Nintendo Quality

[Mr_Master_X2]

I think what you say is right, I also agree about 2, worst "main" Mario game in its history. A lot of the games this gen have felt reused or spinoff. I personally don't think we will see another NEW game. Or 3D actually though. I'd put my money in Galaxy 3, but that's probably the same issue isn't it?

 

Ironically, I'd love a new Galaxy game. What a difference an imaginitive theme can make to a game, eh?

[Dcubed]

You have 100+ 3DS games!? Didn't even think there were that many good games worth buying on the thing.

 

Also, did you just call FIFA garbage? There's a community on here who would strongly disagree with you, me being one of them.

 

There's no better football franchise out there right now and I don't dispute that, but the point is that going by Sheikah's logic, it's the best game series ever made; now and forever because it sells the most. I'm pretty sure that we can all agree that that's not the case, considering that it's mostly the same game every year with some minor tweaks and updates.

 

Oh and yes I do. There's a huge amount of quality titles available; maybe not to your taste, but there's a lot more titles worth looking at on 3DS than on N64 in total (which makes sense, considering that it has had far more 3rd party support).

 

Why do you think games that you think are 'garbage' sell well? We are left with two options. The first is that people are bizarre and enjoy playing shit games to torture themselves. The second is that people actually get a lot of enjoyment from those games and you are being a snob.

 

Or maybe because the games that sell well are laser targeted to a large and prolific group of people? The predictable and lucrative male 10-25 demographic. Nintendo's games don't attempt to appeal to this group and that's primarily the group that buy PS4s and Xbones.

 

The truth is that it doesn't matter if Nintendo make polished games, because if they're not making games that elicit the same level of excitement and appeal as those 'bad' games then they are doing something wrong; people really want those 'bad' games, thus they buy them, thus they sell systems. The thing is, Nintendo used to make more original games with epic appeal. Games like Mario 64 and OoT did things games never did before and pushed the boundaries. People would buy the console based on those great titles; they had real appeal. Now you look at their games and just see mostly the same games you have already played loads of. It's just so...meh, for me. And for loads of others...you see people jumping ship all the time.

 

If you look beyond the characters being used in each game, maybe you'd see that each new entry into an established series is bringing something new to the table?

 

But either way, it doesn't matter because no matter how polished they are and whatever boundaries they push; they're not aiming for that same market as the likes of Witcher and Bloodborne. Nintendo's main problem is not really Sony or Microsoft directly, but rather it's mobile and the devaluation of software in general.

 

I personally dislike review scores for a number of reasons that I won't go into again. That said, yes, games that yourself or critics personally did not call out as a masterpiece can still sell well. But again, even if you don't like them, they appeal to people - which is why they sell, and the systems with them. Ask yourself this - why do Nintendo games not appeal in a similar way to shift so many units? Can it really be that they have the perfect games as the 10/10 scores may suggest? Or could something be missing if they are not captivating many a gamer, old and new?

 

Kirby and Mario are not going to appeal to people who are looking for GTA, Mortal Kombat and Assassin's Creed, no matter how good the games are...

 

While I don't like scoring, to respond to your point, there is no doubt it has considerable influence on sales. If a game scores very highly then it is more likely to do well than if scored low. We already know this is true because a number of publishers offer developers big bonuses tied to metacritic scores. If it wasn't the case then why bother? They must offer these incentives based on market research; they must know that if their game is revered by critics, it will most likely go on to sell quite a lot more. Conversely, this is also the reason why they will have embargoes right up until release on buggy/shitty messes; because they know review scores do impact game sales.

 

The publishers believe that review scores have a big impact on sales (and really, logically they should do), but there are plenty of examples of big games reviewing poorly and then going on to sell gangbusters regardless. Destiny has a Metacritic rating of 76, pretty poor for such a high profile title and yet it has had no trouble becoming a multimillion seller. Review scores are such a minor factor to a game's success that it really doesn't matter at all really and history is rich with examples of poorly reviewed games selling very well, alongside critical darlings doing badly.

 

The truth is that only a select few people actually care about review scores; mainly the enthusiast audience - like, well, us here. Funnily enough that means that review scores matter more for niche titles than mainstream juggernauts because the people who may be looking for something niche are more likely to look at the games that review well; where as your average joe is probably just going to buy the games that their friends tell them to, or what gets all the advertising space on TV, or what Pewdiepie is playing on Youtube for example.

 

Really though, critic scores are just a small slice of the truth. What's really important is where the gamer puts his money, because that's the thing he wants to play, isn't it? Something about those games has appeal, even in cases where games do not score well, if a lot of people rush out to buy them (and also to buy the system to play it).

 

Yes, the games that sell well have some sort of appeal. That appeal can come in many forms and more often than not, it's not from the gameplay and game design itself. Maybe it's because the graphics look amazing? Or maybe because it stars Kiefer Sutherland? Or maybe because you get to bang prostitutes, shoot foo's in the face and play gangster or some other sort of convincing Male Power Fantasy? Or maybe because it's that one established shooter that all your friends are familiar with and buy every year?

