Young Gamers Are Not Growing Up On Nintendo

[Jimbob]

In my family, as far as i know i've got 2 cousins whom both play Nintendo still. Both are under 16 (14 and 9) and they play on their 3DS consoles. Out and about on the streets, there are 2 young people (i think aged about 9 or 10) whom play on a DS when i see them in town. And i do see some younger people playing on various Nintendo handhelds about on a weekend in the city.

 

But other than that, nothing. Last time i bought a Nintendo game in-store, it was spotted by a group of people whom called me "childish" and i should be playing great* games like Call of Duty and FIFA, which according to him and his friends, is 10x better than Donkey Kong. It's starting to feel like Nintendo is becoming what the 90's were to gaming, people playing in discretion.

 

*I laughed

[dazzybee]

I would say both the Playstation and Xbox brands have grown into something more over the years. Both started out as games machines and now both are multimedia devices.

 

You also have to look at the way they have evolved their online services. Both have come leaps and bounds from the original machines in this regard and have grown their user base by creating an online ecosystem that gamers enjoy and become attached to.

 

In terms on games, I agree that Microsoft has a long way to go to get a diverse line up but Sony have done a great job last gen, especially once they seen they were on the back foot. You have Uncharted and Infamous ( 3rd person both new IPs) Resistance and Killzone ( 1st person Resistance was a new IP ) Sly Racoon, Puppeteer ( new IP ) and Ratchet & Clank are all great platformers. Heavy Rain & Beyond ( new IPs ) gave a cinematic edge to gaming. They also pushed online gaming with the likes of Warhawk and MAG.

 

You also have to factor in the 3rd party titles which both Sony and Microsoft get on their platforms, which again offer a more diverse line up of games.

 

I wouldn't call that diversifying! Maybe with the multimedia but not really. Just having strong ip, whether it's new or not is immaterial with regards to what we're saying, it's still in the frame of traditional console set up. And that's what is being doubted now, that mobiles have invaded and Nintendo aren't competing.

 

In a way, your point proves kind of what I was *trying* to say! that it isn't mobile necessarily as Sony are still in a traditional console framework and successful. So Nintendo don't have to embrace mobile or whatever, they just need to improve (in my opinion) in the right areas - improving their image is vital I think. How? Is it even possible?

[Cube]

I think it's absolutely insane that Nintendo haven't personally funded the development of a Wii U version of Minecraft, especially as they can create some GamePad uses for it, and it perfectly suits Nintendo's demographic of family games.

[liger05]

I think it's absolutely insane that Nintendo haven't personally funded the development of a Wii U version of Minecraft, especially as they can create some GamePad uses for it, and it perfectly suits Nintendo's demographic of family games.

 

Yes that is mental. They should of done whatever it took to get that on nintendo platforms.

[pratty]

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.

 

If you include handhelds though, the DS sold roughly double the GBA, which I think is relevent as we're talking children's gaming and handelds are very child freindly. Obviously the Wii-U and 3DS look to underperform in comparrison, but the I think the Wii and Ds were at the peak of the videogame popularity graph, where all the market and economic stars and planets were in allignment.

 

We were always going to see a leveling off, I think it would be arrogant of Nintendo to assume that the Wii and DS sales were the new norm and that they could even expect to improve on that.

 

Personally I don't care if a child doesn't grow up on Mario, (or Mickey Mouse, or Barbie or whatever). I don't think there upbringing will be any worse off. Any concern would be purely as a stakeholder in Nintendo.

 

Even then the concern of Nintendo leaving money on the table with mobile gaming is to over-simplify Nintendo as a business, that is as a business of purely making money, a concern voiced the loudest by speculative investors who are funnily enough also only interested in making money, and by gamers who for some reason would rather talk business than games. Nintendo are in the business of making games and hardware because they are passionate about both, if it was just money they were interested in they'd probably be better off in other industries. To sell their hardware they need exclusives, end of.

 

If kids aren't playing Mario it's because they don't want to badly enough. They won't pay £25 for something like Super Mario 3D Land (even though it's absolutely top drawer quality) when they can play Candy Crush for free. They're not that bothered, and to be fair why should they be? It's their choice.

