Nintendo Switch - Happy Switchmas Everyone!

[Pestneb]

But what if they did, and then focused on delivering new and great ideas?

 

You can't have a console floated on a few select massive titles. I think Nintendo need to shift their output to be at least 50% new concepts, characters and series for the next generation. They're stagnating and I'm getting bored of a lot of their series now.

 

Nintendo have finite resources....

And you know... Nintendo gamers do have their FIFA, COD, Assassins Creed etc... They're Mario, Splatoon, Zelda, Mario Kart, Smash bros etc.

 

All gamers have a core of games they demand from a console, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. The new tech DOES allow all these games to advance in ways that maybe subtle but are still only possible with new tech.

I remember round Mario 64, a 3d mario was just the stuff of dreams. Again, Metroid prime, was that possible on the N64?

 

I don't see a problem with having the same characters and series at all.

Changing focus, but I recall two instances where food chains "mixed things up" and ditched my favourite dishes (or sauce in one instance). I was adventurous a couple of times, but having found nothing that satisfied me like the ditched dishes, I walked away and haven't been back in either establishment since.

 

I think it is important that the cater to the current audiences, give those mario platformers (3d and 2d), give them zelda, splatoon, mario kart, smash bros, expand on those with donkey kongs, f-zero, 1080, wave race, excite (bike truck w/e).

Then expand the menu with new titles. I don't think Nintendo are entirely devoid or new experiences. Looking at the GC, I recall Doshin, Wii Day of disaster (that was Nintendo right? maybe I'm wrong), back to GC animal crossing, Wii U obviously splatoon.

Not all their new offerings take off, but they should be in the minority. Sure they need to innovate with their ip's but they need to provide stability so that the user base have a good idea of what to expect on a Nintendo console.

[Sheikah]

Nintendo have finite resources....

And you know... Nintendo gamers do have their FIFA, COD, Assassins Creed etc... They're Mario, Splatoon, Zelda, Mario Kart, Smash bros etc.

 

All gamers have a core of games they demand from a console, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. The new tech DOES allow all these games to advance in ways that maybe subtle but are still only possible with new tech.

I remember round Mario 64, a 3d mario was just the stuff of dreams. Again, Metroid prime, was that possible on the N64?

 

I don't see a problem with having the same characters and series at all.

Changing focus, but I recall two instances where food chains "mixed things up" and ditched my favourite dishes (or sauce in one instance). I was adventurous a couple of times, but having found nothing that satisfied me like the ditched dishes, I walked away and haven't been back in either establishment since.

 

I think it is important that the cater to the current audiences, give those mario platformers (3d and 2d), give them zelda, splatoon, mario kart, smash bros, expand on those with donkey kongs, f-zero, 1080, wave race, excite (bike truck w/e).

Then expand the menu with new titles. I don't think Nintendo are entirely devoid or new experiences. Looking at the GC, I recall Doshin, Wii Day of disaster (that was Nintendo right? maybe I'm wrong), back to GC animal crossing, Wii U obviously splatoon.

Not all their new offerings take off, but they should be in the minority. Sure they need to innovate with their ip's but they need to provide stability so that the user base have a good idea of what to expect on a Nintendo console.

Well I didn't just say not the same characters and series, I said I wanted new concepts too, which definitely covers a game like Metroid Prime or Mario 64. The problem with Nintendo's established series is that they're older than most and a very large proportion of their output. They have loads of money and keep making the same types of games. I'd like them to be more daring, like they once were.

 

You look at a game like God of War that's in development and it's totally different to the old type of games, almost unrecognisable. If they are just going to reuse their characters I would like to see some total reimaginings of how the gameplay looks and feels. Starting first? Pokemon!

[Clownferret]

This IMO is a problem with the average Nintendo gamer's mindset and one that I feel Nintendo have for sure propagated over the years. Nobody seems to be yearning for new stuff or at least has any faith in Nintendo to do great off more than their big titles. I seem to see people all the time wanting old series revived but very rarely wanting totally new ideas. As you say...you think they'd be mad to release these big games at launch. But what if they did, and then focused on delivering new and great ideas?

 

You can't have a console floated on a few select massive titles. I think Nintendo need to shift their output to be at least 50% new concepts, characters and series for the next generation. They're stagnating and I'm getting bored of a lot of their series now.

 

Not this nonsense again. How can you criticise Nintendo for releasing one game per generation for their big franchises as churning out the same old stuff when you wax lyrical about Sony all the time which is a console that relies predominantly on yearly updates. If @Ronnie had made the counter argument to that you would have lambasted him. You criticise him for his blind devotion to Nintendo but you are completely blind to the fact that you are his exact replica but to Sony.

