Goron_3 Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 The overwhelming majority of these games are incredibly Japanese. There's no cultural variety. Personally, that might be my other big issue with Nintendo - the other one being the Mario/Zelda/Pokemon IP fatigue - they're very ethnocentric and for a global industry that's really not acceptable. Also, 'Nintendo presents: Style Boutique' is hilarious icantbelievethatactuallyexists. Nail. On. Head. And that is why Sony have done so well outside of Japan with all of their home consoles, and why they always will.
RedShell Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 I'll never understand the problem some people seem to have with Nintendo or their games being too Japanese. It's one of the the best things about them! Anyone that doesn't appreciate this should just accept the fact and move on to something else. Nintendo aren't going to change in that regard (bloody well hope not anyway) and nor should they have to.
Agent Gibbs Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 I'll never understand the problem some people seem to have with Nintendo or their games being too Japanese. It's one of the the best things about them! Anyone that doesn't appreciate this should just accept the fact and move on to something else. Nintendo aren't going to change in that regard (bloody well hope not anyway) and nor should they have to. its probably because were weeboos (is that the right derogatory term were gonna get called ) I just wish Nintendo consoles would get more awesome exclussives like RE:make and Twin Snake
Rummy Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 I don't think the argument is that their games are too Japanese, just that too many of their games are too Japanese. N64 got mentioned briefly earlier and I thought of it then - I imagine due to Rare's input that whilst the game/quantity situation might have been similar, that the actual offerings might have been a bit more varied. Most of the top games for the system imo were either 1st party or 2nd party via Rare from what I recall. An argument is to be made for example of 3x3D platformers in SM64, BK, and DK - but even then it wasn't quite the franchise fatigue as they were seperate games and could more easily offer more variety, and of course in some senses veil the similarity. The Japanese-y games have their place, but so do others. It's the 'others' that folks seem to be after. One reason I really really want Wii U to become this awesome little indie machine is actually because there's so much variety within the smaller games market. Wii U + Steam-esque model = potential win.
dazzybee Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 Exactly, not to continue this ever looping argument that is as interesting a Revolution 9; but people keep saying various things like they're a PROBLEM, when do we just accept what companies are and love them for it or maybe hate them, but still be pleased there's variety in the wider market! I see platformers as western style anyway, when you think of Chuckie egg, manic miner etc Zelda has become almost a western version of an RPG... The really Japanese stuff is some of their best work - Rhtyhm Heaven, Donkey Konga, wario ware etc. Also with regards to variety, they do release too many platformers, and they're beginning to bore me a little at the minute; but when you think of Xenoblade (and please stop moving the goalposts to suit your argument, it's a nintendo game!!!!), Last Story, Pandoras Tower, Mario Galaxy, Donkey Kong, Wii Sports and all those brain and fit games, Metroid, even the two kirbys are very different to each other and the two zeldas, Rhythm Heaven, Wario, Mario Kart, Smash Bros., Disaster, and many more... in fact, does a company have a MORE VARIED lineup than that?!?! Or we talking about visual style and personality?! I'm not saying Nintendo don't need new IP; but some of the arguments against them are just preposterous! Cheers for the advice guys, think I'm going to crack on with Wonderful 101 and try and get it done, just remembered I have loads of Disney Infinity stuff winging it's way to me so that'll probably distract me and I'm a fair way through W101. God I have so many games... thank god for this drought huh.... As for Kirby. I really don't like the series that much but love the character. I will say Epic Yarn is the best Kirby game I've played!! No... I loved Kirby Mass Attack and the GBA game where you rolled him about, that was incredible!!
Cube Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 Anyone that doesn't appreciate this should just accept the fact and move on to something else. Nintendo aren't going to change in that regard (bloody well hope not anyway) and nor should they have to. But the problem is that they have changed. I fell in love with Nintendo due to the N64. They had a far greater "western" appeal then - partly due to Rare, and partly due to franchises like F-Zero and Star Fox (and Metroid in the GameCube era).