 

Equally I find most kids will happily play Mario etc if they're exposed to it, but they've still got one eye on whatever the big thing going is that everybody is talking about at school, typically some shooter or epic RPG on Playstation/Xbox, and so that's what they invest their money in.

 

As such Nintendo has been knocked for their poor marketing, perhaps there is justification for this at times, but somethimes there is just no accounting for consumer decissions, both their informed preferences and also their stupidity.

 

Yes, consumer stupidity. Have you watched kids and their parents shopping for Wii games? If you reading the back of a box and are looking at the pictures on the box in a game shop, to decide if you should buy a game, then you've already fucked up. You're not as informed as you could be and more likely to make a regretable purchase.

 

Look at local adverts for people selling their Wiis, look at the games that come with it, movie licenses and shovelware garbage, maybe they have Mario Kart, but that's probably because it was bundled with the Wii. There's no Mario Galaxy, or NSMB, or DKCR, or even Smash Bros. Probably because they thought it was better value to buy a dozen marked down poor to average games, then buy a handful of the top quality games available, that would actually entertain their children better and for longer than a large quanity of inferior games. These people end up blaming Nintendo for their poor expereince with the Wii, when they were either too cheap or too stupid to actually buy the best games available for it.

 

A tenner here of there for Iron Man or some My Little Pony bullshit seems quite affordable, over time they spend a fortune on these games, but £20 for Super Mario Galalxy? No that's too dear! You could get Iron Man AND Iron Man 2 for that.

 

A friend of mine with 3 kids is allways packing their Wii away ("gathering dust" blah blah), and struggling to find it again when they do want it, why? Because the only game anybody wants to play it Mario Kart, because that's the only game worth playing they've bought for it.

 

I'm probably veering off topic, but I'll bring it back with this observation. The friend above is a mature gamer, growing up oin Nintendo and Saga, and now primarily plays on PS3 and PS4 for his tastes. And so his kids grow up on Playstation also, they have inherited his PS2 and PS3 for their back room, they have a Wii and a DS and even a Sega Staurn available also, but these are generally afterthoughts and side attractions, they're essentialy a Sony household, based on the fact that their dad prefers Sony. So regardless of whether his kids (all girls by the way) would actually prefer Mario, Link, DK and Kirby, and I actually think they do, he'll always lean the family towards Sony games. So they end up playing Minecraft and Little Big Planet instead.

 

The difference is when I grew up I wasn't swayed by my parent's gaming prefences because they didn't have any, now I think kids are more likely to follow in their parent's footsteps because now parents play games too, both because that's all they might have available, and because your tastes are often shaped by what you grow up with. If they have a 'family console' and the parent is a gamer, then I think often the parent ultimately decides which console and subsequently which library of games the child will experience, and the child has less say.

 

TL: DR version : If parents are gaming on non Nintendo devices, their kids probably will too.

Edited April 23, 2014 by pratty

[Goron_3]

Some really good discussion here guys, I'm glad to see many people agreeing with my initial post...I was a bit worried about starting this thread tbh!

 

I wouldn't call that diversifying! Maybe with the multimedia but not really. Just having strong ip, whether it's new or not is immaterial with regards to what we're saying, it's still in the frame of traditional console set up. And that's what is being doubted now, that mobiles have invaded and Nintendo aren't competing.

 

In a way, your point proves kind of what I was *trying* to say! that it isn't mobile necessarily as Sony are still in a traditional console framework and successful. So Nintendo don't have to embrace mobile or whatever, they just need to improve (in my opinion) in the right areas - improving their image is vital I think. How? Is it even possible?

 

I think so much of it is simply that Nintendo really on being a sort of 'my first gaming machine' for many people, as they were to us and the generation before us. You grow up playing Nintendo games and even if you migrate to another console later on, you still purchase Nintendo consoles because you want that next Zelda, that next Mario etc.

 

The problem now is simply that, at least from my experience, people don't see Nintendo consoles as a 'my first gaming machine' because those kids are already gaming enough elsewhere, be it on an ipad or a phone. If they don't start playing Nintendo games from a young age, they are never going to suddenly buy a Nintendo console in their mid teens for a game like Donkey Kong or Mario, they'll probably either buy a PS4 or whatever their friends have.