[Ronnie]

I'd launch with both Mario and Zelda.

 

It's a waste. You're combining their two biggest hitters. 1080 or F-Zero around Christmas doesn't exactly have the same prestige as a brand new Mario adventure.

[Sheikah]

Not this nonsense again. How can you criticise Nintendo for releasing one game per generation for their big franchises as churning out the same old stuff when you wax lyrical about Sony all the time which is a console that relies predominantly on yearly updates. If @Ronnie had made the counter argument to that you would have lambasted him. You criticise him for his blind devotion to Nintendo but you are completely blind to the fact that you are his exact replica but to Sony.

 

This is one of the more ignorant posts on here in a while (particularly the bolded) and has reminded me of the maturity of some posters in this topic. The really annoying thing here is that my post was totally focused on new games and development, and the discussion that could bring, and you have ground that to the floor over some perceived bias you think I have rather than, you know, my comments surfacing because I actually want certain things from games for my own enjoyment (for reference, my only comment related to Sony was about the reimagining of God of War). Wahey!

 

As for the rest - those yearly update games you speak of are not made by Sony. And Sony have tonnes of other games floating their console, many of which are totally new games.

 

Nintendo have much less third party support and even if just comparing Nintendo to Sony (without the third party support PS4 gets), Nintendo are a lot more conservative with their releases. I want to know, what will Nintendo do to make me want their next console? I have played many Smash games, Pikmin games, Pokemon games; all of which seem, at least to me, hardly progress each generation to the point that I see little point in buying the sequels. When people like me get fed up, what is there to buy the system for?

Edited November 3, 2016 by Sheikah

[Ronnie]

Nintendo have much less third party support and even if just comparing Nintendo to Sony (without the third party support PS4 gets), Nintendo are a lot more conservative with their releases.

 

A new Dark Souls game, a new Uncharted game, a Tearaway remake, a new LittleBigPlanet game, a Last of Us remaster, a new Killzone, a 4 hour Order 1886, a Gravity Rush remaster is hardly Sony going crazy. Will they finally have a big first party Christmas game this year?

[Sheikah]

The Order, Bloodborne, Horizon Zero Dawn, VR stuff, Last Guardian, Driveclub, Knack (lol). I personally think they are doing enough new (although that is obviously down to taste)...and they have the third parties making new types of games to back their system up...which Nintendo don't.

 

The only large scale game on the Wii U that was totally new that I can think of is Splatoon. It was also really well received, so I'd like them to try more totally new ideas.

[Happenstance]

Oh yay, Nintendo v Sony round 9846

[Sheikah]

Oh yay, Nintendo v Sony round 9846

It is frankly bullshit. I want a candid discussion about Nintendo and the direction they're going, without the usual ad hominem and pantomime.

[Pestneb]

You can't have a console floated on a few select massive titles. I think Nintendo need to shift their output to be at least 50% new concepts, characters and series for the next generation. They're stagnating and I'm getting bored of a lot of their series now.

 

This got me thinking about how much newness Nintendo put out there each generation.

 

I did a very quick look at games that were relatively big sellers.

 

Nes 100% (being the base that's easy - I disregarded the arcade past though so perhaps the percentage should be lower)

Snes 75%

N64 60%

GC 40%

Wii 15% (I did lump all the wii games in one category - play, party, sports, fit etc.)

Wii U 25%

 

So Nintendo seem to be starting to improve on originality with the Wii U. (Just an example, I counted mario kart as a new idea)

 

I then looked at series lifetime success. There are issues with my methodology, this is only meant to be a sweeping thing. Also some titles suffer from the home console only thing...

 

1.Mario platformers

2.Mario Kart

3.Smash bros

4.Zelda

5.Donkey Kong country

6.Wii series

7.Duck hunt

8.Starfox

9.Mario Party

10.Nintendo Land

10.luigi's mansion

10.Tetris

13.Splatoon

13.Animal crossing

13.Pokemon

13.Dr Mario

17.Mario Maker

17.Paper Mario

17.F-zero

17.Excite Bike

21.starfox adventures

21.Mario Paint

21.Golf

24.kirby air ride

24.wave race

24.Kung Fu

27.Mario strikers

27.yoshi platformer

27.baseball

30.Punchout

 

 

Finally I looked at impact per console - this is just the average performance of the series per console relative to other games.

