Falcon_BlizZACK Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 But what is the alternative? Nintendo carry on? I don't know, man. Their console is bombing. Pay for what you want..? If what you want is not on offer then move on? That is the action of the consumer. Most of the time we sound like a board of actual stakeholders.
Sheikah Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 We are stakeholders, for all intents and purposes. We paid a chunk of money in the hope for a return. A game and support return, as it were. Wanting better sales matters to us, too. The more Nintendo sells, the bigger the audience. The bigger the audience the more games, and the more money they can afford to spend developing those games.
Ashley Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Van Gogh was an artist, Nintendo is a business. It's a business that sells art (depending who you ask), but it's still a business. Van Gogh was not.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) We are stakeholders, for all intents and purposes. We paid a chunk of money in the hope for a return. A game and support return, as it were. Wanting better sales matters to us, too. The more Nintendo sells, the bigger the audience. The bigger the audience the more games, and the more money they can afford to spend developing those games. Well thats where we draw lines in differentiation. But just a reminder, I am a consumer. All I really care about is that the product I chose to purchase suits my needs and wants. Financial success is no correlation to better game returns and audiences to people whos highest interest is in making a good buck. Sometimes it all just sounds like mindless nagging... "I'm scared kids are not playing Nintendo games - whats in store for the future?". Its gets a little too pretentious. Armchair analysts etc. Im not saying there aren't good ideas pouring in, but do something that makes it count... There seems to be a repetitive habitual Nintendo bash bug these days that gets 'bluh'. Im no expert, but I don't believe the business habits of Sony and Microsoft are under so much scrutiny... And just because they have healthy sales (like the Wii) - thats not to say thats based on them making the right moves. Edited April 23, 2014 by King_V
Sheikah Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Financial success is no correlation to better game returns and audiences to people whos highest interest is in making a good buck. If the Wii U was hugely successful sales-wise (let's say even more than the PS4/X1), it'd get more third party support. The more support, the more likely you are to strike gold. With next to no support, other than their own titles, it's unlikely they'll get much good at all.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 If the Wii U was hugely successful sales-wise (let's say even more than the PS4/X1), it'd get more third party support. The more support, the more likely you are to strike gold. With next to no support, other than their own titles, it's unlikely they'll get much good at all. How? and how much so? As a consumer of the Wii U product, it would have been nice to have, say, GTA5 on it. But with that game being readily available on other platforms - how does that create a USP for the Wii U? How many console exclusives are there nowadays? The strongest USP Nintendo has ever had are its own games. Van Gogh was an artist, Nintendo is a business. It's a business that sells art (depending who you ask), but it's still a business. Van Gogh was not. I would say: Art drives the business - Nintendo being the artists.
Sheikah Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 That's exactly the mentality that Nintendo has that I think is just wrong. "The other consoles have that title too, why would people buy it on our hardware" /Can't compete. I remember the days when N64 was bitch smacking the realm with the like of Ocarina of Time and Mario 64, in every perceivable angle.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 That's exactly the mentality that Nintendo has that I think is just wrong. "The other consoles have that title too, why would people buy it on our hardware" /Can't compete. But I think that just might be a sensible decision - why should Nintendo throw money at some of these companies for their games, when the games they create sell more?
Cube Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 I would say: Art drives the business - Nintendo being the artists. But if Van Gogh paid someone else to do a painting and sold it as one of his, it wouldn't work. Whereas Nintendo can hire another company to make the game for them, like they do with companies like Next Level Games. They just need to pick the right ones and let them work on something with a different feel to their games. During the N64 era, Nintendo had Rare to provide different kinds of games from Nintendo (even when it's the same genre, like Mario and Banjo). They have Retro Studios, but Retro Studios can't churn out great games as fast.
Ashley Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 I would say: Art drives the business - Nintendo being the artists. Yes but Nintendo operates as a business (i.e. they are licensed as one, listed on stock exchanges, return taxes etc as such). Van Gogh wouldn't have done the equivalent of his time (obviously it was a different environment, but you get the gist). Nintendo is a business that hires artists, but it is not an artist itself.
Sheikah Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 But I think that just might be a sensible decision - why should Nintendo throw money at some of these companies for their games, when the games they create sell more? To be honest, the defeatist comment I made is more applicable to when they designed the Wii U. Rather than make a console that could compete with the others as well as run their original games, they opted purely for the latter. Even if their games sell more, it would have been better to have both.
Cube Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 But I think that just might be a sensible decision - why should Nintendo throw money at some of these companies for their games, when the games they create sell more? More varied games = more console sales = more sales of Nintendo's games.