 

Generally speaking, a game's theme has far more of an impact on sales than the actual gameplay itself. I mean, it's not hard to see why kids might find games like GTA or COD appealing really is it? Those same kids are not going to want to be caught dead playing something like Mario or Kirby because it makes them look uncool...

 

TL;DR: Sales are intrinsically linked to a combination of factors but we cannot ignore that a large part of this is whether the game is exciting, fresh and entertaining. When you look past the small pool of Nintendo fans for life, gamers are only going to hold interest with the same sorts of sequels for so long.

 

You'd think so, but COD still demands a large audience and that has barely changed at all ever since COD 4. Granted, the audience has been steadily dropping, but there's an intrinsic appeal in being a badass American supersoldier who kills terrorists and other people online that will probably never run dry - even if COD gets superseded by a similar franchise in a decade's time or so. Same with Fifa. People are always going to want a realistic, up to date and licensed football game, no matter what; even if it barely changes each year - and as long as there is no viable competition, Fifa is going to continue to dominate.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Dcubed

[Fierce_LiNk]

I haven't played anything on PS4 or XBOX One but my brother has both FIFA 15 and PES 2015 on PS3. For me, PES 2015 is probably the best football game since PES 6 on PS2 while FIFA has grown extremely tiresome and lacking in enjoyment. I've been critical of FIFA for years, though

 

I don't know about PES, but FIFA at least has pretty much moved onto the new/current gen of consoles. I don't think you can access Pro Clubs on PS3? What don't you like about FIFA?

 

For some reason, Pro seems to score higher critically, but FIFA seems to be the one that turns out to have bigger numbers and gets more of a playerbase. I've always enjoyed FIFA more, bar from about the years 2002-2007.

[Hero-of-Time]

Oh and yes I do. There's a huge amount of quality titles available; maybe not to your taste, but there's a lot more titles worth looking at on 3DS than on N64 in total (which makes sense, considering that it has had far more 3rd party support).

 

Given the amount of games that I play, I don't think this is the case. I'd argue I have one of the broader sense of gaming tastes out of members on here. Honestly, i'm struggling to think of 100+ titles on the 3DS that would be classed as worth playing.

 

 

You'd think so, but COD still demands a large audience and that has barely changed at all ever since COD 4.

 

This statement is flat out wrong. CoD4 plays very differently to the Black Ops games and then these play very differently to Advanced Warfare and Black Ops 3.

[Dcubed]

Given the amount of games that I play, I don't think this is the case. I'd argue I have one of the broader sense of gaming tastes out of members on here. Honestly, i'm struggling to think of 100+ titles on the 3DS that would be classed as worth playing.

 

Add on the eShop titles and suddenly the list grows much larger

 

This statement is flat out wrong. CoD4 plays very differently to the Black Ops games and then these play very differently to Advanced Warfare and Black Ops 3.

 

They all follow a pretty standard template. Not unlike the many Mega Man sequels really.

[Hero-of-Time]

They all follow a pretty standard template. Not unlike the many Mega Man sequels really.

 

Well, yeah, it's still a first person shooter but the difference between the play styles of CoD4 and Black Ops 3 is night and day.

[Serebii]

Well, yeah, it's still a first person shooter but the difference between the play styles of CoD4 and Black Ops 3 is night and day.

As are the differences between the Mario Karts

[Zechs Merquise]

The quality of Nintendo games is still top-notch. When you play a Nintendo title you still know what comes out of the box is polished and playable. I have recently played Watch Dogs, and I actually ended up really enjoying it, but when you compare a title like that to a a first party developed Nintendo game the difference is night and day - the frustrating glitches that you find in many AAA titles just aren't present in Nintendo developed titles. I would say that no developer puts the polish and care into their games that Nintendo do.

 

The Wii U has had a steady stream of amazing games - all of which are fantastic and very well polished titles.

 

I would say the problem with Nintendo isn't what they put on the disk, it's what they leave out. Let's look at some recent titles:

 

Super Mario 3D World. Absolutely amazing and incredible chunks of bite sized platforming perfection. Yet the formula is heavily based on four players, yet there is no online.

 

Pikmin 3. Easily the best in the series with amazing graphics, a charming storm and some great co-op missions - that you can't play online with your friends.

 

Nintendo Land. A really fun experimental title. I remember marvelling at the graphics in the stitched together Hyrule. The whole title oozed creativity and charm and was highly polished. But again, despite the uniqueness of the game, you couldn't even share your scores with other players, let alone play it online. A multiplayer game that you can't play online? I would have put hours into this, completing the co-operative missions on Zelda and Metroid would have been fantastic, but instead I will never get to do that.