 

1. Mario Platformers

2. Mario Kart

3. Duck hunt

4. Smash bros

5.Wii series

6.Nintendo land

6. Luigi's mansion

8. Splatoon

9. Zelda

10. Mario Maker

11. Donkey Kong Country

12.starfox adventures

12. Mario Paint

12. Golf

15. Kirby Air Ride

15.Kung Fu

17.Animal Crossing

17. Starfox

17. Mario Party

20. Pokemon

21. Wave Race

21. Dr Mario

21. Tetris

21. Baseball

25.Paper Mario

25. F-zero

27. Excite Bike

28. Mario Strikers

29. Yoshi platformers

30. Punchout

 

 

 

 

Not too keen on my methodology though, some of my favourite series come too low!

But all these titles were purchased by at least about 5% of the console owners, so even the punchout series is (or at least once was) a big hitter, even if it is ranked 30th.

I'd say that list is by and large a good representation of what is expected in terms of Nintendo software.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Pestneb

[Retro_Link]

Can't stand it when the forum descends into these arguments.

 

It's even worse when they aren't represented accurately - on either side.

[Mr-Paul]

I think launching with both Mario and Zelda could be a good thing. Nintendo really need to go all out with this, to impress. They need to make a good start.

 

People see the new Nintendo console, see an awesome new Mario, and an awesome new Zelda, they'll think: oh shit, I need to buy that.

 

Launch with one of them, they might say: that looks really cool, I want it, but I'll wait.

 

Then there's some who Mario doesn't appeal to. There's some that Zelda won't appeal to. Don't think that they both cover the same audience.

 

It benefits Nintendo for people to buy early. Don't give them reason to wait. Zelda and Mario will still be there at Christmas. They can still be advertised. They don't stop being a system seller after their initial period of release. For god sake, GTA is still in the charts every damn week and that came out years ago.

 

Nintendo need longevity in their sales. Get the people in early with Mario and Zelda, then you've got them. Interest them with the rest of the catalogue.

 

Later on you can offer the bundles with the likes of Mario and Zelda packed in, offering later adopters great value.

 

There's no need to hold back content as long as you keep bringing content out, have a well supported console, which it is more likely to be if people buy it early, and they advertise it well!

[killthenet]

I can totally appreciate that you might be trying to have an intelligent and open debate about how Nintendo can win round their lapsed fans but it just descends into childish dick measuring between you and Ronnie every time you bring it up. Surely you've realised by now that's never going to change?

 

And yeah, there are positives and negatives to launching with both Zelda and Mario but spreading out their top tier releases to provide a more balance release schedule isn't going to hinder their ability to promote new IP.

 

EDIT:

 

Agree with Mr Paul, launching with both could turn out to be a genius move. The Wii U's problem wasn't it's attach rate but the fact that nobody had heard of the bloody thing. Coming out of the gate with Mario and Zelda is certainly a way to grab attention.

Edited November 3, 2016 by killthenet

[Sheikah]

This got me thinking about how much newness Nintendo put out there each generation.

 

I did a very quick look at games that were relatively big sellers.

 

Nes 100% (being the base that's easy - I disregarded the arcade past though so perhaps the percentage should be lower)

Snes 75%

N64 60%

GC 40%

Wii 15% (I did lump all the wii games in one category - play, party, sports, fit etc.)

Wii U 25%

 

So Nintendo seem to be starting to improve on originality with the Wii U. (Just an example, I counted mario kart as a new idea)

 

I then looked at series lifetime success. There are issues with my methodology, this is only meant to be a sweeping thing. Also some titles suffer from the home console only thing...

 

1.Mario platformers

2.Mario Kart

3.Smash bros

4.Zelda

5.Donkey Kong country

6.Wii series

7.Duck hunt

8.Starfox

9.Mario Party

10.Nintendo Land

10.luigi's mansion

10.Tetris

13.Splatoon

13.Animal crossing

13.Pokemon

13.Dr Mario

17.Mario Maker

17.Paper Mario

17.F-zero

17.Excite Bike

21.starfox adventures

21.Mario Paint

21.Golf

24.kirby air ride

24.wave race

24.Kung Fu

27.Mario strikers

27.yoshi platformer

27.baseball

30.Punchout

 

 

Finally I looked at impact per console - this is just the average performance of the series per console relative to other games.

 

1. Mario Platformers

2. Mario Kart

3. Duck hunt

4. Smash bros

5.Wii series

6.Nintendo land

6. Luigi's mansion

8. Splatoon

9. Zelda

10. Mario Maker

11. Donkey Kong Country

12.starfox adventures

12. Mario Paint

12. Golf

15. Kirby Air Ride

15.Kung Fu

17.Animal Crossing

17. Starfox

17. Mario Party

20. Pokemon

21. Wave Race

21. Dr Mario

21. Tetris

21. Baseball

25.Paper Mario

25. F-zero

27. Excite Bike

28. Mario Strikers

29. Yoshi platformers

30. Punchout

 

 

 

 

Not too keen on my methodology though, some of my favourite series come too low!

