Young Gamers Are Not Growing Up On Nintendo

[Sheikah]

Nintendo may have had a new idea with the wall merging but there's no question that by making it a LTTP 2 they were heavily gearing it towards the fans who loved the first one. And the remakes they do also add to this - Zelda is more fan service than new player grabber. If it wasn't, they'd make more effort to change the formula they use for nearly every game. How many times now do you go through a dungeon and grab the small keys, then the dungeon item, then the boss key and the heart container? Then the Master Sword at some point?

 

It is blatantly a familiar nod to fans of the service. While Galaxy had its semi transformation by 'bitesizing' its levels, I believe Zelda has yet to do something similar to make it truly appeal to the new gamer.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Sheikah

[Serebii]

Nintendo may have had a new idea with the wall merging but there's no question that by making it a LTTP 2 they were heavily gearing it towards the fans who loved the first one. And the remakes they do also add to this - Zelda is more fan service than new player grabber. If it wasn't, they'd make more effort to change the formula they use for nearly every game. How many times now do you go through a dungeon and grab the small keys, then the dungeon item, then the boss key and the heart container? Then the Master Sword at some point?

 

It is blatantly a familiar nod to fans of the service. While Galaxy had its semi transformation by 'bitesizing' its levels, I believe Zelda has yet to do something similar to make it truly appeal to the new gamer.

Ever consider the fact that it's not one or the other, but could actually be both at the same time? Simply something that tugs on nostalgia for the classic gamer and lures new people in. Aside from locale, A Link Between Worlds had no ties to A Link to the Past.

[Sheikah]

Ever consider the fact that it's not one or the other, but could actually be both at the same time? Simply something that tugs on nostalgia for the classic gamer and lures new people in. Aside from locale, A Link Between Worlds had no ties to A Link to the Past.

 

Why would I consider the untrue? It is as I say. I'm not trying to be confrontational here, it's just the way it is. Zelda is a series that sells mostly to existing fans and as such delivers a familiar experience and remakes to please them.

 

We've had 2 remakes and one direct sequel in this generation alone, possibly more if Majora is confirmed. Don't get me wrong, it's a great opportunity for a new gamer to try these titles out, but let's not pretend that the main reason these are being done is anything other than fan service.

[Dcubed]

Nintendo may have had a new idea with the wall merging but there's no question that by making it a LTTP 2 they were heavily gearing it towards the fans who loved the first one. And the remakes they do also add to this - Zelda is more fan service than new player grabber. If it wasn't, they'd make more effort to change the formula they use for nearly every game.

 

That has been Nintendo's focus with Zelda for the last 4 games (Phantom Hourglass, Spirit Tracks, Skyward Sword and A Link Between Worlds). Each Zelda game since Twilight Princess has focused strongly on trying to break away from series norms.

 

Phantom Hourglass did this by introducing a completely new control scheme, ditching the typical Zelda style dungeon structure (Temple of the Ocean King) , simplifying certain aspects of the series mainstays (like pieces of hearts being ditched in favour of just having full heart containers like in Zelda 1 and 2) and a new focus on multiplayer, customisation (ship building) and communication (trading ship parts).

 

Spirit Tracks built on top of Phantom Hourglass with refinements of the new concepts brought in from that game (Spirit Tower, a simpler real-time multiplayer mode etc) and also ditched the typical Zelda overworld structure - while implimenting the ideas and concepts that they wanted to in PH but didn't have time.

 

Skyward Sword went a step further and blurred the lines between overworld and dungeon, moved even further away from the typical Zelda overworld (going to a level select style structure) and overhauled Zelda dungeon design again (introducing more Metroid like backtracking) as well as overworld design (moving towards an open field design where landmarks and corridor like designs were removed and user-made landmarking was used in its place to enable new types of open field designs without the player getting lost and to enable gameplay where the environments get re-used and re-invented in such ways that they play off the player's knowledge of the environment that they had built up).

 

And of course A Link Between Worlds ditched the usual Zelda item acquisition system in favour of the rental system and focused on allowing the player to complete the dungeons in any order they liked - as well as new communication features like Streetpass, new gameplay mechanics like the wall merging, dark light etc...