[Hero-of-Time]

I wouldn't call that diversifying! Maybe with the multimedia but not really. Just having strong ip, whether it's new or not is immaterial with regards to what we're saying, it's still in the frame of traditional console set up. And that's what is being doubted now, that mobiles have invaded and Nintendo aren't competing.

 

In a way, your point proves kind of what I was *trying* to say! that it isn't mobile necessarily as Sony are still in a traditional console framework and successful. So Nintendo don't have to embrace mobile or whatever, they just need to improve (in my opinion) in the right areas - improving their image is vital I think. How? Is it even possible?

 

The mobile market doesn't effect the other two nearly as much as Nintendo though. Their handheld business has been a great way to keep the company going when their consoles struggle, with that market getting eaten up then they will have to start focusing on their consoles or look for another source of revenue.

 

You are right in saying though that they need to sort something out. If they are becoming less and less relevant in the console market, while at the same time their handheld sales are being taken away by others, coupled with the fact kids aren't drawn to Nintendo as much as they used to be, then you have a grim looking situation.

 

What can they do? Who knows. They could do with another hit that would get kids involved again, like Pokemon. This would take effort and risk, just like that Skylanders deal we read about last week. A product like that would have put them back on the map and in the minds of the younger audience. Yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing but most of the time there is no reward without risk.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Hero-of-Time

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

If you include handhelds though, the DS sold roughly double the GBA, which I think is relevent as we're talking children's gaming and handelds are very child freindly. Obviously the Wii-U and 3DS look to underperform in comparrison, but the I think the Wii and Ds were at the peak of the videogame popularity graph, where all the market and economic stars and planets were in allignment.

 

We were always going to see a leveling off, I think it would be arrogant of Nintendo to assume that the Wii and DS sales were the new norm and that they could even expect to improve on that.

 

Personally I don't care if a child doesn't grow up on Mario, (or Mickey Mouse, or Barbie or whatever). I don't think there upbringing will be any worse off. Any concern would be purely as a stakeholder in Nintendo.

 

Even then the concern of Nintendo leaving money on the table with mobile gaming is to over-simplify Nintendo as a business, that is as a business of purely making money, a concern voiced the loudest by speculative investors who are funnily enough also only interested in making money, and by gamers who for some reason would rather talk business than games. Nintendo are in the business of making games and hardware because they are passionate about both, if it was just money they were interested in they'd probably be better off in other industries. To sell their hardware they need exclusives, end of.

 

If kids aren't playing Mario it's because they don't want to badly enough. They won't pay £25 for something like Super Mario 3D Land (even though it's absolutely top drawer quality) when they can play Candy Crush for free. They're not that bothered, and to be fair why should they be? It's their choice.

 

Equally I find most kids will happily play Mario etc if they're exposed to it, but they've still got one eye on whatever the big thing going is that everybody is talking about at school, typically some shooter or epic RPG on Playstation/Xbox, and so that's what they invest their money in.

 

As such Nintendo has been knocked for their poor marketing, perhaps there is justification for this at times, but somethimes there is just no accounting for consumer decissions, both their informed preferences and also their stupidity.

 

Yes, consumer stupidity. Have you watched kids and their parents shopping for Wii games? If you reading the back of a box and are looking at the pictures on the box in a game shop, to decide if you should buy a game, then you've already fucked up. You're not as informed as you could be and more likely to make a regretable purchase.

 

Look at local adverts for people selling their Wiis, look at the games that come with it, movie licenses and shovelware garbage, maybe they have Mario Kart, but that's probably because it was bundled with the Wii. There's no Mario Galaxy, or NSMB, or DKCR, or even Smash Bros. Probably because they thought it was better value to buy a dozen marked down poor to average games, then buy a handful of the top quality games available, that would actually entertain their children better and for longer than a large quanity of inferior games. These people end up blaming Nintendo for their poor expereince with the Wii, when they were either too cheap or too stupid to actually buy the best games available for it.

 

A tenner here of there for Iron Man or some My Little Pony bullshit seems quite affordable, over time they spend a fortune on these games, but £20 for Super Mario Galalxy? No that's too dear! You could get Iron Man AND Iron Man 2 for that.