Rummy Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 (edited) Accepting companies as they are is a dangerous statement. Nintendo isn't just a simple company compared to most, and it's why Sony and MS come up in comparison. To put it simply Nintendo are; -A console manufacturer(one of the main three) -A game developer -A game publisher Sure, some people probably do love them for what they are in one aspect - but the problem is they aren't just a one aspect company to be loved for. Nobody goes on much about hating Ubisoft, or ThatGameCompany, or Nicalis, or...well, you get the point. Single studies aren't often disliked - nobody cares, they're devs, you take them or leave them. Publishers get some dissatisfaction even being devs, that's because they have to do both and get either/or wrong. Nintendo are one of the current three rarities - a player in the home console market; essentially 1 of only 3(I know there's arguments of shield, ouya, steam/pc etc but I don't want to complicate it too much). They're being held to account much more for the simple fact they have much more to be held to account for - developing, publishing, hardware producing, and essentially tying all these in and ensuring every aspect works well to keep the others relevant and important. And this is sort of the argument running atm - Some feel they're doing shit at being a manufacturer and supporting their system, because they aren't getting the variety the consumer wants. Nobody's neccessarily saying Nintendo need to make these games - but they need to get the devs on board, or help by publishing etc(like done with LegoCityUndercover). However they've not managed that, and arguments are being made they won't etc - this means that they've got to fill the gap themselves, surely? But they won't. So what WILL happen, for everyone vested? Surely the frustration is wholly understandable? I don't think it's particularly fair to keep telling these consumers to 'get over it' - when everyone is essentially agreeing that they ARE doing an incredibly poor job. 'So what' really just isn't good enough for a product being sold, and bought, by consumers. Edited March 18, 2014 by Rummy
Sheikah Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 It's all about variety at the end of the day. If the console has mostly Japanese games then certain audiences and developers will be put off. I can't see how there can be an argument that having mostly Japanese games is a good thing. Mix it up to expand your audience.
dazzybee Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 I don't understand what you're saying? I know they make console publish games and develop them; what I'm saying is people are criticising them for making a console which isn't as powerful as the others, and for not making western games like the others, and I don't understand why this is necessarily a problem! I think it's great there is a company very different from MS and Sony, which have two machines incredibly incredibly similar in most ways. I just don't understand! Again, I'm not saying I wouldn't like some new IP and maybe some more adult themes; but I don't think criticising them is fair in the slightest. It's all about variety at the end of the day. If the console has mostly Japanese games then certain audiences and developers will be put off. I can't see how there can be an argument that having mostly Japanese games is a good thing. Mix it up to expand your audience. That's more balanced, there is nothing wrong with having a specific angle, but also the argument that if they did have a wider pool of variety it would interest more people. I'm not saying they should or shouldn't, they're both fine i think. What confuses me is what is Japanesey about Mario and Donkey Kong (don't they sell much better in the west?!), Animal Crossing couldn't be more Japanesy and seeks incredibly well in US and Europe... What is Bayonetta 2 - Japanese or Western? Zelda? Smash Bros? Mario Kart? I genuinely don't know. And are Fzero, Wave race Starfox, Metroid western games?! Or do people mean more story driven, film-styled games? I don't think Nintendo are doing an "incredibly poor job" at all. Not even close. I simply think the biggest problem is they're not releasing enough games - it's not the price, it's not the gamepad, it's not the style of games, it's simply they don't have support and they're not releasing enough. I would be incredibly confident that if they released one big game a month from mario kart onwards they'd sell extremely well.
Sheikah Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 No one is saying they should stop making the games they do, they are saying they should make more Western style games on top of that / buy more Western studios. That way everyone wins. Also, saying that difference must be good is misleading. Difference in terms of variety, especially when franchise fatigue has been actively occurring for a while now, should be positively embraced.
dazzybee Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 No one is saying they should stop making the games they do, they are saying they should make more Western style games on top of that / buy more Western studios. That way everyone wins. Also, saying that difference must be good is misleading. Difference in terms of variety, especially when franchise fatigue has been actively occurring for a while now, should be positively embraced. Oh I get it completely, but I'd still prefer a new FZero, Waverace, metroid, Kid Icarus, Starfox etc etc than a new IP I think buying more studios is the way forward, though that's what retro are, and Next Level games so you never know what they're now working on. Didn't they say they're going to make more acquisitions?
Rummy Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 (edited) Also with regards to variety, they do release too many platformers, and they're beginning to bore me a little at the minute; but when you think of Xenoblade (and please stop moving the goalposts to suit your argument, it's a nintendo game!!!!) Is it as much a Nintendo game as DKR, DK, JFG, Blast Corp, Goldeneye etc all were? I thought the argument made with Monolith is that yes, they're wholly Nintendo owned now but they are not actually Nintendo. They were acquired(a good one at that) but also the key argument being that they were acquired actually into the development and idea of Xenoblade? That's not a wholly common situation, is it? Even so, to call it a Nintendo game discounts Monolith, and vice-versa, why can't it be acknowledged as both? As for Kirby. I really don't like the series that much but love the character. I will say Epic Yarn is the best Kirby game I've played!! And I will tell you as a very big and almost life-long Kirby fan - Epic Yarn is a pretty good, possibly even fantastic game. It's a horrible Kirby game, though. No... I loved Kirby Mass Attack and the GBA game where you rolled him about, that was incredible!! Exactly...this is for a character who's repeatedly messed with and mixed up, put in different games and situations and all. One of their most innovative, so quite relevant to discussion, yet they always manage to somehow keep hold of the idiosyncrasies that made Kirby Kirby in almost all iterations. Epic Yarn was absolutely the greatest erosion of these qualities. And they've even managed to put him in a bloody GOLF game. Edited March 18, 2014 by Rummy
Sheikah Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 The Xeno series and its development team existed long before Nintendo even sniffed in the direction of Monolith; Xenoblade is the product of the brilliant Tetsuya Takahashi (yeah, I realise it's set in a new world, but it's still his baby). That's why I have a tough time believing we can really credit its development or conception to Nintendo in any meaningful way, other than the brilliant moneyhat-ing they did. Which was, indeed, a brilliant moneyhat.