 

The Zelda series has been constantly re-inventing itself for an age now. For how much some people love to rag on about how it supposedly always follows the "Ocarina of Time Formula", there are actually only 3 games in the whole series that actually follow this structure (A Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess - even Wind Waker deviates significantly, despite also featuring the Master Sword and the plot souvenirs that lead up to it). Hell we actually have more games that follow the Zelda 1 structure (Zelda 1, Link's Awakening, Oracle of Seasons, Oracle of Ages), than the one from A Link to the Past!

[Ashley]

I wasn't trying to suggest Nintendo do "nostalgia for nostalgia's sake" or accuse them of a "nostalgic cash grab", but merely pointing out they benefit (financially and otherwise) from nostalgia regardless of whether or not they were intending to. If they're not getting in the young audiences like they used to, it might have an impact in the future.

[Sheikah]

Really? I wouldn't say SS/TP deviated much from the established formula at all. Sure you're using motion controls, but does that really change the game content? Do people think Nintendo are currently making games like never seen before because they are controlled via Gamepad? The answer to the last one is obviously no.

 

Despite what changes they had, they're still using OoT's dungeon formula, aren't they?

[dazzybee]

I don't deny it, but the word nostalgia is slightly... Demeaning, like that's the only reason. I think the fact that pretty much every game they release is incredible is more important than nostalgia.... I guess there's a fine line between nostalgia and just simply loving a world and characters. Nostalgia for me is loving batfink and heman as a kid and loving it now, but actually they're pretty shit.

[Dcubed]

Really? I wouldn't say SS/TP deviated much from the established formula at all. Sure you're using motion controls, but does that really change the game content? Do people think Nintendo are currently making games like never seen before because they are controlled via Gamepad? The answer to the last one is obviously no.

 

Despite what changes they had, they're still using OoT's dungeon formula, aren't they?

 

On a macro level (in terms of the order of enter dungeon-find map/compass/item/boss key-kill boss), yes SS does use the same basic concept; but the way that you go about doing that is totally different. Skyward Sword's dungeons are more like areas in Metroid; where you find yourself backtracking through different areas once you set up shortcuts or have obtained different items (a good few of the dungeons in SS actually have you revisit them several times throughout different points of the game too!)

 

Even Twilight Princess (which was designed specifically to be an evolution of the OOT formula) deviates from the typical Zelda dungeon design greatly (Snowpeak Temple is probably the best example as it is absolutely nothing like an archetypal Zelda dungeon)

 

With Skyward Sword in particular they actually de-emphasise the dungeons in general too. The main idea behind that game was to merge the overworld and dungeons together in order to blur the lines between the two. Zelda isn't just a series about dungeon crawling...

Edited April 24, 2014 by Dcubed

[Jonnas]

This whole pre-conceived idea that "Sequel=Similar game" irks me. Any serious look at Link Between Worlds, Majora's Mask and Phantom Hourglass shows that they are only marginally linked to their predecessors.

 

Why would I consider the untrue? It is as I say.

 

And the most arrogant quote goes to...

[Sheikah]

 

And the most arrogant quote goes to...

 

Hell yes, that's exactly what I was going for. And it felt good, too. Why waste too many words arguing what is obviously true?

 

If people want to believe that Zelda is not at its heart a traditionalist nod to its existing fanbase with its conserved mechanics and remakes/sequels then let them. If they want to believe that the implemented motion controls really shakes the series up then, again, let them!

 

It's a waste of words convincing people that are utterly determined to shun reality.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Sheikah

[dazzybee]

Hell yes, that's exactly what I was going for. And it felt good, too. Why waste too many words arguing what is obviously true?

 

If people want to believe that Zelda is not at its heart a traditionalist nod to its existing fanbase with its conserved mechanics and remakes/sequels then let them. If they want to believe that the implemented motion controls really shakes the series up then, again, let them!

 

It's a waste of words convincing people that are utterly determined to shun reality.

 

And you wonder why everyone gets irritated by you....? If you don't want to waste words why are you still speaking?

[Sheikah]

And you wonder why everyone gets irritated by you....? If you don't want to waste words why are you still speaking?

