Nintendo Quality

[Dcubed]

I would personally put something like LittleBigPlanet in the same category so curious what is your reason for not?

 

(genuine curiosity, as passive aggressive as that sounds).

 

To be fair, Super Mario Maker is infinitely more accessible than Little Big Planet. The Gamepad makes it so much easier and quicker to make levels that it's not even funny.

 

I only ended up ever making 1 level in LBP because it was just so complicated, clunky and time consuming.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Dcubed

[Josh64]

That's a massive plus for MM I must agree, the GamePad makes the game 100x better than it could be on any other console - which is why it's such a damn shame this wasn't a release title, or released a few months in, because it's one of the few games that makes fantastic use of the controller and the kinda thing people needed to see early on to 'get' the Wii U I think.

[Serebii]

I was looking at Dreams, another create your own game thing which looks ridiculously cool.

 

Then, I saw the control scheme at Paris Games Week. Yikes. That's a game that would truly benefit from the Wii U GamePad, if not just a Wii Remote

[Hero-of-Time]

That logic would make perfect sense if Nintendo were a third party developer. Problem is that their entire business builds upon hardware sales. Nintendo will have to develop software which won't earn money if that means that hardware sales will benefit from it.

 

While this may have been the case in the past, going forward I don't think will be the case anymore. You just have to look at things like Amiibo, the QoL plan, their mobile movement and aggressive IP use to see that Nintendo know that relying on hardware sales isn't enough anymore. The company is diversifying, rather than having their eggs all in one basket.

 

Price wasn't a problem. The Wii U was significantly more powerful than the competition on launch. Problem is that Nintendo didn't have a single game that showed that until well after the announcement of the PS4 and XBONE.

 

Price was certainly a problem for the Wii U. The console wasn't a significant step up from the 360 and PS3 in terms of graphics. Most games that appeared on all platforms looked pretty much the same. People weren't going to shell out £300 for a console that wasn't that much better than what they already had.

 

Marketing was a bust as well. They didn't have a clue who to target the Wii U at. It was simply a mess and still is. It was a baffling turn around after their marketing had been on point for the Wii.

 

For the masses price and marketing are two big things to get them on board. Just look at the PS4 vs One. The One had a much better launch lineup ( which is why I bought a One first ) but got thrashed by the PS4 and continues to do so. Like Nintendo during the Wii era, Sonys marketing message has been clear and their price point fair, which has allowed them to be successful this generation.

 

A quick question Hogge, do you have another console other than a Wii U? I've seen time and time again you bring up that you want a realistic racer, so why not get a One for Forza or PS4 for GT/Drive Club? Obviously you aren't happy with Nintendo's output so why not try a different console that may suit your tastes better? I'm not having a go, I just find it baffling that people complain that a console isn't meeting their needs when their are other options out there that might.

 

EDIT: Just realised that I had wrote that the One was more powerful than the PS4. No idea why I put that. Chalk it up to early morning posting. Edited it out now.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Hero-of-Time

[Dcubed]

That's a massive plus for MM I must agree, the GamePad makes the game 100x better than it could be on any other console - which is why it's such a damn shame this wasn't a release title, or released a few months in, because it's one of the few games that makes fantastic use of the controller and the kinda thing people needed to see early on to 'get' the Wii U I think.

 

Agreed. If Mario Maker and Splatoon were available at or near launch, the console' fortunes would've been very different.

 

NSMBU was a huge blunder. Having yet another 2D Mario sidescroller that looked near identical to NSMB Wii as your flagship launch title was a big mistake; especially since it didn't really make much use of the Gamepad (yeah there's the 5 player Boost Mode, but that's a pretty minor thing really).

[Hogge]

A quick question Hogge, do you have another console other than a Wii U? I've seen time and time again you bring up that you want a realistic racer, so why not get a One for Forza or PS4 for GT/Drive Club? Obviously you aren't happy with Nintendo's output so why not try a different console that may suit your tastes better? I'm not having a go, I just find it baffling that people complain that a console isn't meeting their needs when their are other options out there that might.