 

Mario Kart 8. I didn't like this at first, but now I love it. However one of the key reasons I didn't like it was a lack of voice chat, a lack of being to search a lobby with friends and a general online system worse than that of the Wii version!

 

Splatoon. The best new IP on any system for years. This game is incredible. From the map design, the weapon balance, the graphics, the charm, the netcode - everything about this game in those departments shame the Call of Duty developers. Every year COD comes out and is a total mess filled with glitches, poor netcode and a whole raft of problems. Yet Nintendo who have never developed a shooter before have got this nigh on perfect. Yet the whole experience is let down by the stuff they left out: voice chat, the ability to play any mode with friends, global rankings, etc.

 

Really, the issue with Nintendo is not what they are putting on the disks, it's what they are leaving out. They seem stuck in a time warp and it really hurts them and the appeal of their games. The world has moved on, and in many ways they haven't.

 

Finally - as for the argument that because the Wii U hasn't sold as well it is has no good games, that's bollocks.

 

Commercial success is an indicator of popularity, not an indicator of quality. If commercial success was an indicator of quality then Transformers Dark of the Moon is an all time classic and The Blobby Song is a recording masterpiece... Oh.

 

Games like Assassins Creed are technical abominations that are every year are filled with glitches, bugs and major technical issues. I'm pleased Nintendo don't release games in that state. Nintendo should be praised for still releasing such polished titles, but scorned for not moving forward in time and have an antiquated view of online gaming and social attitudes toward chatting online and playing with friends.

[Sheikah]

There's no better football franchise out there right now and I don't dispute that, but the point is that going by Sheikah's logic, it's the best game series ever made; now and forever because it sells the most. I'm pretty sure that we can all agree that that's not the case, considering that it's mostly the same game every year with some minor tweaks and updates.

 

See I think it's quite rude to misconstrue somebody's point like that.

 

The point is not that I think FIFA is the best game ever. It is that FIFA is made to be exciting and appeal to people, even if it is not as well polished as Nintendo games. Lots of people buy it as a result. Contrast this to PES, which for whatever reasons people do not buy in such numbers. It shows that there is something you can do to make your game more exciting and appealing to people, which is reflected in people going out to buy it.

 

Oh and yes I do. There's a huge amount of quality titles available; maybe not to your taste, but there's a lot more titles worth looking at on 3DS than on N64 in total (which makes sense, considering that it has had far more 3rd party support).

 

Depends on view but I'd still say the N64 games are far more epic and enjoyable than whatever you'd put forward for 3DS. For me, 3DS has been nowhere near as awesome. There's good games on it but an awful lot are sequels that closely follow the pattern of what has gone before.

 

 

Or maybe because the games that sell well are laser targeted to a large and prolific group of people? The predictable and lucrative male 10-25 demographic. Nintendo's games don't attempt to appeal to this group and that's primarily the group that buy PS4s and Xbones.

 

All appeal is is making a game exciting to people. You're basically saying that it's not Nintendo's fault that they don't make games that interest a lot of people that are gamers. That itself is a huge problem.

 

It also doesn't make sense as an excuse because when they made OoT and Mario 64, they had huge appeal. The truth then becomes clear - it is not that the games they make now are incapable of appealing to people of a certain age, it is that they are doing the same things they used to. That might have been fine 15 years ago when that was what everyone else was doing to, but now people expect new concepts and features. Nintendo just don't deliver.

 

 

If you look beyond the characters being used in each game, maybe you'd see that each new entry into an established series is bringing something new to the table?

 

But either way, it doesn't matter because no matter how polished they are and whatever boundaries they push; they're not aiming for that same market as the likes of Witcher and Bloodborne. Nintendo's main problem is not really Sony or Microsoft directly, but rather it's mobile and the devaluation of software in general.

 

As said before, they had mass appeal with OoT and Mario 64, so the idea that they can never capture a large audience like Bloodborne did is madness. It's not the demographic they're targeting, it's that they're not pushing the boundaries and coming up with new things anymore. They also used to have Rare make games like CBFD which did target an older group of people, which says to me that they should pursue developers that can make those sorts of games rather than say 'well, there's no way they can pull that demographic.'

 

 

Kirby and Mario are not going to appeal to people who are looking for GTA, Mortal Kombat and Assassin's Creed, no matter how good the games are...

 

What is slightly depressing about this, and I don't blame you, is that you are probably thinking that's all Nintendo can do. Nintendo could very well make new IP, or team up with other developers that make new IP, to target those different demographics. In saying that though, the idea that they can't win this audience is again wrong; it just just needs games that push the envelope (yeah, we're going back to Mario 64 and OoT again). It doesn't matter if the game doesn't have violence, it just has to have appeal by being fresh and exciting as well as a joy to play. Heck, the most successful game in years has been Minecraft, which ironically looks like the very thing Nintendo could have created!