 

I honestly couldn't give a flying fuck if people here get irritated by me. Just saying. If they want to work themselves up about what I'm saying, so be it.

[Grazza]

I look at it like this (and it's a bit of an essay, I'm afraid):

 

When I was a kid, the NES was an extremely revered console, but this was not because it was aimed at kids. It was because it was pretty much the best games console on the market and the games had a reputation of being better and more involving than the competition's. If you think back to things like Super Mario Bros 2 or 3, they were seen as the best game cartridges money could buy.

 

When I was a young teenager, the most revered machine was the SNES. As a Mega Drive owner, I lost count of the times Nintendo fans boasted about how much better the Super Famicom was going to be - mostly the infamous quote "it can display more colours!" Fair play to the SNES though. With games like Super Mario World and A Link to the Past, we all knew it offered the best experiences around.

 

As a mid-teen, we were tremendously excited about the forthcoming Ultra 64. Remember those far-fetched mock-ups of the locomotive and what Donkey Kong might look like? Even so, the N64 was genuinely revolutionary. It had the power to back up Nintendo's amazing software. With Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time, we knew this was the best of the best - and in fact, those two are still revered to this day by a very wide audience. Analogue sticks, Z-targeting... Gaming was going 3D, and Nintendo was the company who knew how to do it.

 

But something happened that restricted the N64's popularity - the Sony PlayStation. This is where trends started to infiltrate the games industry. It was trendy to have one under your TV, regardless of whether you'd played the SNES/Mega Drive. Whilst I won't claim the SNES and Mega Drive didn't attract a casual buy here and there, I'd argue the PlayStation was the first time a trend had a negative effect on the existing market. We kidded ourselves that gaming was getting bigger and bigger, but really it was just companies learning to target demographics better. Whilst I agree with the premise of this thread, I think the truth is that kids just follow trends like anyone else.

 

This led Nintendo to feel they weren't getting enough of the market, but perhaps they still had the gamers' attention after all. I'd argue that throughout the days of the GameCube, although it was never trendy, they still had the attention of more gamers than they do now. With the Wii, though, they truly stepped out of the race, and gambled on making successful one-off products. Extremely successful one-off products at times, but still one-offs. Although the Wii had great games like Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3, fewer gamers were willing to give the company their attention. It just wasn't the same as the Mario 64/Ocarina of Time days, when the hardware backed up the software.

 

Now we seem to be in a situation where less and less people are interested in Nintendo and, in all honesty, I think it's very easy to see why. The only way to be relevant is to either be trendy or to be in the race. Nintendo was popular when it was actually great, not just because it was good at marketing. The best games on the best (or comparable) hardware. Whilst the most dedicated will still make sure they experience Nintendo's output, they are not going to send thrills through the wider population's veins until they get back in the race.

[Serebii]

Slow and steady wins the race

[liger05]

I think the Gamecube was kinda a turning point. PS2 was hot, edgy and leading the way then the follow up to the N64 was a purple box with a handle on it. I loved the GC but I can see why teenagers would look it and think 'nah thats a console for babies'.

[tapedeck]

It fascinates me how we are in the commodification era of gaming. The more I mature and read between the lines, it seems that the world we live in today is all about extracting as much as possible from something before leaving it for dead and moving on to the next big thing. I see this in gaming circles where companies like EA, Activision and UbiSoft create rapid sequels and when the sales drop they move on. Some of these titles are good, but it makes me apathetic towards the value of their software and the industry at large. I feel like I am now a manipulated consumer in a market that is set against a backdrop of constant arguments about how many polygons are on screen and 'my box is better than your box' discussions. I can't stand gaming stores anymore as huge corporate logos and "LOOK AT THIS LATEST BLOCKBUSTER" is shoved down your throat where Nintendo software is placed around the corner on a lowly shelf because it features cartoon baby dinosaurs, plant-like people or a monkey wearing a tie. Heaven forbid that we don't embrace something that isn't highly sexualised or violence-centric. When I reflect on such aspects I realise that growing up in the 80's and 90's was a much softer time where gaming was explorative and built on foundations of fun.

 

Young gamers aren't growing up on Nintendo because SONY and Microsoft brands are cool, edgy and offer titles built on instant usability.