 

I grew up with an N64. The lineup on that system quite simply made me adore Nintendo. I'm more than willing to buy a console to play 3D Mario, Zelda, Waverace, Pilotwings, Excitebike, 1080, Starfox, F-Zero, Mario Kart, Smash Bros and so on. Heck, while they're not even Nintendo games, I still consider Rare's lineup and San Francisco Rush to be a big part of the Nintendo Experience.

 

The whole idea that you should buy two systems per generation doesen't hold up anymore. I can tell you that I'm not going to buy the NX atless Nintendo prove they can deliver a good lineup first. And because Nintendo are pushing away their core fans (AKA early adopters/evangelists) like they have me and my friends, the NX may very well do even worse than the Wii U.

[Serebii]

Agreed. If Mario Maker and Splatoon were available at or near launch, the console' fortunes would've been very different.

 

NSMBU was a huge blunder. Having yet another 2D Mario sidescroller that looked near identical to NSMB Wii as your flagship launch title was a big mistake; especially since it didn't really make much use of the Gamepad (yeah there's the 5 player Boost Mode, but that's a pretty minor thing really).

NSMBU wouldn't have been as big a misstep either if they hadn't released New Super Mario Bros. 2 just 4 months earlier on the 3DS.

 

Everything about that game (aside from the gameplay & stage design...some of the best 2D Mario ever) was just a complete misstep

[Hero-of-Time]

The whole idea that you should buy two systems per generation doesen't hold up anymore. I can tell you that I'm not going to buy the NX atless Nintendo prove they can deliver a good lineup first. And because Nintendo are pushing away their core fans (AKA early adopters/evangelists) like they have me and my friends, the NX may very well do even worse than the Wii U.

 

Why does the 2 console thing not hold up anymore compared to other generations? I mean, if you want to play Nintendo titles then you buy a Nintendo machine and if you also want to play Uncharted or Gears of War then I would have to buy those machines as well. It's the same as it's always been, unless you were talking from a personal perspective.

[RedShell]

Nah, it's fair, I had forgotten about Little Big Planet, honestly (and I was reciting a point I saw elsewhere, anyway).

 

I remember seeing a few cool LBP levels back then, though most of them were more style than substance (as in, they had a cool theme, but not necessarily interesting from a gameplay perspective). I guess there are more people talking about Super Mario Maker now than LBP then, and now I'm wondering why. Could be the strength of the Mario brand, could be that the world is "online-ier" in 2015 than in 2008, or it could be that one editor is more comprehensive or accessible than the other.

 

Unfortunately, I've never really dabbled with LBP before, so I can't say for certain if that last one is actually true, or if it's just my impression (maybe @RedShell could shed some light into this, if he built something in Little Big Planet before?)

 

Regardless, I can't help but feel that the notoriety of the Mario brand is a significant factor. SMM allows you to build levels with the same rules as a game from your childhood, whether that be SMB, SMBW or NSMB, and that sort of thing really helps with how accessible the player/maker finds it.

To be fair, Super Mario Maker is infinitely more accessible than Little Big Planet. The Gamepad makes it so much easier and quicker to make levels that it's not even funny.

 

I only ended up ever making 1 level in LBP because it was just so complicated, clunky and time consuming.

Yeah, Little Big Planet is way more complicated than Super Mario Maker, as a result it's possible to do some incredible stuff with it, but the time/patience required to do so is obviously much greater too.

 

I never actually ended up making much in LBP or LBP3 due to just how complex and time consuming the process is. Had I got the chance to play it 15 or 20 years ago I probably would've really got into it and made loads of stuff, but these days something like SMM is much more appealing to me, due to just how straightforward and quick the creation process is.

[Dcubed]

NSMBU wouldn't have been as big a misstep either if they hadn't released New Super Mario Bros. 2 just 4 months earlier on the 3DS.

 

Everything about that game (aside from the gameplay & stage design...some of the best 2D Mario ever) was just a complete misstep

 

I personally enjoyed NSMB2 much more than NSMBU. Underneath the surface it actually is one of the most interesting 2D Mario entries; with wide open levels that have an oddly meandering pace that really stand out from the other NSMB games. You can definately tell that they were designed by different people who didn't work on the other NSMB games.