 

 

The publishers believe that review scores have a big impact on sales (and really, logically they should do), but there are plenty of examples of big games reviewing poorly and then going on to sell gangbusters regardless.

 

But what you're doing here with the Destiny example is misinterpreting what I'm saying by linking observations in a poor way.

 

The argument is not that highly scored games will always sell better than lower scored games, because we know that is not true. Games that are highly polished but altogether conservative and not very exciting can score higher but sell less than completely different games where developers have run with something much more fun and appealing, albeit buggy or rough cut.

 

The point about score that I was making is that if the same game was released and received tons of 10/10 scores, it would sell considerably better than if it released to 7/10 or 8/10 scores. That is why they offer millions in bonuses tied to metacritic, and conversely may keep embargoes up until the last minute if it is a stinker. They know the review scores matter; they are not just throwing money about for a laugh. They will obviously have done their research before putting that much money on the table.

 

 

Generally speaking, a game's theme has far more of an impact on sales than the actual gameplay itself. I mean, it's not hard to see why kids might find games like GTA or COD appealing really is it? Those same kids are not going to want to be caught dead playing something like Mario or Kirby because it makes them look uncool...

 

I think you have a bit of a warped view of people in general. I just read this paragraph again and it seems you are saying that people would never buy Mario or Kirby in large numbere because they would not look cool, whereas they all rush to buy GTA so they can bang prostitutes.

 

First, Mario was a big deal ages back when Nintendo were raising the roof, and loads of people was buying it. So really, that's not exactly true. Second, Minecraft. One of the biggest games in years where the only limit is your imagination. A smack in the face to any argument that people are shallow and mostly just like shallow games just feed their base desires. It shows that people will lap up games so long as they are fun and appeal to the modern gamer.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Sheikah

[Dcubed]

Depends on view but I'd still say the N64 games are far more epic and enjoyable than whatever you'd put forward for 3DS. For me, 3DS has been nowhere near as awesome. There's good games on it but an awful lot are sequels that closely follow the pattern of what has gone before.

 

Well my point was purely about quantity, not quality. I'm not arguing either way on which library I think is better, I'm more interested in seeing what others think about that matter :p

 

What is slightly depressing about this, and I don't blame you, is that you are probably thinking that's all Nintendo can do. Nintendo could very well make new IP, or team up with other developers that make new IP, to target those different demographics. In saying that though, the idea that they can't win this audience is again wrong; it just just needs games that push the envelope (yeah, we're going back to Mario 64 and OoT again). It doesn't matter if the game doesn't have violence, it just has to have appeal by being fresh and exciting as well as a joy to play. Heck, the most successful game in years has been Minecraft, which ironically looks like the very thing Nintendo could have created!

 

I think you have a bit of a warped view of people in general. I just read this paragraph again and it seems you are saying that people would never buy Mario or Kirby in large numbere because they would not look cool, whereas they all rush to buy GTA so they can bang prostitutes.

 

First, Mario was a big deal ages back when Nintendo were raising the roof, and loads of people was buying it. So really, that's not exactly true. Second, Minecraft. One of the biggest games in years where the only limit is your imagination. A smack in the face to any argument that people are shallow and mostly just like shallow games just feed their base desires. It shows that people will lap up games so long as they are fun and appeal to the modern gamer.

 

And my other point is that they're not trying to appeal to the same audience as the traditional mass market. The reason why their consoles are struggling is not because they've suddenly stopped making groundbreaking games but instead it's because their own target market has been ensnared by mobiles and tablets and because the value of software in general is dropping rapidly as a result.

 

Microsoft and Sony's platforms are not being affected as dramatically as Nintendo's ones because their target market is less interested in these platforms in general (though even they have been affected to some extent as their console sales are still lagging behind last gen on a month to month basis). It's not a game quality problem per-say but rather, it's a matter of wider socioeconomic challenges that are making selling consoles to their target audience a challenge for them.

 

And for Nintendo, they can't go ahead and jump into the same market as MS and Sony, even with "epic" productions that push boundaries of production values and story because their brand is like kryptonite to that audience. Instead they attempt to appeal to a different audience and push boundaries in ways that are different to other developers. Rather than competing in terms of budget, with lots of voice acting, tons of FMV, interactive movie esc set pieces etc, they break ground in other ways like novel controls and social features like Streetpass and Miiverse.

 

While there's a point to be made for them making too many 2D platformers (and I'd happily agree with anyone who says that focusing on that genre so heavily was a big mistake, despite the fact that each one has been high quality and has brought plenty of new ideas to each respective series), it's not really fair to discount games like Nintendo Land, Pikmin 3, Kirby & The Rainbow Curse, Bayonetta 2, Wii Sports Club, Wii Party U, The Wonderful 101, Project Zero: Maiden of Black Water and Captain Toad as derivative or low in quality because they feature existing characters or haven't sold well. All of them have broken ground in many ways, be it game design and/or unique controls that could only be done with the Gamepad.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Dcubed

[Sheikah]

The reason why their consoles are struggling is not because they've suddenly stopped making groundbreaking games but instead it's because their own target market has been ensnared by mobiles and tablets and because the value of software in general is dropping rapidly as a result.