But all these titles were purchased by at least about 5% of the console owners, so even the punchout series is (or at least once was) a big hitter, even if it is ranked 30th.

I'd say that list is by and large a good representation of what is expected in terms of Nintendo software.

I certainly wouldn't say that 25% of Wii U games are new games in the vein of what we were discussing. I also think this is a bigger problem for the larger scale games.

 

Just wondering why you included MK8 - I'm not sure what was really new about it (anti gravity didn't really add anything).

Edited November 3, 2016 by Sheikah

[Pestneb]

I certainly wouldn't say that 25% of Wii U games are new games in the vein of what we were discussing. I also think this is a bigger problem for the larger scale games.

 

Just wondering why you included MK8 - I'm not sure what was really new about it (anti gravity didn't really add anything).

 

I only looked at high selling games (games likely to appear in a owners game library). My measure for that was games that sold around 5 copies (or more) for every 100 consoles sold.

Within that subset of games, a quarter of the Wii U's titles were new concept games by my reckoning. Having said that, only 15 games met the "high selling" criteria.

I counted Nintendo Land, Splatoon, Mario Maker and Captain Toad to be new games... this is in quite a limited sense, but these are games I would say are distinctive and had potential to become series while not being directly from an existing series. Yes Toad came from 3d world, but as that was from this generation, only a mini game AND distinct from the mario series mechanic (where I would count jumping as key) I'm considering the game as "new". Mario maker.. sure track editors exist and have done for a long time, but again, this was quite distinct from prior games from Nintendo as a developer.

 

I included mario kart for the snes generation, but no, MK8 is a game I would consider to be a refinement of what has come before (ignoring the battle mode and some elements of the online system!) I mention mario kart (not mario kart 8/doubkle dash etc.) because while it is using the mario universe characters, the game is nothing like a mario platformer. I would actually consider Mario 64 and super mario bros to NOT be different from each other, since they are both platformers. I appreciate that the 2d and 3d viewpoints make significant changes to how the game is played, but the very core (traverse course, avoid enemies, stomp/fire flower etc. enemies to remove them.. generally evil bowser, save peach etc) is the same. It comes to where you draw the line.

 

I think launching with both Mario and Zelda could be a good thing. Nintendo really need to go all out with this, to impress. They need to make a good start.

 

There's no need to hold back content as long as you keep bringing content out, have a well supported console, which it is more likely to be if people buy it early, and they advertise it well!

 

Part of the problem is that Nintendo need 3rd parties, and if they over saturate the console early on with 1st party titles, it is likely that 3rd party sales will struggle in a crowded space.

 

Nintendo need to leave enough space for (and perhaps dare I say it even promote) 3rd party titles. Obviously if this 3rd party support will come "next year" for the next four years, definitely, Nintendo need to go in and throw lots of titles in, get hardware out there. Where there is 3rd party support though, Nintendo need to pause and put a spotlight on those titles, make them sell so other third parties see they've missed out and left a market open to the competition.

 

Of course which route is best does depend on how many 3rd party AAA titles are coming out. Nintendo SHOULD know that in concrete terms and should be preparing accordingly.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Pestneb

[Rummy]

Because then what? Another 3-4 years till the next Zelda and Mario games? It'd be a waste, no publisher drops two of their biggest games out on the same day, that would be stupid.

 

Wow, for the man who's always telling people they're 'negative' about Nintendo you sure don't hold out much hope for them being able to survive on more than just a few titles. Exactly what's wrong with everything right now

 

Personally, I've got much more faith in them. I think launching with your big titles(especially given time since their last one) is sensible to get the system sold and installed; to then garner further support for it.

[Ronnie]

Wow, for the man who's always telling people they're 'negative' about Nintendo you sure don't hold out much hope for them being able to survive on more than just a few titles. Exactly what's wrong with everything right now

 

Personally, I've got much more faith in them. I think launching with your big titles(especially given time since their last one) is sensible to get the system sold and installed; to then garner further support for it.

 

Would Rockstar release GTA 6 and Red Dead 2 on the same day?

 

Would Bethesda release Fallout 5 and a Wolfenstein sequel on the same day?

 

Bioware with ME Andromeda and a new Dragon Age game?

 

No, because that would be stupid. I have every confidence that Nintendo will have a packed software line up of their own, but that still doesn't mean they should put their two biggest games out on day 1. Releasing a brand new Mario game around Christmas time is the perfect way to get a big boost in sales.