It's an old adage from 1999 onwards but you can play Playstation with your mates when you come in from a nightclub and not have to think about it. Titles like FIFA, MADDEN, COD, HALO, FORZA, TITANFALL rinse, repeat and sell in their millions. Nintendo's titles usually appear obtuse in nature and require new ways of thinking with every release. They also lack branded sport titles and as Konami have found out - you may as well surrender without official branding. EA have monopolised that market to an obscene level.

 

The young generation want insta-gratification too. Many parents today are digital natives (to coin Prensky) and expect their digitally native children to engage with multimedia platforms such as gaming. Yet many parents are now gamers too and they want to share their gaming experiences with their kids. Too much placating goes on - resulting in little tommy playing - or sitting and watching daddy play GTA. We have a society where kids get whatever they want to keep them happy. Consumerism at its finest resulting in kids with iPhones/tablets and much, much more - all of which has little inherent value when it's just another iWant.

 

So, the solution?

Mobile gaming is in every pocket of every kid in many cultures now. Nintendo need to engage with that audience as this could be the way in which they globally establish their brands once again. Nintendo have been facing a cultural evolution away from their 'innocent' image since the late 1990's. Now they have multiple platforms to fight off too and a home console dead on arrival. The industry is bigger than ever but if that industry becomes narrower, all of the gaming companies will suffer. Especially when EA release a FIFA box...

[Jonnas]

The whole "parents letting kids watch them play GTA" baffles me, mainly because it does, indeed, happen.

 

I don't play GTA, but if I did, that would be the last game I'd let my young child see! I mean, I wouldn't let them watch a Tarantino film, why would I let them watch me do gratuitously violent things on-screen?

[Sheikah]

Parents letting them watch? Letting them play is more likely around here. Yep, Britain isn't short of bad parents.

[tapedeck]

Parents letting them watch? Letting them play is more likely around here. Yep, Britain isn't short of bad parents.

 

I agree, it's almost 'normal' where I live which saddens me the most.

I do believe its a wider cultural issue though. The western world is seemingly based on instant gratification. This is at odds with Eastern cultures which seem more balanced from this side of the pond, with penchants for aspects such as spirituality, inner peace and less of a focus on rampant consumerism.

I believe this lies at odds with western philosophy/culture and is why Nintendo seem out of touch with westerners.

 

The videogame industry fascinatingly gives an insight into such aspects in my opinion. The industry is a changed beast from its infancy in the 80's and 90's.

I do find it funny how UK based games in the 80's were Monty Python-esque and utterly creative, before Japanese powerhouses such as Nintendo and SEGA took the mantle, driving Eastern ideals (SNES) and Western ideals (SEGA) through their mascots and respective genres. (Genesis/MD being sports/cool/tubular and SNES being confident but not bold, offering RPG's aplenty and methodical, complex titles like SMW). Their philosophies and approaches to the industry at this time fascinates me to this day.

 

When SONY arrived, the industry became mainstream and the world of gaming changed forever.

[Ashley]

I do believe its a wider cultural issue though. The western world is seemingly based on instant gratification. This is at odds with Eastern cultures which seem more balanced from this side of the pond, with penchants for aspects such as spirituality, inner peace and less of a focus on rampant consumerism.

 

 

I found this interesting as it is not how I would imagine it. Japan to me is a country of rampant spending.

 

So I looked into it and it's only one article, so feel free to point me elsewhere, but it's interesting: http://www.bls.gov/opub/focus/volume2_number16/cex_2_16.htm

 

Looking at table one (comparing US, UK, Canada and Japan), Japan spends the most on food, second most on culture/entertainment/recreation, second last on clothing. There are other categories, I just picked the general 'leisure/indulgence' ones (although obviously this is open to interpretation).

 

Obviously we can't make an east vs West point out of this (unless someone wants to do the weighted figures), but I feel that in spite of its spiritual side, Japan is very much a culture with a large capitalistic drive.

[Phube]

Parents letting them watch? Letting them play is more likely around here. Yep, Britain isn't short of bad parents.

 

The whole "parents letting kids watch them play GTA" baffles me, mainly because it does, indeed, happen.

