General Nintendo sales/business discussion topic (previously: The Wii U Thread)

[Sami]

Before I begin, let me just say that what you just did is 10 times better than what the media is doing NOW. You at least are giving suggestions instead of just downright bashing Nintendo to the ground, and I appreciate that. But some of it I agree and some of it I disagree, so I have to dissect your post accordingly:

 

That’s cool. I accidentally lost a massive essay I spent half an hour writing, so I’ll just address you through quotes as well. Tried to get out of the habit of quote dissection, but eh.

 

 

Now I have to ask: When has AAA become such a good thing? I never thought of Mario or Zelda as AAA; I find it hard to believe that the budget costs for those series run into hundreds of millions of dollars. Kid Icarus is a reinvention of a 20 year old series so there was little to no familiarity between Uprising and the original and that's why Nintendo allowed it to have such creative freedom away from its predecessor.

 

 

… I’m surprised I’m being misunderstood here, but fine. Mario 64 was a game that pushed boundaries and did things people had never seen before, pushing the hardware to create a visually stunning and mechanically ground-breaking experience. Ocarina of Time did the same thing. Star Fox 64 did the same thing. Goldeneye did the same thing. Wind Waker did the same thing. Metroid Prime did the same thing. F-Zero GX did the same thing.

 

Fast forward to the Wii. Nintendo’s hardware is leagues behind the competition, and this is no longer possible. Or at least, it’s much, much harder. You might argue Mario Galaxy, and I guess that’s fair. Same with Skyward Sword, though only really because of the controls. The game mechanics and plot structure were still very limited and fell into the “Zelda Formula”, which is why it hardly rocked anyone’s world.

 

Now? The only game that really looks to be something brand new and interesting is Mario Kart 8, really. New gravity mechanics that are both visually and mechanically interesting, a graphics engine that’s actually fairly impressive, and the promise of an online mode. I’d say Wonderful 101 as well, but seeing as how Nintendo’s more or less sending that out to die…

 

Oh, and another thing... the fact that you literally just admit that Nintendo is stifling their creative freedom in order to adhere to the formula... sigh...

 

WHY. WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE THE SAME. FOR FUCK'S SAKE, DO SOMETHING NEW. SOMETHING INTERESTING. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST THIS IS MOST DEFINITELY THE NUMBER ONE THING THAT PISSES ME THE FUCK OFF ABOUT THEM.

 

Imagine a scenario, okay? You are a Nintendo intern in 1994. You're cleaning the conference room as the meeting is going on. Topic of discussion? How to design Mario 64 and Zelda 64.

 

Now I want you to answer this - do you think, for one second, that somebody in that room stopped everyone and said "But guys... that's different from the last game"? No. They were creative. They were ambitious. They were taking their franchises in new directions and breaking boundaries like nobody had ever seen before.

 

How is that a bad thing? Why do they not do this anymore?

 

Ugh... I'm sorry for getting worked up here, but this seriously makes no god damn sense to me. So what if it's different. It's improved. It has a new feature. A modernization. 

 

People complain about everyone else being afraid to innovate like Nintendo. About industry stagnation. But... for fuck's sake, why is this okay when Nintendo does it with their games?

 

INNOVATE. DO NEW THINGS.

 

GOD.

 

okay i'm done~

 

The day Zelda gets voice acting will be the day gaming dies, because what made the original Zelda so enticing was the idea of taking your imagination to this fantasy world, and adding voices or other modern gaming concepts - like achievements, will just take away from immersion. Link has always been mute, and if they add voice to every Zelda character minus Link, it will be anti-climactic, but even worse would be giving Link a voice. After all, we all have our own interpretations of Link, and by giving him a voice, like giving Samus a voice (and character), will create sure division in the community, and that's the last thing Nintendo needs right now. And Skyward Sword ranks on my top 3 favorite Zelda titles of all time by the way; it was far from safe with its Motion-Plus gameplay and it actually worked!

 

This has to be one of the most hyperbolic things I’ve ever read. Holy shit.

First off, if you think it’s impossible for Link to stay mute while everyone else talks… play Persona 3 or 4. Silent protagonist (done much better than Link, in my opinion) with the rest of the game supported by a stellar voice cast. It’s one of the many factors that makes P4 my favorite game of all time.

 

Second... refer to the above rant. Improvement is nice.

 

 

They are building it competently, but not in terms of power, but rather price. Although I have to agree that the system needs a price drop badly or at the very least, needs to be bundled with another game alongside Nintendoland. If they bundled Pikmin 3 with the same price they have it going now, word of mouth over the quality of that game (spoiler: it's damn good) would spread like wildfire and Nintendo would get the sales they desperately need. Nintendo doesn't fight power with power; they march to the beat of their own drum, and I admire that. I don't want Nintendo to make an Xbox or Playstation clone. Gameplay > Graphics.