Goron_3 Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 I'll never understand the problem some people seem to have with Nintendo or their games being too Japanese. It's one of the the best things about them! Anyone that doesn't appreciate this should just accept the fact and move on to something else. Nintendo aren't going to change in that regard (bloody well hope not anyway) and nor should they have to. Look at the Wii U's sales...People ARE moving elsewhere. Of course, I love Nintendo's games and I love them for how Japanese they are, but that's not to say they can't have western first/2nd party developers release games that appeal to western gamers. Nintendo used to have incredible western talent; it's a shame that most of them don't exist now other than Retro. I never understood that move from Iwata. The issue isn't that they are Japanese, it's that they can be too Japanese. N64 sold INCREDIBLE in NA despite all of it's problem and it's obvious why.
Cube Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 What is Bayonetta 2 - Japanese or Western? Zelda? Smash Bros? Mario Kart? I genuinely don't know. And are Fzero, Wave race Starfox, Metroid western games?! Most of those actually suit both audiences (well, except for Bayonetta, which is extremely Japanese), but more than a few seem to have been forgotten at the moment.
Jonnas Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 But Lion King and Finding Nemo are incredibly American (both their narrative and art style). How on earth is Pokemon not that Japanese? Even if you could somehow argue that they superficially aren't that Japanese, their gameplay and structure is definitely much more in line with the Japanese games industry. On the superficial side is what I meant. Something that easily affects publicity, marketing, public image. Why else would it be a flaw to be too ethnocentric? Zelda and Final Fantasy 6 aren't any worse from Skyrim or Baldur's Gate due to different pacing. (Pokémon doesn't feel that Japanese. When I was a kid, I thought it was an American production, what with all the Anglo names. Even in the games, it only gets that Japanese in a few Johto cities) Also, narrative, pacing and art style are American as long as you have that preconception of what "American" looks like. I mean, even the famous "huge-eyes" manga art style was originally inspired by Disney characters. The only thing that makes it Japanese now is the fact that we know that it's typically Japanese. And nowadays, if I showed you a Disney comic, would you be able to tell if the author was American, Italian or Brazillian? Only if you knew what each looked like, or if someone makes cultural-specific reference. Basically, it's a preconception that can change, and from a truly global perspective, having homegrown influences in your work shouldn't even matter, otherwise ethnocentricity is a-OK as long as it's the USA's. Anyway, I said the overwhelming majority (at the very least their tent pole games are) and yeah, I was trying to put my finger on it and that game does sound like a crappy UbiSoft game. I don't really think the Netflix example really works since I'm talking about games. On the 360 Microsoft had some pretty solid attempts at creating games beyond their region; Blue Dragon, the got FFXIII and made allowances for FFXI to work on their console. Lost Odyssey was meant to be pretty good, too. Even EDF 2017, another brilliant Japanese game only came out on 360. Regarding Style Boutique, I just found it funny you made both points in the same post Regarding those games, that's more an example of good 3rd-party communication, something that's well established that Nintendo needs to work on, we can both agree. Hardly an example of a true effort in multiculturalism, though, it was just a handful of outsourced games. And of those, technically only one was actually made by Nintendo. The majority of Monolith's staff actually derive from Squaresoft. I know that they bought them. But Nintendo themselves didn't make it. Which was the point I was getting at - Nintendo themselves made some awesome new IP back in the day, but now seem to be more of a sequel maker. What, you mean Metroid and DK games, which are already Nintendo property? :p To me, it feels like Nintendo were quite heavily there from the off! From what I can find out, Monolith did nearly all of it, and I wasn't making a huge point anyway. Just that whatever Nintendo themselves were doing in the past, they're mostly doing sequels now. Fun fact: Donkey Kong as we know it today is a Rare creation. He was just the ape we see in Donkey Kong Jr., until Rare redesigned him. If you're going to discredit developing teams who work for Nintendo, but aren't part of core SPD or EAD, then we're left with less than half of the games we associate with Nintendo over the years. Donkey Kong Country, Metroid Prime, Golden Sun, Fire Emblem, Kirby, Pokémon, Advance Wars, Paper Mario... the list goes on. We would be left with a very short, narrow list based on... a niche set of rules, criteria chosen specifically to make a point. And at the end of the day, all of these games and IPs were made possible due to being in Nintendo's umbrella, and answering to their standards of quality. If those teams were working for, say, Capcom at the time, they would not be the same games/IPs as we know them today.