 

A friend of mine with 3 kids is allways packing their Wii away ("gathering dust" blah blah), and struggling to find it again when they do want it, why? Because the only game anybody wants to play it Mario Kart, because that's the only game worth playing they've bought for it.

 

I'm probably veering off topic, but I'll bring it back with this observation. The friend above is a mature gamer, growing up oin Nintendo and Saga, and now primarily plays on PS3 and PS4 for his tastes. And so his kids grow up on Playstation also, they have inherited his PS2 and PS3 for their back room, they have a Wii and a DS and even a Sega Staurn available also, but these are generally afterthoughts and side attractions, they're essentialy a Sony household, based on the fact that their dad prefers Sony. So regardless of whether his kids (all girls by the way) would actually prefer Mario, Link, DK and Kirby, and I actually think they do, he'll always lean the family towards Sony games. So they end up playing Minecraft and Little Big Planet instead.

 

The difference is when I grew up I wasn't I wasn't swayed by my parent's gaming prefences because they didn't have any, now I think kids are more likely to follow in their parent's footsteps because now parents play games too, both because that's all they might have available, and because your tastes are often shaped by what you grow up with. If they have a 'family console' and the parent is a gamer, then I think often the parent ultimately decides which console and subsequently which library of games the child will experience, and the child has less say.

 

TL:DR version : If parents are gaming on non Nintendo devices, their kids probably will too.

 

Even then the concern of Nintendo leaving money on the table with mobile gaming is to over-simplify Nintendo as a business, that is as a business of purely making money, a concern voiced the loudest by speculative investors who are funnily enough also only interested in making money, and by gamers who for some reason would rather talk business than games. Nintendo are in the business of making games and hardware because they are passionate about both, if it was just money they were interested in they'd probably be better off in other industries. To sell their hardware they need exclusives, end of.

 

A-Fucking-Men

[Ashley]

The difference is when I grew up I wasn't I wasn't swayed by my parent's gaming prefences because they didn't have any, now I think kids are more likely to follow in their parent's footsteps because now parents play games too, both because that's all they might have available, and because your tastes are often shaped by what you grow up with. If they have a 'family console' and the parent is a gamer, then I think often the parent ultimately decides which console and subsequently which library of games the child will experience, and the child has less say.

 

TL:DR version : If parents are gaming on non Nintendo devices, their kids probably will too.

 

I think this is a good point.

 

My friend who has three kids plays a lot of games and has a number of consoles and his daughters (and presumably son when he's old enough) will play whatever their father is playing. When I was last around that was LBP and the that Kinect Seasame Street game (well obviously the latter the father wasn't playing, but I think that was relevant...) and I think I've seen him Facebook that they were playing 3D World.

 

If kids are taking after their parents, its a double problem really. Nintendo aren't necessarily keeping hold of all the kids that grew up with their consoles, and subsequently the new generations aren't learning about them.

 

I wonder how many parents give their kids their retro consoles as genuinely I don't think kids will care about graphics as such. I wonder how many sproglets are playing N64s in their bedrooms...

[Jonnas]

I don't really think the topic at hand is important. Sure, kids might be into something else, but that's just life. We didn't grow up with the same toys and diversions that our parents grew with, right?

 

And the implied problem that they're growing up with time-waster games... As if we didn't grow up on Minesweeper and Tetris!

 

How is Pokémon relevant? It's another very Japanese, very family friendly game.

 

We are talking about games that kids play and why they play them, right? Because I don't think that kids care if something is "Japanese" or not, they're still learning the ways of the world, Pokémon is as foreign as anything else.

 

And I fail to see how "family friendly" can be a flaw in trying to please kids. Everything that kids like is family-friendly.

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

When I was about 7 years old, I got a Master System for my birthday with Sonic built-in. I eventually got a Mega Drive, and almost all Sonic iterations. (I played the NES and SNES at friends houses, but was content with Sega).

 

I have now only really been interested in owning Nintendo consoles, whilst at many times admiring the Playstation brand from afar. I have no real fondness for the current Sonic brand whatsoever.

 

The points Im trying to make are:

1) First gaming experiences doesn't necessarily pave the way to where gamers will do their gaming in the future.