 

I don't play GTA, but if I did, that would be the last game I'd let my young child see! I mean, I wouldn't let them watch a Tarantino film, why would I let them watch me do gratuitously violent things on-screen?

 

 

LOL This is me... bad parent alert!! I let my 4 1/2 year old daughter play GTA V!

 

To be fair though I'm a sensible parent. She loves driving games and it was okay when I had NFS:MW but now all I have is GTA V, so I get out to the desert, turn the sound off (most important) and let her drive over the countryside (she love driving the cars up the steep hills for some reason?) S

 

She has no idea there are guns in the game, all she knows is that is you hit too many (or the wrong) car the police will chase you (just like NFS:MW).

 

Just waiting until MK8 is released then we can play some proper driving games!

[Dcubed]

I agree, it's almost 'normal' where I live which saddens me the most.

I do believe its a wider cultural issue though. The western world is seemingly based on instant gratification. This is at odds with Eastern cultures which seem more balanced from this side of the pond, with penchants for aspects such as spirituality, inner peace and less of a focus on rampant consumerism.

I believe this lies at odds with western philosophy/culture and is why Nintendo seem out of touch with westerners.

 

The videogame industry fascinatingly gives an insight into such aspects in my opinion. The industry is a changed beast from its infancy in the 80's and 90's.

I do find it funny how UK based games in the 80's were Monty Python-esque and utterly creative, before Japanese powerhouses such as Nintendo and SEGA took the mantle, driving Eastern ideals (SNES) and Western ideals (SEGA) through their mascots and respective genres. (Genesis/MD being sports/cool/tubular and SNES being confident but not bold, offering RPG's aplenty and methodical, complex titles like SMW). Their philosophies and approaches to the industry at this time fascinates me to this day.

 

When SONY arrived, the industry became mainstream and the world of gaming changed forever.

 

I wouldn't necessarily say that it's something that is exclusive to "the west"... F2P games, browser games and the like are just as popular in Japan as they are over here (actually even moreso!)

 

And of course they have (and still have) the largest market for arcade games (which are the classic example of instant gratification games).

 

These are trends that are being followed worldwide... But Nintendo has never been a trend follower anyway (in fact they pride themselves on NOT chasing trends, but rather following the sound of their own drumbeat; for better or worse).

 

I don't know why people in general are so laser focused on the whole "East vs West" narrative in gaming. It's as if fans and industry media feel a compulsive need to beat their own cultural chest at every given opportunity (to the point where I actually think it's borderline racism/xenophobia in certain places...)

 

Nintendo has never even been a really "typical" Japanese developer anyway. They strive to be as culturally neutral as possible with almost all of their games anyway (and that also includes the developers that they work with too; they have always had a decent number of 1st and 2nd party development partners outside of Japan and that has only increased as time has gone on; even accounting for the loss of Rare, Left Field and DMA design)

Edited April 25, 2014 by Dcubed

[Sheikah]

They strive to be as culturally neutral as possible with almost all of their games anyway (and that also includes the developers that they work with too; they have always had a decent number of 1st and 2nd party development partners outside of Japan and that has only increased as time has gone on; even accounting for the loss of Rare, Left Field and DMA design)

In complete contrast to this, I'm always left with the impression that they are very Japanese in terms of their quality output. Which has always been fine for me, since I don't expect Nintendo games to be Western. But if people are looking for that in the Wii U, they're going to be disappointed. At least if they're looking for Western titles that are as good and numerous as the Japanese games they produce.

[tapedeck]

I do believe its a wider cultural issue though. The western world is seemingly based on instant gratification. This is at odds with Eastern cultures which seem more balanced from this side of the pond, with penchants for aspects such as spirituality, inner peace and less of a focus on rampant consumerism.

I believe this lies at odds with western philosophy/culture and is why Nintendo seem out of touch with westerners.

 

Let me elaborate...

 

Yes, Japan is consumer-focused. With a labour market so focused on production, the populous can't avoid a consumer way of life. Thanks for the insights and facts though @Ashley and @Dcubed, always good to receive some intelligent, backed-up info and learn from coming here.