 

1. Yeah, but right now the PS3 and Xbox 360 are still going strong, meaning it’s not a cheap alternative by any means, and it won’t be for at least two more years.  

2. You’re kidding yourself if you think Pikmin is a system seller. I’m sorry, but seriously. It’s a good game, but it’s not going to push any systems. Ever.

3. Good thing the PS4 and Xbox One both have pretty fun looking games to boot! Gameplay > Graphics, after all, so it’s nice to have games that excel in both!

 

 

Let's ignore Mario's 25th, because that was aimed directly at Mario fans, and let's ignore MGS HD and Ico/Shadow, which have been out for a while so their prices have lowered accordingly.

 

 

So we should ignore it because it was only a slap in the face to one fanbase?

 

And actually, both of those games were $40 at launch. That’s $20 per game for the Ico Collection, and $14 for each MGS game. Compared to Wind Waker’s whopping fifty-nine US Dollars for that single game. Nothing excuses this.

 

I agree that WWHD is too high priced for what it is, and should have been priced competitively at $40 like KH1.5HD. With that said, KH is third-party, which means they have to put out a competitive price right now, especially with the PS4 coming out not long after, while WWHD is a Wii U-exclusive, and as we know, there's not a lot of good Wii U titles out right now. Scarcity drives demand; sad, but true. Another question is who has the higher fanbase? KH or Zelda? But I agree that the Nintendo Tax is bullshit.

 

The God of War Saga is a fucking steal, and always has been. Five games for $40. At launch. And the PSP games received quite significant makeovers, not unlike Wind Waker HD. It's also a first party game. What’s your point?

 

Also, the fact that you’re actually defending a choice that is undeniably anti-consumer is saddening to watch.

 

 

The 3DS' 3D is garbage and we all know that. Nintendo does too because they barely mention it now. The Gamepad being a gimmick? Too early to tell. All I can say is when it comes to the Gamepad, it unfortunately suffers from being a terrible concept to sell to the consumer, but it is a great one. It's true when people say you have to play with it for a while to get it, and that's the Wii U's biggest flaw. I have yet to see a marketing strategy that truly captures what the Wii U is all about, and some of it is from lack of trying, and others, it's just poor communication.

 

Want to know something interesting? I’m a gamer. I’ve been playing my games my entire life, I’ve been following the industry for about six or seven years now, and I keep myself up to date with this stuff. Simply put, I know my shit. We all do.

 

Despite that? I don’t want one. I don’t think the Gamepad is interesting or compelling enough to warrant the $140 boost in price it demands. Obviously this varies from person to person, but my point is that it isn't some certified great idea that nobody understands. This is what Nintendo wants to believe. I just... don't think it's all that great an idea in the first place. When you're assuming the problem with you product is that the consumer is ignorant... you have a problem.

 

I don’t think showing it to my father would drive him to go buy a Wii U like he did the Wii when he saw Wii Sports for the first time, either.

 

The Gamepad has the same appeal as the DS, and that appeal is something that will only matter to people who want to play video games.

 

The casual audience does not care. Otherwise the situation wouldn’t be so terrible.

 

 

All I am saying is just like you are tired of people acting pitiful towards Nintendo (I wasn't by the way), I am also tired of people just bitching with no actual solutions to the problem. In any aspect of life, I respect those who tell me that they have a problem with something but also deliver a possible solution. Otherwise, it's just downright whining.

 

 

And personally, I think Nintendo deserves the kick in the ass. Hopefully they learn from it.

Edited August 2, 2013 by Discoid

[t0ms0nic]

So what if it's different. It's improved.

 

 

Hey guys, remember exactly why both Super Mario Galaxy games are hailed as two of the greatest games of all time after switching back to and streamlining the Super Mario 64 experience?

 

Oh yeah, because they actually properly played off what had been the jump and translation from 2D to 3D, something that will never be able to be recreated or done over, and had firmly established a working and flexible formula where anything as heavy changing as FLUDD was going to be fixing what isn't broken.

 

genre roulette in sonic adventure was an improvement and saved the sonic franchise

[Red Cap]

Oh, and another thing... the fact that you literally just admit that Nintendo is stifling their creative freedom in order to adhere to the formula... sigh...
 
WHY. WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE THE SAME. FOR FUCK'S SAKE, DO SOMETHING NEW. SOMETHING INTERESTING. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST THIS IS MOST DEFINITELY THE NUMBER ONE THING THAT PISSES ME THE FUCK OFF ABOUT THEM.
 
Imagine a scenario, okay? You are a Nintendo intern in 1994. You're cleaning the conference room as the meeting is going on. Topic of discussion? How to design Mario 64 and Zelda 64.
 