 

No, you see, that is the very thing I am arguing - they have stopped making groundbreaking games. Remember, groundbreaking does not just mean games scoring top marks. When you look at the Wii U these days it is almost entirely sequels from Nintendo and 2D platformers, which incidentally, are also often sequels.

 

Talking about mobile is irrelevant at least for Wii U discussion; the PS4 shows that console gaming is alive and strong worldwide (even if less so in Japan) so for at least the purpose of the Wii U, we can assume people are primed and willing to accept console games as long as they have appeal and are exciting.

 

The reason OoT and Mario 64 did so well was because they were groundbreaking. They were exciting because they did new things and were a joy to play. Nintendo just aren't doing that anymore. That's why when I see their 9/10 and 10/10 games it just doesn't really matter that they score so highly because they're ultimately more of the same game we have seen 5 times over. If a game scored 10/10 in 2002 and you take the essence of that game and polish the crap out of it, then release another sequel in 2015 then it reasons that that game will also score very highly. But that's not going to keep appealing to people forever! Also, those games aren't going to pull in people who aren't already on board with Nintendo right now; which is why I've pretty much been pointing to sales as a way of showing that Nintendo could do more to appeal.

 

I'd also argue that they are making a lot of small scope games that don't have the same wow factor a game like OoT had. That somewhat lessens the appeal of some of those games you mentioned, like Captain Toad.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Sheikah

[Dcubed]

No, you see, that is the very thing I am arguing - they have stopped making groundbreaking games.

 

Talking about mobile is irrelevant at least for Wii U discussion; the PS4 shows that console gaming is alive and strong worldwide (even if less so in Japan) so for at last the purpose of the Wii U, we can assume people are primed and willing to accept console games as long as they have appeal and are exciting.

 

It most certainly IS relevant. The traditional gaming market sector may be doing ok, but that's not the sector that Nintendo are aiming at. Nintendo were after the same expanded audience that made the Wii and DS a huge success, but they've jumped onto mobiles where they get their games for "free". Since Nintendo are not looking to jump back into that traditional market sector, their biggest challenge is in finding a way to get this wider audience to understand why their games have value (and trying to find a way not to confuse the shit out of them :p )

 

The reason OoT and Mario 64 did so well was because they were groundbreaking. They were exciting because they did new things and were a joy to play. Nintendo just aren't doing that anymore. That's why when I see their 9/10 and 10/10 games it just doesn't really matter that they score so highly because they're ultimately more of the same game we have seen 5 times over. Those games aren't going to pull in people who aren't already on board with Nintendo right now.

 

Their games are still doing new things, but not in necessarily the same way as with the N64. Star Fox Zero is a pretty obvious example something we've never seen before with its unique two screen gameplay, as is Super Mario 3D World (we've never seen a multiplayer 3D platformer before and certainly nothing in a way that works similarly to a linear 2D game in 3D space).

 

Their games might be starring familiar characters, but they're definitely still breaking ground and bringing new ideas to the table. The people who say otherwise are not looking beyond the surface and in many cases not even looking beyond the visual style.

 

More and more though people seem to have the impression that a new idea can only come from a new IP, but that's far from true. While it shows that Nintendo should cut down on the use of their existing characters if they want to avoid this criticism, it doesn't make it true to say that their games are bereft of innovation.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Dcubed

[Sheikah]

Mobile gaming has absolutely nothing to do with the sales of their Wii U games. If people who love home consoles find their Wii U games exciting enough, they will buy them. Sure, the people who have latched onto mobile are getting pulled away from 3DS, but a lot of the sorts of people who rushed to buy Mario 64 and OoT are probably the ones now playing their PS4s. You only need to look at PS4 sales to see that core gamers are still loving their consoles. Nintendo could attract them if they made games that appealed rather than sequel after sequel where not so much changes. Nintendo are also still clearly aiming at the traditional gamers otherwise they wouldn't still be making games like Zelda and 3D Mario games, so to say they're no longer after those people is misleading.

 

Also regarding what Nintendo are doing new - they need to do a lot more new. New concepts, new IP, less sequels. What they are doing at the moment clearly isn't working. You know when Mario 64 came out and people were wowed with something totally new and amazing? THAT is their benchmark. Nothing less will do.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Sheikah

[nekunando]

What don't you like about FIFA?

 

I made these posts back in 2014 in a FIFA thread so I don't really want to regurgitate my abject feelings..

 

How did FIFA 14 on PS4 and XBOX One compare to the PS3 and XBOX 360 versions?