[Rummy]

None of those are systems manufacturers and hence I think you know they're irrelevant to the point.

[Sheikah]

Those developers aren't trying to get a system of theirs to sell during the crucial launch period.

[Retro_Link]

It's a shame Mario isn't the launch game, the name that the whole world recognises, and Zelda the Christmas game (like OOT), but the Mario/Zelda cycle is what it is now.

 

I think more important than having Mario and Zelda at launch is having a diverse line-up akin to the Gamecube.

 

Show the consumers and fans a statement of intent...

 

Wave Race, Monkey Ball, Crazy Taxi, Batman, Baseball, Madden/FIFA, BMX, ISS, Star Wars, Disney's Tarzan, Donald Duck, Tony Hawk, Burnout, Extreme G 3.

 

There's literally something for everyone.

 

Breath of the Wild will bolster the launch significantly. And instead of Luigi's Mansion this time around, launch with Mario Kart/Splatoon 1.5 or a sequel to Captain Toad or something.

 

Get your hands on as many Sports titles and GOTY/Complete DLC Editions as you can, like Star Wars: Battlefront, Doom, Dark Souls 3, Hitman... and importantly, every big games that is launching in Feb/March.

Edited November 4, 2016 by Retro_Link

[Goron_3]

It's a shame Mario isn't the launch game, the name that the whole world recognises, and Zelda the Christmas game (like OOT), but the Mario/Zelda cycle is what it is now.

 

I think more important than having Mario and Zelda at launch is having a diverse line-up akin to the Gamecube.

 

Show the consumers and fans a statement of intent...

 

Wave Race, Monkey Ball, Crazy Taxi, Batman, Baseball, Madden/FIFA, BMX, ISS, Star Wars, Disney's Tarzan, Donald Duck, Tony Hawk, Burnout, Extreme G 3.

 

There's literally something for everyone.

 

Breath of the Wild will bolster the launch significantly. And instead of Luigi's Mansion this time around, launch with Mario Kart/Splatoon 1.5 or a sequel to Captain Toad or something.

 

Get your hands on as many Sports titles and GOTY/Complete DLC Editions as you can, like Star Wars: Battlefront, Doom, FallOut 4... and importantly, every big games that is launching in Feb/March.

 

An ambitious Mario titles will take time to develop and I'd rather wait out for the new Mario then get a NSMB type title just for launch. Zelda will definitely be enough, even if it's a cross gen title that started as a Wii U game, but I do hope we get some other western focused I.P. A Wave Race type title would go down well.

 

Looking back at it, the Gamecube launch period was brilliant. I mean, Rogue Squadron releasing on day one as an exclusive was stellar - I do miss those days. Melee missed launch but came out a couple of weeks later...Good times.

[Retro_Link]

An ambitious Mario titles will take time to develop and I'd rather wait out for the new Mario then get a NSMB type title just for launch. Zelda will definitely be enough, even if it's a cross gen title that started as a Wii U game.

Oh yeah I know, I just would have preferred (for the consoles sake) that Mario had been there - that Nintendo had a long term plan for the launch line-up and had been developing a Mario to showcase the system as the N64 did so perfectly.

 

Who knows, maybe Mario will make launch or at least the first 3 months of the console. It will have been over 3 years since 3D World (and that couldn't have taken much effort #troll).

[Strange Cookie]

So... It's been a couple of years since I've been here, but apparently the original gamers have been replaced with stubborn analysts who like nothing more than to argue endlessly about strategies of big companies none of us are actually part of or what defines as a proper 3D-Mario?

 

Can somebody direct me to the FUN N-Europe forum?

[Ronnie]

None of those are systems manufacturers and hence I think you know they're irrelevant to the point.

 

That really makes no difference. Nintendo make the bulk of their money on software. Suggest to those other developers that they release their two biggest titles on the same day and they'll laugh at you. The very idea is stupid. It splits the user base and would be a huge waste of not only sales but buzz and mindshare. Nintendo will have other games apart from Zelda at launch, that'll hopefully make for a great line up.

[Goron_3]

Oh yeah I know, I just would have preferred (for the consoles sake) that Mario had been there - that Nintendo had a long term plan for the launch line-up and had been developing a Mario to showcase the system as the N64 did so perfectly.

 

Who knows, maybe Mario will make launch or at least the first 3 months of the console. It will have been over 3 years since 3D World (and that couldn't have taken much effort #troll).

 

You have to consider the time it takes to make that type of game though. We're only getting Zelda at launch because it's a Wii U port (and the Wii U version is coming out 5 years after the Wii U launched) so whilst it's disappointing, it's understandable.