Nintendo: Complete Modernisation, Traditional Values or Both?

[Ganepark32]

I was a little hesitant to make this a thread as I’m not sure how much discussion there’ll actually be and worry that it might devolve but in the end, what the hell.

 

This is something I’ve been thinking about quite a lot recently with certain discussions across multiple threads in relation to Nintendo, but also more generally in terms of where the games industry currently is and where it’s heading. I thought it might be interesting to hear people’s thoughts about whether they feel Nintendo is in need of a complete restructure to bring it back up to the standards most of us expect from them or whether they should stick to their traditional values and focus on those features which made them one of the biggest gaming companies. It’s not about what they’re doing wrong with specifics about consoles but rather, more a discussion of how you think Nintendo should or could change their structure and games to better suit today’s games industry; a back and forth of ideas on how Nintendo could improve themselves on those fronts and that is what this thread is about. So please don’t turn it into a pissing match about who has or hasn’t done what, etc.

 

The industry has obviously become incredibly Westernised over the last generation in terms of how games have been made and the ideas being pushed. So while what some would call traditional gaming values (i.e. Japanese style of development) has waned, it’s still apparent in small doses and Nintendo is one of those companies that strongly adhere to those values. Yes, they’ve got the likes of Retro Studios, and work with Monster Games and Next Level Games, but for the most part they feel traditional in the way they conduct themselves in the industry.

 

Some might think this is a good thing, but it feels dated now and for me personally, I think Nintendo need to be making more efforts to appear and act as a global corporation with less reliance in top-down influences coming out of Tokyo and Kyoto spreading down to their subsidiaries in North America and Europe. Both NoA and NoE are working at the will of NoJ, which is fair enough seeing as it is a Japan-based company. But what I believe Nintendo should be doing is not using those divisions are simple Yes-men but rather allowing them to take advantage of the opportunities and talent that exist in their respective regions. Keep NoJ as they corporate head but allow NoA and NoE to make their own decisions and spearhead their own development endeavours with some of the established talent, or even better some of the new up and coming talent, in these regions to diversify the titles that they’re producing.

 

By allowing both NoA and NoE to invest and grow into their own entities and proper divisions within the company, while still having them tethered to NoJ to filter back rhetoric and for global brand recognition, distribution, etc., could significantly improve Nintendo’s standpoint within the industry and currently, help them with development of new titles to fill the void that is being left by third parties, be these fully fledged big budget games or smaller “indie”-esque eShop titles.

 

I’m not sure how feasible it would be but I do think it would certainly mean that in terms of third parties, there would be less disparity and clear understanding between Nintendo and them. I mean, look at how Sony designed the PS4: they took an almost entirely Westernised approach to its development and in doing so have garnered the praise of both Western and Japanese developers which is why it is performing well at market; because consumers can see the future prospects of the console.

 

It doesn’t mean Nintendo would need to lose sight of their traditional values but would potentially grant them an openness, such as through giving NoA and NoE more power and be integral, key pieces of the company rather than what they appear as at the moment, which could resolve some of the problems that they face from their reticence over adopting features common place for online on other consoles, hardware configuration and get developers and gamers back on side.

 

New talent and a diversification of their library beyond the steps they’re making at the moment, which aren’t big enough in my views, particular coming from NoA and NoE’s regions which incorporate the ideas which have flourished over the past few years (such as narrative, cinematics, and so on) and produce titles which can cater to a wider slew of customers. Give the online to people in their North American or European houses and let them deal with it if they can’t quite get to grips with integrating it in an appropriate way. Not being able to answer whether a game is going to include voice chat really isn’t acceptable in this day and age. It would allow them to be more forward thinking and still allow them to develop games the way they want to.

 

They have the capital to invest so doing it in a way as such would offload some of the constraints that NoJ are placing on getting up to today’s standards and pulling teams away from one project to fill in the gaps on another, which could potentially allow for modernisation and resolution of some of their problems. I say could because who knows if it would work. But as many devs have said, including some of Sony’s and Microsoft’s own people, Nintendo’s failure in the market is bad for the entire industry so finding new ways to bring them up to the standard we expect of them is a reasonable and important debate.

 

Anyway, I’ve rambled on for long enough (and what I’ve written is probably an incoherent mess) so I turn it over to you guys. How would you change Nintendo, if you would at all, to better cater to today’s gaming industry?

[Hero-of-Time]

Brilliant post.

 

I dunno how to tackle all of that as there's a lot to take in.

