

Yes, it's subjective, but you seem to be angry that people criticise it.

 

Twilight Princess was released for Wii at launch, it has Wii features (removed GC bits? What the hell are you even talking about?).

 

Shield control was in the September 2005 build, but removed for the Wii version (and the GameCube release).

 

Other things were additions, but actually lessened the game. The beginning of the game was extended a couple of hours (with the slingshot etc) so people could get used to the Wii remote. Obviously, that was unnecessary in the GC version, but it was still ported back, thus affecting the pacing.

 

So, that's two things removed from the GC version - shield control and the early pacing - both caused by making it a Wii game. Who knows what else? What I do know is that it's extremely unlikely these would have been altered in the two or three months before the intended 2005 release.

 

The fact that the game was planned to GC and that it took a lot of time to develop it, doesn't make it less of a new Zelda game.

 

It does. It means it's not "Zelda Wii".

 

So, we haven't had a Zelda yet? Yeaaah.

 

Yup!

[ZeroAX]

yes they have changed their way. Because Euro>>>Dollar

[Guest Maase]

I won't opinate too much as opinating is frowned upon.

 

First, galaxy wasn't that much designed solely for Wii, although the Remote and shake parts are very fun and great, that's not the main design of the game, all those concepts have been brewing since GC era. This doesn't make it less of a Wii game. (Refer to tapedeck's post) Point is, people complain about the lack of core games or that they were abandoned when they weren't, regardless of whining or not, all these games and more were released and are available to play. What you say needs less thought in design, might actually take a lot more than you're thinking for all the obvious reasons (online, motion controls, gameplay changes, etc...).

 

Taking time to make a game as good as possible and then delaying it in order to release it for a console where people will actually buy it, doesn't seem artificial to me. Long waits always existed, even longer than TP's. The game wasn't that good? Subjective, to me, it's the best game created so far, thus, to me, the wait was more than worth it and I see most of the disappointment (not disappointment as in not thinking it's the best game ever, but saying it's not great and, well, the criticisms you're saying which I disagree completly) people feel is due to the hype they created and let out of control and lack of perspective. (offtopic: Should I write "IMO" before the posts not to make people angry btw?)

 

Twilight Princess was released for Wii at launch, it has Wii features (removed GC bits? What the hell are you even talking about?). The fact that the game was planned to GC and that it took a lot of time to develop it, doesn't make it less of a new Zelda game. So, we haven't had a Zelda yet? Yeaaah.

 

Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuh. Too much opinion from your side!!!!

Fanboy comment, shut up

[dazzybee]

I hope so, things are certainly looking good; if Animal Crossing and Fatal Frame come out before xmas and Disaster is actually really good then ALL IS FORGIVEN

[tapedeck]

...

 

Were you trying to get across in your first paragraph - something along the lines of: 'the void of first party games being filled by the added longevity of online implimentation and extra focus on microtransactions'?...

 

Indeed I was

 

A certain possibility for sure and something both Sony and Microsoft have been focusing on. (Perhaps more so as a means to gain third party benefits - IE the Banjo Kazooie setup and subsequent Goldeneye shenanigans on MS' behalf.)

 

The VC has more potential than any other online market due to the nostalgia felt for Nintendo's historical attributes, yet it's just a shame that the VC will probably be tied to each individual console.

Afterall this is Nintendo, and if they can get you to purchase a title time and time again - they will do. With luck we may see retro titles hitting the next batch of portables/consoles with re-tooled elements. (Think Mario Kart 64 but with online play).

 

What amazes me is how many times the "solid" Nintendo customer is asked to buy a re-release of a title.

And perhaps the most notable VC "attribute" so far? We've not really seen 3rd party VC titles other than those larger companies residing in Japan.

Where's my 16bit EA titles and the (few) 3rd party N64 Classics?!

 

All of this leads me to believe the VC is something of a brand, something which will last a long, long time and sit alongside all future Nintendo platforms as both a selling point and a calling card to third parties.

[darkjak]

That Nintendo release some games in europe first is a gigantic plus.

 

However, it's impossible to say whether Nintendo have changed their ways or not. From what I've seen thus far, no change is in sight, and we won't be able to tell whether Nintendo have changed their ways for another two years. Why? Because Nintend have said they're going to wait as long as humanly possible to announce games, making it impossible to tell if they're going to continue the downwards spiral into casual hell, or if they've actually learned something from the critique.

 

Even before the Wii's release Nintendo promised that at least some NES and SNES titles would recieve graphical touchoups, remade controls and whatnot to make them feel more modern. I haven't heard of anything of the like so far.

[Kurtle Squad]

I think Brawl only really got delayed in Europe because they didn't want it to compete with Mario Kart. I wouldn't hold that against Nintendo that much. They just wanted both games to do well.

I reckon another part was possibly to set up a better technical place in order to deal with the Brawl issue.

 

yes they have changed their way. Because Euro>>>Dollar

It always has.

[EEVILMURRAY]

yes they have changed their way. Because Euro>>>Dollar

Correction O_O

Pound>>>Euro>>>Dollar.

[Hellfire]

 

You're right, it sold better on Wii than it probably would have done on GameCube. Let's recognise it as a business decision, then, but I seriously doubt it was to improve the game. Optimise for Wii, yes. Improve? No.

 

 

 

Yes, it's subjective, but you seem to be angry that people criticise it.

 

 

Bolded part. Yeah. And yeah, I'm really angry, I even popped a few veins.

 

Things are added and removed from games all the time. It's a huge part of the development process, you don't know 99% of the things that are added and removed or why, of course shield control was removed because of Wii controls. The pacing? Who knows? Does it make that big of a difference? More development time is usually to add things, not to remove them (that doesn't even make a lot of sense) so I'm betting most of the time actually added and perfected things. For me, I loved the IR controls and the motion was damn cool too, so this alone was a huge improvement and reason enough to delay the game. Business decision? Yes. Game design decision? Yes. This is valid for all games, I'm not talking just about Zelda.

I mean, Excite Truck and Wario Land a laugh? We had no Zelda?

Correction O_O

Pound>>>Euro>>>Dollar.

Europe ftw! I'm hoping we'll keep seeing improvements on the attention companies give to Europe.

 

Darkjak, I don't recall Nintendo ever promising touched up NES and SNES games. I recall people asking for that and the answer being that it's a possibility but they wanted to give the games in their original form. Meaning, exactly the opposite of touched up games.

 

I keep wondering if NoE really is the biggest one to take the blame. I mean, I don't think they want to sell games later or people to get angry at them. The folks and NCL and NoA (mainly NCL) are the ones who decides what happens to ye old Europe.