 

Playing PES 6 last week with a friend on PS2 started to finally make me crave a new football game as, despite how great it has been, it's too difficult to keep it anywhere near up to date these days

 

With that in mind, I decided to give FIFA 14 on PS3 another go by borrowing it off my brother. We played it last night and it was disgustingly poor. Are the other versions any better, somehow..?

 

As much as I love ripping into FIFA, something I've done considerably in the past in several different threads, all I'll say about FIFA 14 is that you're supposed to be controlling reasonably skilled athletes around the football pitch, yet it feels like you're controlling a tank It often feels like you're kicking around a medicine ball too, esecially when shooting..

 

Simply, it's just not that fun too play.

 

 

Not sure how you can say it moves like a tank and then find PES more entertaining...

 

To be fair, it isn't just me None of my friends were impressed by FIFA in the slightest and we all felt that it was slow, cumbersome and heavy. There is genuine bewilderment amongst us at why FIFA is so revered these days

 

There are clearly millions who like it, and that's fair enough, but I can't pretend to enjoy it and forgive the lack of fluidity and fun from the gameplay. To me, it is hideously overrated, but what can I do, really..?

 

I recall @Oxigen_Waste making a thread earlier in the year asking for help to decide which should be his first football game purchase. I found it very interesting to see the thoughts of someone not particularly influenced by factors other than gameplay.

 

I assume that the more you play FIFA, the more you get used to it and the flaws will become less influencial. It's probably a pretty safe bet, though, that when FIFA 15 comes around that it'll be the new "best football game EVER" and FIFA 14 will be derided for it's shortcomings that will now have been "improved", just like every other year

 

Having not really played a FIFA game in any significant amount since FIFA 10, I find the most recent version to feel very clumsy to control

 

I've only played a few games, so I'm sure it is something you continue to adapt to the more you play, but that doesn't disguise the fact that it is there. If you've been playing FIFA consistently over the last few years, the changes perhaps feel more subtle than what I've experienced.. to my horror

 

When I play a football game with my friends, I like to feel in control and confident in what I am capable of doing with and without the ball, knowing that my own input is the dominent influence in what happens during the game. Over the years, and particularly FIFA 14 and PES 2014, I feel that statistics and the strive for 'realism' is pushing that control too far away from the gamer.

 

I know you say FIFA has 360 degree movement, but that doesn't necessarily equate to a more precise and tactile feel. When I have played the game, I don't feel like I'm completely in control of the ball and the action doesn't feel responsive enough. I feel like the players are stumbling around and it's a struggle just trying to keep them in check. I have no confidence that what I want to achieve will be carried out on screen, and when you factor in that average players control worse than they probably should, it's difficult to enjoy it.

 

One of my favourite football games of all time, ISS Pro Evolution 2 on the PS1, only has 8-way movement, much like PES 6, but it feels easy to control the player on the ball and know that he'll turn exactly when you want him to turn and it's just a much more satisfying experience all round. I know what I'm gonna get when I take a shot and give it a certain amount of power and direction. My brief time with FIFA 14 felt like a lottery, but like I say, I'd probably need to play it for a while to figure out it's nuances

 

If everyone else enjoys it, fair enough.. but this is how I feel when I play it. I love a good, competitive game of football so it makes it all the more painful that I haven't been particularly impressed by any football game for a number of years. The best one on PS3, for me, is PES 2013 but that doesn't really say much for what it is up against

 

In the future, hopefully developers will breathe new life into football games, much like Konami did briefly with Pro Evolution Soccer on Wii, but at the moment the genre has become stale

 

I did go on to play FIFA 14 for a little while but it was more about enjoying the competitive nature of playing online rather than the gameplay itself.

 

When I look at footage of the latest game, I still see that old clunky FIFA engine that I dislike and, as with the majority of EA games, I couldn't care less whether they come to Nintendo consoles or not.. unless they somehow improve beyond recognition

[Serebii]

Do note that even if they make a "Zelda" or a "Mario" game, it's chock full of new mechanics and new ideas. Just because it exists in an existing series does not mean there's not new concepts in it.

 

It's also a bit ridiculous to say Nintendo should just make Mario 64 level revolutions. They do try, anyway. Look at Wii Sports, that was one, and they attempted (but unfortunately failed) with the Wii U.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Serebii

[Sheikah]

Do note that even if they make a "Zelda" or a "Mario" game, it's chock full of new mechanics and new ideas. Just because it exists in an existing series does not mean there's not new concepts in it.

 

It's also a bit ridiculous to say Nintendo should just make Mario 64 level revolutions. They do try, anyway. Look at Wii Sports, that was one, and they attempted (but unfortunately failed) with the Wii U.

The thing is though, even if it has new ideas, they tend to very closely follow a preexisting structure, don't they? And that can be boring if you're on your 7th one.