2) Things change, shit happens etc. A good game can be crap later down the line, a bad game, good. The most popular now can become barely noticeable (FF?)... We have seen it all.

 

As long as more people are gaming, its all fair game.

[Ashley]

I don't really think the topic at hand is important. Sure, kids might be into something else, but that's just life. We didn't grow up with the same toys and diversions that our parents grew with, right?

 

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....

[pratty]

I think this is a good point.

 

My friend who has three kids plays a lot of games and has a number of consoles and his daughters (and presumably son when he's old enough) will play whatever their father is playing. When I was last around that was LBP and the that Kinect Seasame Street game (well obviously the latter the father wasn't playing, but I think that was relevant...) and I think I've seen him Facebook that they were playing 3D World.

 

If kids are taking after their parents, its a double problem really. Nintendo aren't necessarily keeping hold of all the kids that grew up with their consoles, and subsequently the new generations aren't learning about them.

 

I wonder how many parents give their kids their retro consoles as genuinely I don't think kids will care about graphics as such. I wonder how many sproglets are playing N64s in their bedrooms...

 

I think it happens, but crucially how many parents still have old Nintendo consoles to pass on? Many relatively young parents such as my friend opted for Playstation over Nintendo and never looked back, especially for the Playstation 2. Now he has kids he has passed down his PS2 to his them but he didn't have a Gamecube pass down. In terms of keeping them occupied and entertained, it's not worth him buying a gamecube or N64 just to experience the quality of Nintendo games, or even investing in more quality Wii games, when you can get most PS2 games for 99p. He did recently go to the trouble of setting up Mario Party 2 for them to play via emulator, and they love it, which goes to show there is still an interest in Nintendo but there are specific barriers preventing them prioritising Nintendo gaming which I think these kids might actually prefer.

 

I know another older father who games, he had a PS3 (now a PS4) in the living room, which both he and his young son played, though it was originally mostly for the dad. Not only did his son grow up not playing Mario, but was playing Resident Evil and Killzone etc, taking after his dad, who buys the majoirty of the household's games based on his own tastes. So now when his son asks for games or saves up to buy his own, he chooses the same kinds of games he's grown up on through his dad. So not only is he not that interested in Mario, he's not that interested in platformers at all, playing the 'mature' 'hardcore' stuff instead.

[Daft]

We are talking about games that kids play and why they play them, right? Because I don't think that kids care if something is "Japanese" or not, they're still learning the ways of the world, Pokémon is as foreign as anything else.

 

And I fail to see how "family friendly" can be a flaw in trying to please kids. Everything that kids like is family-friendly.

 

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.

[pratty]

When I was about 7 years old, I got a Master System for my birthday with Sonic built-in. I eventually got a Mega Drive, and almost all Sonic iterations. (I played the NES and SNES at friends houses, but was content with Sega).

 

I have now only really been interested in owning Nintendo consoles, whilst at many times admiring the Playstation brand from afar. I have no real fondness for the current Sonic brand whatsoever.

 

The points Im trying to make are:

1) First gaming experiences doesn't necessarily pave the way to where gamers will do their gaming in the future.

2) Things change, shit happens etc. A good game can be crap later down the line, a bad game, good. The most popular now can become barely noticeable (FF?)... We have seen it all.

 

As long as more people are gaming, its all fair game.

 

It's true that people's tastes can change. But I think as a child you have less freedom to explore other brands, until you can afford your own games you might have to make do with one console or one brand. So if you've grown up playing an Xbox and Halo and Fable etc, you're more likely to ask for a Xbox 360 to keep playing Halo etc. Then when you're older with your own income maybe then you start branching out.

[Serebii]

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....

You're erroneously implying that Nintendo's "iterative" releases of the franchise are based on nostalgia, though.

[Fused King]

 

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.

 

I think NINTENDO has had a hard time since the Wii/DS days and what they had to do with all this untapped casual potential.

This coupled with the transition into the HD/internet age had sometimes made it appear that NINTENDO is indeed more of a general 'toy maker' looking for other interesting ways to make people smile, instead of improving on aspects in games/gaming infrastructure which many 'hardcore gamers' have come to see as 'being original' and 'innovative'.