Jonnas Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Nintendo is both a business AND an artist*. Van Gogh was merely the latter. *For all intents and purposes, it is. Iwata is someone who cares as much about quality products as he does about business, if not more so. Also, are we digressing? I think the intent was "we grew up with Nintendo and a lot of Nintendo's popularity/success relies on this nostalgia (the 'core' franchises getting regular updates, recent stuff like NES Remix, HD remakes etc) and Nintendo aren't capturing the young market as successfully now. How will this affect Nintendo in 15-20 years time?" I think.... I would argue that. NES Remix, sure. Wind Waker HD, yeah, fair point (did Nintendo make more than one HD remake?) But the latest games in series like Mario, Zelda, etc. aren't supposed to target nostalgia, they're targeting the new generation, always. Miyamoto (I think it was him) has had the plot of a Zelda game rewritten because he felt it was inaccessible to new players, for example. Whether they do, in fact, sell is another matter, but they're always designed and released with a new generation in mind. I highly doubt a couple of cheap games on the eShop reflect what they think of their audience's tastes, anyway. No, I was talking about Nintendo's inability to diversify. I'm not criticising the game for being family friendly, I'm criticising Nintendo for only making games that are very family friendly and very Japanese because as pratty pointed out, you're ignoring other demographics (and importantly, ones that have the economic power within households) when your output is that narrow. As for the Japanese thing, well kids may not care but adults have a more discerning taste (everyone acquires tastes as they grow up) and you can't assume they are going to be happy one regional form of game (especially considering the shift the industry has made this past decade from East to West - look how low home console sales are in Japan, too). And Nintendo didn't use to be like this. Seriously, what happened to making games like Eternal Darkness, Geist, 1080/Waverace, Banjo-Kazooie, Jet Force Gemini, Perfect Dark? Even weird left-field games like Conker's Bad Fur Day. Seriously, Nintendo's output now is a creative shadow of its former self. Nintendo make Japanese games because they're Japanese I do agree they should get more American/European/Other developers on their side, though. They're only as diverse as the amount of teams they have. Funny you should mention those games, as they were almost all made by Rare. What did Rare&Microsoft do to not be making that anymore? (They're western studios and everything!)
Ashley Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Sorry, perhaps I should have said "greatly benefit" from nostalgia rather than rely on it.
Sheikah Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 But the latest games in series like Mario, Zelda, etc. aren't supposed to target nostalgia, they're targeting the new generation, always. Mario I agree, Zelda no way. Zelda targets people who have bought Zelda games before. For the most part, people who have been with it since the glory days of OoT and Wind Waker (and before). Zelda sells on the theme and lore it has built up over the years. I imagine most people buying Zelda games are long term Zelda fans or people who are long term Zelda fans buying it for someone else.
Serebii Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Mario I agree, Zelda no way. Zelda targets people who have bought Zelda games before. For the most part, people who have been with it since the glory days of OoT and Wind Waker (and before). Zelda sells on the theme and lore it has built up over the years. I imagine most people buying Zelda games are long term Zelda fans or people who are long term Zelda fans buying it for someone else. That's bull. If Zelda did that, we wouldn't have the long tutorials that us classic Zelda gamers continue to whine about.
Sheikah Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 That's bull. If Zelda did that, we wouldn't have the long tutorials that us classic Zelda gamers continue to whine about. My bad. Because Nintendo do something for the minority of new players, I must be wrong. Come on, think about what you're typing Serebii! For once. Of course Zelda primarily caters to long term fans. It's not a new generation of players grabber like Wii Sports , Minecraft or Mario Galaxy, is it?
Serebii Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 My bad. Because Nintendo do something for the minority of new players, I must be wrong. Come on, think about what you're typing Serebii! For once. Of course Zelda primarily caters to long term fans. It's not a new generation of players grabber like Wii Sports , Minecraft or Mario Galaxy, is it? Mario Galaxy is as much a new player grabber as Zelda.
Sheikah Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Well that is where I disagree. Mario Galaxy was the kind of unblemished fun that appeals to just about anyone (and SM3DW, which even had my girlfriend playing). Zelda is a game that primarily appeals to the existing fanbase. It's the kind of series that when you hear the Zelda jingle it makes you happy, because you know what you're getting and it appeals to nostalgia.
Jonnas Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Mario I agree, Zelda no way. Zelda targets people who have bought Zelda games before. For the most part, people who have been with it since the glory days of OoT and Wind Waker (and before). Zelda sells on the theme and lore it has built up over the years. I imagine most people buying Zelda games are long term Zelda fans or people who are long term Zelda fans buying it for someone else. Zelda games are famous, and the fanbase makes a big deal out of it every time, and it might even be likely that most of the sales come from the fanbase... But new gamers still enjoy Zelda a lot, and each game is always made so that a new generation likes them. If they really only appealed to nostalgia, stuff like Wind Waker, Minish Cap, Phantom Hourglass and Link Between Worlds wouldn't have existed. The reason we like the tune is not because we heard before, but because it really just is a charming, memorable tune. That's like saying James Bond films exist exclusively to please the fanbase, and the proof is that they all use the same opening theme. They exist because it's a good license, true and tested, and it appeals to a variety of people.