Sheikah Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 (edited) But a lot of those series have been developed on by Nintendo at some point, and often it's a case of Nintendo telling the studio "We want another game in this series, here is what we'd (roughly) like". That's not true with Xenoblade. It was Monolith's entire thing and they brought it to the table. I don't doubt Monolith will become an integral cog in the Nintendo machine. Just at the stage at which they came in, with the Xeno series already to their name, I have a hard time crediting Nintendo with much of the development of that particular game. Like I said, it wasn't a big point I was making, just that out of the only 2 games that majorly impressed me on the Wii, only one of them had any real development credit going to Nintendo. Edited March 18, 2014 by Sheikah
Kav Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 You can't say Xenoblade isn't a Nintendo game but Infamous and Uncharted are Sony games though. You're discounting Xenoblade here but when you were talking about Sony games you were mentioning Uncharted and Infamous.
Rummy Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 But a lot of those series have been developed on by Nintendo at some point, and often it's a case of Nintendo telling the studio "We want another game in this series, here is what we'd (roughly) like". That's not true with Xenoblade. It was Monolith's entire thing and they brought it to the table. I'm not fully following the whole debate atm as I'm at work, and I could be mistaken - but I'd come under the impression that Nintendo DID contribute when it came to development of Xenoblade as time went on; though I'm not sure why I think that except possibly seeing it in discussion here. Don't have a source either way, though someone more knowledgeable might know?
Sheikah Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 (edited) They may have contributed something, and Nintendo SPD is credited to them on their Wiki page, but I'm finding any information on it difficult to come by. What I do know is that the director was there before acquisition, and it was his idea, and the staff roster is formed mostly of the previous Squaresoft employees. You can't say Xenoblade isn't a Nintendo game but Infamous and Uncharted are Sony games though. You're discounting Xenoblade here but when you were talking about Sony games you were mentioning Uncharted and Infamous. You seem to have contracted Zechs's 'making stuff up' disease. When did I say that Sony made those games? Edited March 18, 2014 by Sheikah Automerged Doublepost
Kav Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 They may have contributed something, and Nintendo SPD is credited to them on their Wiki page, but I'm finding any information on it difficult to come by. What I do know is that the director was there before acquisition, and it was his idea, and the staff roster is formed mostly of the previous Squaresoft employees. You seem to have contracted Zechs's 'making stuff up' disease. When did I say that Sony made those games? Haha, it's not that I'm saying you said Sony made them but you were talking about new IPs Sony brought to the table and you mentioned those. Then in the same vein, regardless of whether Nintendo had any hand in developing it or not, Xenoblade was brought to the table by Nintendo.
Sheikah Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 I don't believe I said Sony brought them, not that it really matters. I feel this has been blown out of proportion now.
Jonnas Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 1. But a lot of those series have been developed on by Nintendo at some point, 2.and often it's a case of Nintendo telling the studio "We want another game in this series, here is what we'd (roughly) like". That's not true with Xenoblade. It was Monolith's entire thing and they brought it to the table. 1. Nope, that's only true for Metroid. Donkey Kong was a dead franchise with no direction before Rare picked it up. Nintendo never thought of making a Mario RPG by themselves. All the others are series that Nintendo doesn't touch because they know their respective teams know what to do with them. 2. Most of the games I mentioned are the brainchild of the people who worked on them. Pokémon and Fire Emblem included (two series never actually touched by EAD or SPD). Sakurai was also responsible for creating Kirby, Smash Bros, and reviving Kid Icarus (the latter one, as well as Brawl, while not actually being part of Nintendo). I'm just saying, if Xenoblade isn't really Nintendo due to those criteria, then neither are a ton of other Nintendo games (Brawl included).
Kav Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 I wasn't trying to quote word for word mind, but it was along those lines.
dazzybee Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 This whole Xenoblade isn't really nintendo is just bizarre. We're getting into serious pent territory. Kav has said exactly what I was going to say, it's as Nintendo as Uncharted is Sony! It IS a nintendo game, doesn't matter who they were, when they bought them or ANYTHING. It is a nintendo game, that's what we're debating, the NOW, what games are nintendo and its studios developing. Xenoblade was one of them, X is another. I know it's fun to slag nintendo off as much as possible, but give them credit where it's due. But I guess in this case Xenoblade and X go completely against what people are slagging.... Hmmm. And also, isn't what they've done exactly what people recommend they do? Buy studios to do new work, different work to them?!
Recommended Posts