 

NINTENDO still has a wide array of franchises, but I do agree that the IPs they tend to lay the most focus on are family friendly.

 

Who knows we might even see NINTENDO create a new 'alter ego' internally, reviving their classic red/black logo which will house studios who create games for the 'hardcore'whatever that means...

 

 

Out of everything that has happened with NINTENDO over the years, I still cannot believe they eventually went with a grey logo.

WTF!?!

GREY!?!

Red has much more passion and power written all over it.

[dazzybee]

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.

 

They've just announced a new fatal frame? They paid for w101 and bayonetta 2? In the past few years and coming up they have - xenoblade pandoras tower, last story, x2... Don't these count?

 

As for creativity... I still don't understand why working within established ip means less creativity, mario 3d world has more "creativity" than any other games for years (probably since galaxy), and also, over half of the games you mentioned were rare!

[Ashley]

You're erroneously implying that Nintendo's "iterative" releases of the franchise are based on nostalgia, though.

 

They're based on the popularity of the franchises, which for the most part is built on known quality from the past. Obviously you get newcomers and what not.

 

Most copies of Mario, Zelda etc are sold before anyone really gets their hand on it. We know, having grown up with them, that the previous games have been great and the new ones are very likely to be too.

 

And don't get too hung up on the word "iterative". I used it interchangably with "sequel", "new entry" etc here as I'm at work and it was the first word that came to mind.

[Daft]

They've just announced a new fatal frame? They paid for w101 and bayonetta 2? In the past few years and coming up they have - xenoblade pandoras tower, last story, x2... Don't these count?

 

As for creativity... I still don't understand why working within established ip means less creativity, mario 3d world has more "creativity" than any other games for years (probably since galaxy), and also, over half of the games you mentioned were rare!

 

I just explained how Nintendo games are generally very family friendly and very Japanese. Literally every game you listed comes under 'very Japanese'.

 

Also, I never said working within an established IP meant less creativity. What I will say it that it's FREAKING boring.

 

Half the games I mentioned were Rare, but when Nintendo owned Rare. Have they made anything half as good since Nintendo sold them off? No. They were first party and they were very closely monitored by Nintendo. Why does it matter that they were made by Rare and not in Tokyo?

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

Speaking of nostalgia, I think we are all pretty susceptible to it too... We list hordes of games of a console for a whole generation and seem to compare it with the here and now, namely, the 1.5 years of the Wii U.

 

Though owning the last three consoles, I don't think there was ever a time I wasn't frustrated with Nintendo.

 

But calling Nintendo a shadow of its former self in this point in time, especially where the U is concerned, is a bit wayward.

[liger05]

I think much of it is down to who has the purchasing power. Kids don't have it and dads who play games these days ain't really playing Nintendo. They grow up with dad playing non Nintendo franchises and associate cool videogames as those titles.

 

Times change and Nintendo can change with them if they want. They don't need to lose the franchises we love just need to start some more and embrace adult themed gaming.

[Sheikah]

Speaking of nostalgia, I think we are all pretty susceptible to it too... We list hordes of games of a console for a whole generation and seem to compare it with the here and now, namely, the 1.5 years of the Wii U.

 

Though owning the last three consoles, I don't think there was ever a time I wasn't frustrated with Nintendo.

 

But calling Nintendo a shadow of its former self in this point in time, especially where the U is concerned, is a bit wayward.

 

To be honest, it covers more years than just the Wii U. It was the same for probably the second half of the Wii, too. I think that's a long enough period of time to comment on.

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

To be honest, it covers more years than just the Wii U. It was the same for probably the second half of the Wii, too. I think that's a long enough period of time to comment on.

 

I don't know - Nintendo has always been Nintendo:

 

Low key marketing and advertising.

Minimal adult-themed games.

Not the go-to company for third-parties.

Not known for taking bold steps into the unknown.

 

Saying Nintendo needs to do this and that, is like saying Van Gogh needs to change his art. Slightly ignorant.

[Sheikah]

Saying Nintendo needs to do this and that, is like saying Van Gogh needs to change his art. Slightly ignorant.

 

But what is the alternative? Nintendo carry on? I don't know, man. Their console is bombing.