 

Imagine if they took Zelda but completely shook it up. No more 20 heart containers, 6 or so dungeons with small keys, dungeon item and boss key, glass bottles, bosses that take place in the typical way with a big glowing weakspot in a small arena. I'm not saying these things haven't been epic in the past but you can practically write a book on how Zelda games will play out.

 

With NSM3DW we saw something that was like a stepped up 3DS game that lacked scope of games like Mario 64. It felt like missed potential.

 

Maybe it's just me, but I would like to see much more than what they currently produce. One of my fondest regarded games is Resi 4. If they're going to stick with their existing characters, look to that for an example of how to really shake things up to keep things fresh.

[dazzybee]

I find it so strange you're sticking with popularity as a way to prove a point of quality.... No point discussing it because you don't listen to other people, but I'm sure popularity wasn't a factor during the Wii era for you... conveniently...

 

What groundbreaking games are on other systems? It's harder to be ground breaking now.

 

Wii U isn't failing because the games aren't amazing, i find it preposterous you're even saying that. Marketing, image, the sheer lack of software, no 3rd party support are all huge factors. But you use its commercial failure as a way to justify your opinions on them having lower quality software. It's just bizarre.

[Zechs Merquise]

I find it so strange you're sticking with popularity as a way to prove a point of quality.... No point discussing it because you don't listen to other people, but I'm sure popularity wasn't a factor during the Wii era for you... conveniently...

 

What groundbreaking games are on other systems? It's harder to be ground breaking now.

 

Wii U isn't failing because the games aren't amazing, i find it preposterous you're even saying that. Marketing, image, the sheer lack of software, no 3rd party support are all huge factors. But you use its commercial failure as a way to justify your opinions on them having lower quality software. It's just bizarre.

 

HAHAHAHA

 

You also remember the posts about how games like Kinect Sports and Wii Fit selling millions meant nothing?

 

Now Assassins Creed sells millions (despite being a broken mess), these sales are somehow a barometer of quality!

 

Big sales are often a barometer of nothing more than the marketing pitch that accompanies a product.

[Mr-Paul]

I think this conversation is also getting a bit mixed up with the quality of Nintendo's games and the sales of the console.

 

While I said earlier in this thread I do feel that Nintendo's own titles haven't been the most ambitious this generation, I think the lack of third party support, bad marketing and the console itself not really grabbing the attention of the public and being more expensive than the usual Nintendo console are more contributory factors to the Wii U's failure.

[Sheikah]

I find it so strange you're sticking with popularity as a way to prove a point of quality.... No point discussing it because you don't listen to other people, but I'm sure popularity wasn't a factor during the Wii era for you... conveniently...

 

What groundbreaking games are on other systems? It's harder to be ground breaking now.

 

Wii U isn't failing because the games aren't amazing, i find it preposterous you're even saying that. Marketing, image, the sheer lack of software, no 3rd party support are all huge factors. But you use its commercial failure as a way to justify your opinions on them having lower quality software. It's just bizarre.

 

Except, I'm not.

 

I'm pointing out that Nintendo games lack appeal. They are polished and review well, but lack fresh and exciting ideas to appeal to new and existing audiences over extended periods of time. That inability to draw more people in is where sales come in, because they prove that people aren't that into them now. Not like in the 64 days, when the same games were original and exciting and you saw the systems fly. Sure, the Wii U was a marketing cock up, but if it still had games everyone thought were the most exciting and cutting edge, people would be there. The Wii U has no Minecraft, no Blooborne, no Witcher, no League of Legends...nothing like that. Its games just do not have the appeal. They're the games we've seen and played to death and don't advance enough between each iteration, or they're the kind of games that don't have the pulling power they used to.

 

You and Zechs either don't want to connect the dots on this line of thinking or just think it's funny to assume that I am saying the best games in the world are the ones that sell the most. Which of course, I'm not.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Sheikah

[Kounan]

Me nephew bought the PS because he asked a friend which one is better, XBOX, or PS and the friend said PS. He has no idea which games they have, just that they are the 2 consoles he could see on TV and people were talking about. When I asked him about the Wii U, he said he liked what he played (loved Mario Kart and Mario World 3D), but actually has no idea about it and most of his friends have PS, or XBox (they used to have a Wii and XBox and XBox 360) so he choose PS.

 

For now he has a only few games and the most notable is Wolfstein and that came with the console.

 

I am a big Nintendo fan and didn't have a clue about the Wii U, but because I started playing the Wii I decided to look a bit more about Wii U (as the little I have saw was just confusing), while I knew a lot about PS and XBox.

 

My friend have no idea about Nintendo, my friends in Germany new very little about it.....

 

The point, as some people have mentioned it, Nintendo has done it wrong with marketing, so people didn't go for it. They were other problems, sure, but good marketing still sells you a large number of units.

 

When it comes to their games, do I really have a wrong perception or what, but it really seems to me that Nintendo games sell really well. They are all on millions, some 4-5 which is great, or not?