 

The Coin Rush mode was good fun too. A shame that the Streetpass leaderboard concept was flawed (you could only set one high score to beat and it only ever counted up to a maximum of 30,000 - which was achievable in a good few levels; making the whole high score chase pointless because everyone would set their target score to one of those levels and it was impossible to do better), because trying to squeeze out as many coins as possible in each level was good fun!

 

Also it has The Impossible Pack, which definately lives up to its name!

 

NSMBU was completely unnecessary though. It so badly wanted to be NSMB Wii, but the level design just falls so far from it. It lacks the flow, the right level of challenge and the bevy of ideas that NSMB Wii brought to the table. The level designs lacked the touch that Miyamoto and Tezuka brought to NSMB Wii (they personally took charge of the level design in NSMB Wii, actually designing courses for it, and it SHOWS!)

 

NSLU was way better though. Instead of trying to just ape NSMB Wii, it went off on a tangent and was content with being its own thing. It works so much better as a result because it has a clear design focus; short courses with as much packed into a small space as possible. The result is an adrenaline rush that is tight, focused and inventive!

[Rummy]

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

 

-Minecraft?(and for me, Terraria, though that's going to be coming, apparently).

-Destiny? Has that format been done before? Yes it's FPS, but the fact it's shared world has offered me something quite unique in that regard.

-The Witcher? - I've not played it yet but I'll take Flink's views on the matter as a good indicator, at least for myself.

-Tearaway? I've heard good things about that being unique and innovative.

-Until Dawn? Again I've not played but I heard good things - one standout simple feature someone mentioned here was that apparently with a PS4 camera it will film/capture you just before the jump-scare bits and then you can see yourself back! It's so basic, yet sounds really interesting to me.

-Fable? This was a while ago, and whilst I suspect it wasn't necessarily the first or groundbreaking, for me it was the first experience I had of such a type of game, and on console no less. Fable 1 literally went on to sell the 360 to me.

 

Ofc, I am answering just for other systems. I stand by my original post that Splatoon is, for whatever infrastructure flaws it has, a groundbreaking and quality title. I'm also only just venturing abroad so can't make my own fair judgements on a lot yet.

 

But sometimes what about not just groundbreaking - but genres/variety? I don't know if it goes into the quality side so I won't labour it - but I do feel like there's more variety further afield. If we talk quality of a system, is a varied experience on offer a part of that? One big problem with the whole thread is again an age old issue - defining what we're actually talking about, when we talk about 'Quality'.

 

Mostly this thread has just made me sad that nobody uses the word 'quality' when something's excellent anymore

 

 

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.

Are these quality titles that are system sellers though? I mean I recently bought a PS4 - but I've little interest in ANY of those titles and never have been. I could be an exception - but how many people buy the system for them, as opposed to those who buy them because they have the system? Not to mention aren't a lot of them made for the older platforms too, reducing some newer system selling potential?

Edited November 6, 2015 by Rummy

[somme]

 

Are these quality titles that are system sellers though? I mean I recently bought a PS4 - but I've little interest in ANY of those titles and never have been. I could be an exception - but how many people buy the system for them, as opposed to those who buy them because they have the system? Not to mention aren't a lot of them made for the older platforms too, reducing some newer system selling potential?

 

AC is the only franchise from that list I play and even then, not every one. And I certainly didn't purchase a PS4 for them.

[bob]

Of course those are system sellers.

 

There are millions of people who will buy a PS4 for the next AC or COD.

[dazzybee]

-Minecraft?(and for me, Terraria, though that's going to be coming, apparently).

-Destiny? Has that format been done before? Yes it's FPS, but the fact it's shared world has offered me something quite unique in that regard.

-The Witcher? - I've not played it yet but I'll take Flink's views on the matter as a good indicator, at least for myself.

-Tearaway? I've heard good things about that being unique and innovative.

-Until Dawn? Again I've not played but I heard good things - one standout simple feature someone mentioned here was that apparently with a PS4 camera it will film/capture you just before the jump-scare bits and then you can see yourself back! It's so basic, yet sounds really interesting to me.

-Fable? This was a while ago, and whilst I suspect it wasn't necessarily the first or groundbreaking, for me it was the first experience I had of such a type of game, and on console no less. Fable 1 literally went on to sell the 360 to me.