 

I do still believe that the eastern world (as western as it is becoming) still offers a different ideology from a cultural viewpoint, which manifests through much of the art they produce. The fingerprints of western-appealing character designs are within Nintendo as seen in Mario/Link/Samus (each of them based either on European body types or influenced by western ideas/media/myths). It's no surprise those titles export well.

 

I think it's important that we recognise cultural diversity by celebrating differences. That's why I love and buy Nintendo products. They are SO unique in many ways.

But these are things that DO affect Nintendo's perception in the market. Young people are easily led and if all they see is video games where a caucasian, muscle bound male with a gun is the main focus all the time - that's where my concerns would lie. Actually, we're kinda at that point with the AAA model from the major western studios (and Capcom/MGS), interesting. I don't want to go round in circles and I know it's difficult to approach the subject of culture/identity without sounding xenophobic/racist but like I say, I'm just keen to point out that this is perhaps a reason that Nintendo could be facing issues in this global market. It's just an opinion. : peace:

Edited April 26, 2014 by tapedeck

[Dcubed]

Let me elaborate...

 

Yes, Japan is consumer-focused. With a labour market so focused on production, the populous can't avoid a consumer way of life. Thanks for the insights and facts though @Ashley and @Dcubed, always good to receive some intelligent, backed-up info and learn from coming here.

 

I do still believe that the eastern world (as western as it is becoming) still offers a different ideology from a cultural viewpoint, which manifests through much of the art they produce. The fingerprints of western-appealing character designs are within Nintendo as seen in Mario/Link/Samus (each of them based either on European body types or influenced by western ideas/media/myths). It's no surprise those titles export well.

 

I think it's important that we recognise cultural diversity by celebrating differences. That's why I love and buy Nintendo products. They are SO unique in many ways.

But these are things that DO affect Nintendo's perception in the market. Young people are easily led and if all they see is video games where a caucasian, muscle bound male with a gun is the main focus all the time - that's where my concerns would lie. Actually, we're kinda at that point with the AAA model from the major western studios (and Capcom/MGS), interesting. I don't want to go round in circles and I know it's difficult to approach the subject of culture/identity without sounding xenophobic/racist but like I say, I'm just keen to point out that this is perhaps a reason that Nintendo could be facing issues in this global market. It's just an opinion. : peace:

 

I'd go a step further myself and say that it's not just a matter of a homogenisation of visual design and marketing, but also the actual types of games themselves. 12-25 males have been conditioned to only find interest in the types of games that "AAA" studios find to be easy to produce and sell (FPS games, sports games, "dudebro" titles that sell based off their production values and licenses rather than the actual gameplay) and obviously that in turn makes it near impossible for the likes of Nintendo to attract them; as their core strengths are at total odds with the direction of the traditional side of the industry at large (which is why they gave up on that rat race with the DS and Wii in the first place)

 

While it could be said to be an issue of cultural divide to some extent (after all, the likes of Capcom and Konami have largely thrown away their identity in an attempt to chase this demographic to the grave), I wouldn't really say that the games that Nintendo produce (barring a few notable exceptions like Fire Emblem and Sin & Punishment) have ever really been Japan focused anyway. In fact, Nintendo's first sets of character designs back in the Game & Watch era were actually very much inspired by 1940s American animation (most obviously Popeye - a property that Miyamoto actually originally wanted to use in place of Donkey Kong!)

 

Look at their older character designs...

 

 

 

 

 

Very reminiscent of characters from the Popeye and Mickey Mouse era. Even from the very beginning, their character designs haven't ever been what you would typically see as "Japanese" in style...

 

And that traditional western style even continues across time too...

 

 

 

(Hell the game as a whole was explicitly said to take inspiration from Thunderbirds, which is about as British as it gets!)

 

 

 

Even amongst Japanese developers, Nintendo has always gone against the grain; and not just in character design too... (I don't really need to explain how their style of game making and the gameplay of their games is like no other developer, Japanese or otherwise do I? Zelda alone is an obvious enough example...)

 

No matter the zeitgeist or how the winds of trends change, they're gonna keep sticking to how they want to make games - and that's nothing new for them either...

 

... Nintendo's problems are of their own making, from how unique they are, not as a result of cultural trends specifically...

Edited April 26, 2014 by Dcubed