 

I think they need to do more to be more of a global company. You can see that they still favour their home market with the various promotions they have and all the big scoops go to the Japanese publications. I think this home market thinking is a big reason why they have failed to attract the western gamer.

 

I would like to see more story driven titles from the company. Sadly I feel they aren't interested in making such games. It certainly is more of a western approach to gaming and i've found myself more and more enjoying these types of games, especially when the graphically capability has reached a point where you can see the emotion in characters faces, which really draws you into the game.

 

I wouldn't want them to change their way of how they make games or the high standard they set for themselves though. One of the big things I like from Nintendo is that quality always shines through and when they are firing on all cylinders they have the ability to make something really special.

 

The industry has become very westernised and I think if Nintendo want to remain relevant in the home console market they need to sit up and have a look at what is going on outside of Japan. Maybe not for their games but certainly for their hardware and what it offers.

[pratty]

As with most things, I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Though I think Nintendo should still lean towards their tradition values, it's what they do best and it's what gives them their unique identity that sets them apart for better or worse.

 

The trouble is often we discuss these things in terms of absolutes, such as "Nintendo is kiddy", and "Sony is hadcore" etc, when it's all shades of gray. As such I think they only need to tweak their approach rather than drastically overhaul their structure or philosophy. in terms of western style story driven games I think Other M was almost there.

 

I would like to see more story driven titles from the company. Sadly I feel they aren't interested in making such games. It certainly is more of a western approach to gaming and i've found myself more and more enjoying these types of games, especially when the graphically capability has reached a point where you can see the emotion in characters faces, which really draws you into the game.

 

I think if anything Nintendo games have actually become increasingly story driven over the years. Of course stories for Nintendo are more means to an end, rather than the end themselves, and I think that's for the most part the correct use of stroy in a video game. That's not to say you can't have complex and interesting stories, but gameplay should come first. I don't think Nintendo have ever set their stall out to be storytellers, and nor have I expected them to be. Zelda and to a lesser extent Metroid always had decent stories, but I never played them for the their stories, or came away felling that I enjoyed their stories more than the gameplay itself, and that was fine.

 

Nothing wrong with having story heavy/driven games though, but I'm not convinced Nintendo needs to make them. All that matters is that they're on the console whoever does, so a priotity for me would be getting 3rd party devs on-side to make those games on Nintendo's hardware.

 

That said Nintendo are in effect indirectly developing at least one RPG that we know off, which will be an exclusive. Whilst not 'western' it should be the type of game to appeal more to western audiences who enjoy story driven games. They also got Lego City Stories exclusive (published it I think too), Nintendo need a more of that, more western developed exclusives. As long as Nintendo get/keep the 3rd parties onboard they should't need to do too much themselves. Metroid already lends itself quite well to that sort of game aswell.

 

I've always thought though that there's more to the popular 'western' style of game than story. Story is part of it, but more than that I think they come down to living out a (mostly macho) fantasy. And that's not meant as a knock, to etiher those games or the gamers that play them, it just is what it is. Rather than story I think this is where Nintendo loses it's appeal with a lot of 16+ male gamers.

 

Nintendo generally don't make bad games, the reviews don't lie, so what's wrong with them to so many people? I'd suggest it's that you can't live out a fantasy through them that you can relate to. People play sports games to make their team champions, to make themselves champions. They want to save the world in a scenario they can relate to, as an anthropomorphic animal, or in some trippy mushroom kingdom. They want to play the anti-hero and do all the outrageous stuff they couldn't do in real life without getting in trouble. They want to drive the supercars they will never afford. Even Nintendo's games that have stories are too far removed to present a relalistic and relatable escapist fantasy for a lot of people.

 

I think Nintendo could possibly offer one or two games like that but I wouldn't want them to go overboard in that direction, not least because those games would surely come at the expense of the other Nintendo games we all know and love. Nintendo by themselves can't be all things to all people, we can't just point to however many billion Nintendo has in the bank and say that's why Nintendo should do everything and please everyone. It doesn't work like that.

 

I wouldn't want them to change their way of how they make games or the high standard they set for themselves though. One of the big things I like from Nintendo is that quality always shines through and when they are firing on all cylinders they have the ability to make something really special.

 

I agree with this, as much as i'd like to see some subtle changes in Nintendo, I don't want to see games rushed out games for the sake of it. For these kinds of western games to have any relavence they're going to have to be very good. Better Nintendo turn heads with one or two corkers than relase a wave of games to "mehs" of indifference.

[qaism123]

What TV do you have? Do you know which ports are available on the back of it? Which consoles are you trying to connect?