 

Ofc, I am answering just for other systems. I stand by my original post that Splatoon is, for whatever infrastructure flaws it has, a groundbreaking and quality title. I'm also only just venturing abroad so can't make my own fair judgements on a lot yet.

 

But sometimes what about not just groundbreaking - but genres/variety? I don't know if it goes into the quality side so I won't labour it - but I do feel like there's more variety further afield. If we talk quality of a system, is a varied experience on offer a part of that? One big problem with the whole thread is again an age old issue - defining what we're actually talking about, when we talk about 'Quality'.

 

Mostly this thread has just made me sad that nobody uses the word 'quality' when something's excellent anymore

 

I wouldn't say any of those were groundbreaking, some have nice moments and offer a nice twist/gimmick, but not groundbreaking. But I don't have a problem with that. Like I say I think it's hard now to be groundbreaking, same in most mediums. It's just certain other people use it as an excuse to criticise nintendo, when actually you can say that about most things. But I would say Splatoon is one of the most groundbreaking games released in the past 5 years. It really is something completely new. Maybe Journey could be in the category...

[Rummy]

I wouldn't say any of those were groundbreaking, some have nice moments and offer a nice twist/gimmick, but not groundbreaking. But I don't have a problem with that. Like I say I think it's hard now to be groundbreaking, same in most mediums. It's just certain other people use it as an excuse to criticise nintendo, when actually you can say that about most things. But I would say Splatoon is one of the most groundbreaking games released in the past 5 years. It really is something completely new. Maybe Journey could be in the category...

 

What's groundbreaking for you, then? Again - the issue here is definition. Why is Splatoon so groundbreaking where the others aren't, especially where the criticisms can and have been levelled at certain aspects being behind the times?

 

I should have added to the Fable point though - Fable 2 just wasn't that great for me(but I would say still of good quality) and I didn't even bother with Fable 3 iirc. It isn't just Nintendo that can end up causing franchise fatigue or missing the mark with sequels - BUT the competition does tend to just have so much more on offer, and variance within that, that you can get over it easier than you might with a system like WiiU.

[somme]

I wouldn't say Splatoon was that groundbreaking, especially if you don't consider Minecraft to be. It's basically Mario Sunshine on opposite day.

[dazzybee]

I wouldn't say Splatoon was that groundbreaking, especially if you don't consider Minecraft to be. It's basically Mario Sunshine on opposite day.

 

I actually think Minecraft is, I missed that off. As for splatoon, it's absolutely nothing like Mario Sunshine other than it has paint in it.... De Blob would be the closest to Splatoon. And why is it groundbreaking, because it is a brand new game type unlike anything else. A completely new take on the FPS.

 

What's groundbreaking for you, then? Again - the issue here is definition. Why is Splatoon so groundbreaking where the others aren't, especially where the criticisms can and have been levelled at certain aspects being behind the times?

 

I should have added to the Fable point though - Fable 2 just wasn't that great for me(but I would say still of good quality) and I didn't even bother with Fable 3 iirc. It isn't just Nintendo that can end up causing franchise fatigue or missing the mark with sequels - BUT the competition does tend to just have so much more on offer, and variance within that, that you can get over it easier than you might with a system like WiiU.

 

A game being behind the times on certain features has nothing to do with whether it's groundbreaking or not in my opinion. Fifa has loads of great online features and stuff but it isn't groundbreaking.

 

And yeah, I guess to an extent it is subjective. But I think to criticise nintendo for not being groundbreaking (especially after splatoon), I was just interested what was so groundbreaking on other systems that warranted it.

[Kav]

In my opinion Splatoon is good in that it's fresh and gives something different to the shooter genre, but I'd not say it's groundbreaking because it's held back from being so by a lack of very simple and standard features in an online game which detracts far too much from the overall experience.

 

It gives new gameplay, yes, but doesn't break ground, it doesn't make enough of an impact to do so... although it absolutely could've done if it lived up to it's potential!

[lostmario]

In my opinion Splatoon is good in that it's fresh and gives something different to the shooter genre, but I'd not say it's groundbreaking because it's held back from being so by a lack of very simple and standard features in an online game which detracts far too much from the overall experience.!