Sheikah Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) I'm not saying a new gamer can't enjoy Zelda (they would enjoy it probably more than us on account of it being a first experience of it). I am saying it is made in such a way to appeal to and sate the existing core fan base. It is the series that long time Nintendo enthusiasts demand, and expect. This topic agrees with what I'm saying - so far the consensus seems to be that tablet apps and Minecraft/LoL lead the way with young people/new players today, not these games. Edited April 23, 2014 by Sheikah
Jonnas Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Well yeah, but that's nothing to do with core design of the Zelda series. What everybody (including young'uns) is playing depends on a variety of factors, and specific design decisions that appeal to masses. -Pokémon has been played by children for so long due to achieving a balance between accessibility and depth coupled with an engaging concept. -Lego/Minecraft offer incredible versatility that rewards creativity. -Tetris, Candy Crush, Zuma, etc. are infinite puzzle games designed to be addictive and compelling. Angry Birds, Minesweeper, Solitaire, etc. are the same thing. Add portability into the mix and there's the appeal to keep playing. -Super Mario Bros, Sonic and Call of Duty were all just the right game at the right time. Zelda is still a very good series, but it never was something that children in general flocked to play. Rather, it was those that were into gaming in the first place that flocked to it, just like with other games such as Final Fantasy.
Sheikah Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) Zelda is still a very good series, but it never was something that children in general flocked to play. Rather, it was those that were into gaming in the first place that flocked to it, just like with other games such as Final Fantasy. New gamers/children/young teens making their own first major choices of what video games to get. I am putting them together when I say Ocarina grabbed these people, but current Zelda does not (to the same degree). To back up what I'm saying, I'm willing to bet most of us here got into Zelda when we were fairly young, or at least fairly 'new' to gaming. Truth is, the game was groundbreaking back then (as in, people hadn't seen that kind of thing before) but now people have a strong idea of what they are getting. Nintendo deliver a similar gameplay experience each time, an experience lots of people want to relive. The latest chapters in this argument are Wind Waker HD, LTTP 2 and OoT 3DS. Pure fan service - a whole 3 recent games is basically really hammering my point home - Nintendo know what this series is about. Dem fans. They're the main purchasers! Edited April 23, 2014 by Sheikah
ChloboShoka Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Remove the Wii from the equation and every Nintendo console has sold less than its predecessor. Very worrying. And I don't think calling the latest one Wii 2 would have bucked that trend. Isn't the gameboy/Gameboy colour one of the best selling consoles?
Dcubed Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 In regards to the whole "nostalgia" debate, do remember that for Nintendo, their IPs are nothing more than vessels for carrying their new ideas and gameplay concepts. Excluding remakes (for obvious reasons), the way that Nintendo make their games involves them rapidly prototyping new gameplay mechanics and concepts and then wrapping one of their existing IPs around it (if none of their current IPs fit, it is then that they make a new one). A Link Between Worlds is a good example of this. The main reason why that game exists is because they came up with this wall merging mechanic and wanted to build a game around this; they tried a 3rd person view but found that it didn't work very well - it felt too rote and boring - so they prototyped a top-down view and it ended up working much better. However, Nintendo didn't have many resources to go around at the time so the game had to be pushed back; being restarted again when Aonuma decided to re-use the setting of A Link to The Past (both because he and Miyamoto wanted to experiment with an S3D re-imagining of ALTTP and because it would allow them to make the game very quickly). Thus "A Link to the Past 2" was born. Not as a nostalgic cash grab, but because it just so happened to be the best way to present this new gameplay concept. It's not that they use nostalgia purely for nostalgia's sake, but rather it's just a fact that they treat their past with respect and understand how to make use of it going forth. All of their new games are designed around new players in mind - even Zelda and Fire Emblem. What do you think things like Super Guide and Casual Mode (in Fire Emblem Awakening) are for!? Nintendo always go out of their way to make all of their games as accessible as possible and always go out of their way to attract new fans with every game. If they were just aiming at their existing fanbase, then they wouldn't bother introducing new ideas and concepts, they would just keep rehashing the same tired concepts over and over again. They know that they have to keep broadening their reach because their fanbase is dwindling and will continue to do so unless they can succeed in capturing new audiences - that's why they did the Touch Generations series in the first place!
Recommended Posts