 

I agree that they should do few more games like Devil's third (but either do a better job, or pay to get better reviews) and stuff like that (something that is more "realistic) so the new generation also decides to buy it, but I don't really see a big problem with their games they make now, as they seem to sell really well.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Kounan

[Serebii]

Sometimes with this thread, I feel this keeps happening

 

 

:p

 

When it comes to their games, do I really have a wrong perception or what, but it really seems to me that Nintendo games sell really well. They are all on millions, some 4-5 which is great, or not? .

 

Yep. Those are sales that most developers would kill for, and to do it on an install base which is so low is nothing short of phenomenal. 3DS, DS and Wii had great sales of Nintendo titles too

[Sheikah]

Me nephew bought the PS because he asked a friend which one is better, XBOX, or PS and the friend PS. He has no idea which games they have, just that they are the 2 consoles he could see on TV and people were talking about. When I asked him about the Wii U, he said he liked what he played (loved Mario Kart and Mario World 3D), but actually has no idea about it and most of his friends have PS, or XBox (they used to have a Wii and XBox and XBox 360) so he choose PS.

 

For now he has a only few games and the most notable is Wolfstein and that came with the console.

 

I am a big Nintendo fan and didn't have a clue about the Wii U, but because I started playing the Wii I decided to look a bit more about Wii U (as the little I have saw was just confusing), while I knew a lot about PS and XBox.

 

My friend have no idea about Nintendo, my friends in Germany new very little about it.....

 

The point, as some people have mentioned it, Nintendo has done it wrong with marketing, so people didn't go for it. They were other problems, sure, but good marketing still sells you a large number of units.

 

When it comes to their games, do I really have a wrong perception or what, but it really seems to me that Nintendo games sell really well. They are all on millions, some 4-5 which is great, or not?

 

I agree that they should do few more games like Devil's third (but either do a better job, or pay to get better reviews) and stuff like that (something that is more "realistic) so the new generation also decides to buy it, but I don't really see a big problem with their games they make now, as they seem to sell really well.

 

Wii U games individually sell well if you compare them to other games but you have to remember that it's mostly a small number of loyal fans all buying the same games. The system has a lot of the same kind of stuff (much of which is 2D platformers), so it's not drawing many new people in (as reflected in system sales). Contrast this to other consoles which typically have more than one or two games for every genre and it's not hard to see why Nintendo struggles to shift the Wii U. With other consoles you have people from all corners picking the systems up for various reasons. Although I will admit it is hard for one developer to float a console by itself.

 

Wii U is the poorest selling Nintendo console on record. We can't all pretend that Nintendo's games are utterly blameless in this situation; games consoles are ultimately for playing games. If they have too many 2D platformers and too few big games that wow people in a new way then that's bound to affect the number of people picking the system up. Yeah, marketing cock up. But come on guys; their game development choices have been pretty shit for a while now.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Sheikah

[Serebii]

Why can't 2D platformers be "big games"? They require effort and they're lovingly crafted. Why put down an entire genre?

 

New Super Mario Bros. Wii was one of the best selling games, and one of the most fun ones, of last generation so by the logic you have put here, it's a fantastic game since it sold.

[Zechs Merquise]

Yeah, it's ground breaking games that sell consoles... is that why COD, Battlefield, Assassins Creed and FIFA are year on year the biggest selling games on PS4? They are not ground breaking, they all represent incremental 'improvements' over the last iterations.

 

The Wii was a huge success because:

1) It was affordable, it was £185 including a game.

2) It was marketed very well, constant TV ads and sponsorship deals featuring well known celebrities.

3) It was accessible to the masses, anyone could pick up and play the games easily. Either with the remote waggling or the remote on its side as classic controller it was easy to grasp.

4) The system was easy to develop for and had a flood of games.

 

Nintendo realised their market wasn't the FIFA and COD crowd, but a wider and audience that included females, an older demographic that hadn't previously gamed as well as Nintendo fans and people that wanted a hit of nostalgia for the classic series like Mario and DK.

 

The Wii U was a mistake, because it went against what made the Wii a success. It had a high price point, virtually no advertisements and the adverts didn't follow the previously successful format, the gamepad was confusing and hardly the intuitive and simple control method that enticed new gamers and finally due to it's failing sales lost all support from developers.

 

People haven't turned their backs on Nintendo because of the games, it's because Nintendo have literally screwed up everything other than the games.

 

Just because Sony and MS do one thing and pursue one demographic doesn't mean Nintendo have to pursue that demographic also. Nintendo actually did amazingly well pursuing another type of gamer, who they have since neglected. I knew dozens of my friends who weren't gamers - women especially - who loved the Wii, but they'd never touch a Wii U because it's too complex and it's not fun and intuitive.

 

Nintendo can be slammed for many things, but the quality and polish of their games isn't one of them!