 

Say it Kav, SAY IT! I know you want to!

[Hero-of-Time]

NintendoLife has ran an article about the standard of Nintendo games recently and the scores that were given. I figured it would be best suited in this topic.

 

I love the first Jurassic Park movie, which combined perfect casting with terrific film-making flair and a script touched by genius. Memorable characters and one-liners are everywhere, and at the time of release the dinosaurs were a visual effects revelation and, to be fair, still look alright. Yet the sequels were rather meh, as can often happen, and I haven't had the heart to watch the newest film in fear that it'll be even less charming than the immediate successors.

 

Nintendo, most of the time, has an amazing knack of avoiding sequel-itis, and has often delivered lovely spin-offs that give a fresh flavour to its most treasured IP. Take Mario platformers, which don't always evolve but are often delightful slices of gaming entertainment, and when they do evolve can do so in unlikely ways. Super Mario Maker is the most innovative Mario platformer in an age, mainly because it gives us the tools and lets us create levels with mechanics that haven't even been possible before now. Or Super Mario 3D World - not as mind-meltingly spectacular as Super Mario Galaxy, perhaps, but the tightness of design and the surprisingly brilliant multiplayer brought something a bit different.

 

And yet, it feels like I and some of my colleagues have had quite a few months of saying Nintendo's latest games - published and/or developed - are underwhelming. As this is the internet, some seem to believe this is a ploy, or if not a ploy then a deliberate hardening of marking - in terms of scores - against Nintendo games. With Mario Tennis: Ultra Smash the latest game to get a 5 - 'average' - from me, this sense of myself and our broader reviewing team beating up on Nintendo comes up, and based on the current draft I've read Animal Crossing: amiibo Festival isn't going to be lavished in praise either. On the plus side a few other upcoming games will likely do much better, based on our previews so far anyway, but I wanted to tackle any perception of us being 'harsh' on certain games.

 

For starters, all reviews are opinions, so there's no perfect way to judge a game. Some say drop scores, but when polled our readers wanted to keep the 1-10 scale - probably as it provides a handy barometer for the review's overall assessment. All rating systems have flaws though, and whether you have numbers, descriptions or a simple yes/no approach there'll always be debate and those saying X was given this rating so why wasn't Y given the same. In any case, debate is just part of the review system - sites like ours publish a review and readers can agree or disagree, that's all healthy.

 

I'm also going to avoid speaking for our other reviewers for the most part, though I absolutely back their assessments - I'd be a lousy editor if I didn't trust them and back them after the proofing / publishing process. When it comes to reviews of major retail games I've pretty much always agreed with them, anyway, but there's enough material for me to mostly be sensible and only talk for myself.

 

So, to get on with it, 2015 has had some really poor spells of releases - at retail - from Nintendo and its immediate partners. It actually started rather nicely, in fairness, with Monster Hunter 4 Ultimate and The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask 3D being stand-outs to launch alongside the New Nintendo 3DS; that feels an age ago now, but was only in February in the West. Across Wii U and 3DS there have been a range of games that we've rated - effectively - as must-haves in giving scores of 8 and above. There are excellent titles like Splatoon and Yoshi's Woolly World, while in the portable scene Atlus / NIS America and Nintendo have kept RPG fans continually busy, including the impressive Xenoblade Chronicles 3D on New 3DS.

 

There are more I haven't mentioned, but there have also been a batch of games over the past few months that we've rated as 7 - 'good' - down to 5 ('average'). Some have been exclusives that were previously much-hyped, others long-awaited imports (such as Fatal Frame: Maiden of Black Water) and others were big names that were assumed to be heading for the usual praise and recommendations. Yet it hasn't always been that way.

 

It ultimately fell on me to give a Zelda game a 6 when I reviewed Tri Force Heroes, which was something that surprised me; it's a series that I'd never felt disappointed by in the past. There was a lot of feedback on that one (which, I emphasize again, is a good thing) suggesting I'd been harsh on it, over-critical of the single player mechanics and petty for highlighting the lack of voice chat, for example. I felt I'd explained why issues with mechanics and functionality had detracted from the experience, but a relatively common tone in response was that I was being pedantic, picky and trying to 'make a point', though I'm not sure what that point was meant to be.

 

I think part of the issue is that we're so conditioned to certain franchises always being solid recommendations and must-haves, so applying a load of caveats and sharing concerns is jarring against that critical history. Yet if I have an agenda when reviewing a game it's not to be negative, but to actually do my best to enjoy it. The term 'critic' doesn't mean a negative outlook from the start, but I actually start every review at 10 and see where I end up when I'm done with the game. There's no agenda against sequels or spin-offs, but just 'being Nintendo' isn't enough either.

 

Another review that got a lot of heated feedback was Devil's Third (developed by Valhalla Game Studios and published by Nintendo), a game that had been much hyped at its reveal but then turned out - on the whole - poorly. When I published a preview basically saying "oh, this is actually not very good" there was a lot of disagreement, and it only scraped a 5 in my review because of its efforts online - the campaign was more like a 3 ('bad') or 4 ('Poor'). That wasn't a sequel, but combined with the weird circumstances around its release and rumours / counter rumours it stirred up plenty of feeling.

 

In an amusing circumstance when reviewing this game, early copies in Europe - at the time of writing it's not yet out in North America - clearly went to a mix of press and YouTubers, it seemed. With full text chat and clans it was sometimes a bit like a normal chat room, and when waiting for one match two players were talking about some of the previews that had criticised the game. I was sitting there as they spoke about reviewers 'not being gamers' or 'hating on the game' or 'not getting it'. What they should have been saying was, "I didn't agree with some of their opinions because...". But nope, apparently 'haters' like me were just hating.

 

'Haters gonna hate' is a silly and redundant phrase, frankly, as it's a way to dismiss someone's view without actually saying why. I can say what my reaction was when first told preview / review code was ready for Devil's Third - I was excited. I wanted it to be fantastic, but for me it failed to fulfil that hope.

 

And now I've scored Mario Tennis: Ultra Smash as average, and we've given a host of other Nintendo releases this year 'bad scores' like 7 (which actually means 'good' in our scoring policy), and there's a perception that some are being 'down on Nintendo'. I can say from my perspective that's not the case. I want Nintendo games to be amazing, I want them to be must-haves, and that applies to any game I boot up to review from any publisher, big or small.

 

The funny thing is that I read comments that some writers 'enjoy' criticising a game. An evil grin spreads across their face as they gleefully spit venom, especially if it's a particularly lowsy download game. Well, no, that's not how it is, at least for me or those I know. Sometimes we may try to joke about a bad game, but that's often simply to make light of a dim situation.

 

Of course these Nintendo games aren't 'bad', as we try to use the full scale of 10, but a number of them have been underwhelming. From my perspective I find it harder to write a review that expresses negative feelings and outlines flaws. I agonised over the Tri Force Heroes review, fiddling around with wording and phrases. Yet when I gave Super Mario Maker a perfect 10 - which I stand by, naturally - it just flowed, minus typos what you read was pretty much my first crack at it. It's easier to be happy and excited about a game and to share those feelings than to say "oh, it's not as good as we hoped". I certainly felt no joy laying into Camelot over the shoddy amount of content in Ultra Smash, as it's a studio and series I enjoy.

 

I wrote this editorial after completing the Ultra Smash review as I thought "oh no, not again". I want to say that Nintendo's maintained its standards throughout the year, but that would be dishonest - alongside a number excellent titles there have been some decent and slightly disappointing sequels and spin-offs. Nintendo's teams are likely overstretched - with delays to titles like Star Fox Zero (co-developed with PlatinumGames) and The Legend of Zelda for Wii U not helping - in trying to cater to this generation while preparing for the next (NX).

 

On the flipside I can foresee at least one (maybe more) happier reviews for Holiday Nintendo games - read my Xenoblade Chronicles X preview to see why, or Conor's early assessment of Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam (out in Europe soon) - while the first half of 2016 has some promising releases.

 

Unfortunately, 2015 has had a few more Nintendo let-downs than we're used to - here's to the silver lining and better things to come.

 

I dunno whats worse/sadder, the very recent output from Nintendo or the fact that a Nintendo site has to put up this type of piece to defend their scores from the rabid fanboys.