Now I want you to answer this - do you think, for one second, that somebody in that room stopped everyone and said "But guys... that's different from the last game"? No. They were creative. They were ambitious. They were taking their franchises in new directions and breaking boundaries like nobody had ever seen before.
 
How is that a bad thing? Why do they not do this anymore?
 
Ugh... I'm sorry for getting worked up here, but this seriously makes no god damn sense to me.

I think you're overstating the amount of samey games Nintendo's made recently. Yeah, NSMB stays the same for each new game, but what other games have they made from 2006 to now that are as stagnant as that sub-series? Super Mario Galaxy and Galaxy 2 are nothing like 64 or Sunshine, Super Mario 3D Land was the first time they tried fusing 2D and 3D gameplay, Skyward Sword changed a lot from the OoT formula, DKCR is significantly different from the original Country trilogy, Punch Out!! (Wii) happened, KI:U isn't even similar to the first two games, and LM:DM changed a lot of mechanics from the original and added tons of new ones, etc. Hell, even Mario Party, a series known for total stagnation after it's third game, changed drastically in that time frame.

Liek, I just don't see it. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but the NSMB are games are the extremely lazy, extremely safe games that they've put out to my knowledge.

[Sami]

 

Hey guys, remember exactly why both Super Mario Galaxy games are hailed as two of the greatest games of all time after switching back to and streamlining the Super Mario 64 experience?

 

Oh yeah, because they actually properly played off what had been the jump and translation from 2D to 3D, something that will never be able to be recreated or done over, and had firmly established a working and flexible formula where anything as heavy changing as FLUDD was going to be fixing what isn't broken.

 

genre roulette in sonic adventure was an improvement and saved the sonic franchise

 

Hahahaha. Wow. Wow. Okay, buddy. I can play the snarky game too.

 

What you mean to tell me here, from what I can gather, is that developers should have a complete aversion to creativity and taking risks because the possibility of it being badly implemented is there? ... Really? I have to make sure I'm not misunderstanding here, because this is a ridiculous notion.

 

FLUDD was a interesting, creative idea that was implemented into the game poorly. Lesson learned, never try new things.

 

The funny thing is though, that you completely disprove yourself and make a joke out of your previous point by using Super Mario Galaxy as an example of risk aversion and "sticking to the roots". Mario Galaxy plays nothing like Mario 64. At all. In fact, Sunshine is more similar to 64 than Galaxy ever was with its level design and controls, so forgive me if I say that your argument is completely asinine. 

 

Mario Galaxy is exactly what I'm talking about as innovation. It adopted a new art style, used orchestrated music for the first time in the series history, introduced new characters (one of whom had a touching backstory), took on a sense of scope and scale unlike anything ever before seen in a Mario game (or almost any 3D platformer, for that matter), and implemented a unique and creative new gameplay mechanic with its gravity-based level design.

 

Mario 3D World is the exact opposite of this. It borrows the art style from a previous game, plays very similarly to a previous game, has extremely similar music to a previous game, and generally looks and feels like a simple expansion to its predecessor. Hell, Galaxy 2 is just as guilty of this, but seeing as how it was released on the same system and not too long after, it wasn't too big a deal.

 

if you seriously think genre roulette and what I'm talking about are remotely similar you need to read that post again

[Conando]

Would scrapping the Wii U and making a new Nintendo console even work? The feeling of having a fresh start seems tantalizing, but is it really financially feasible?

 

I seriously don't want Nintendo to pull a Dreamcast and absolutely fail despite having a line up of good games gone to waste, but is that even going to happen? 

 

I really want to see Nintendo make a come back.

Did anyone really suggest that, though? Hope they didn't, because I've got 1 word to say about that. That word is SEGA. They abandoned the Saturn in a matter of years, burned the people that bought the Saturn, then shoved out the Dreamcast in desperation which, despite being a good enough system in itself, failed spectacularly due to SEGA's practices. Nintendo is not that stupid, and to suggest that they do such a thing presents a gross misunderstanding of business and a total lack of longterm planning. You make your shitty bed and you lay in it, to do otherwise is going to ruin any type of relationship you have with your consumer base.

Edited August 2, 2013 by Wreck-It Ralph

[Sami]

I think you're overstating the amount of samey games Nintendo's made recently. Yeah, NSMB stays the same for each new game, but what other games have they made from 2006 to now that are as stagnant as that sub-series? Super Mario Galaxy and Galaxy 2 are nothing like 64 or Sunshine, Super Mario 3D Land was the first time they tried fusing 2D and 3D gameplay, Skyward Sword changed a lot from the OoT formula, DKCR is significantly different from the original Country trilogy, Punch Out!! (Wii) happened, KI:U isn't even similar to the first two games, and LM:DM changed a lot of mechanics from the original and added tons of new ones, etc. Hell, even Mario Party, a series known for total stagnation after it's third game, changed drastically in that time frame.

Liek, I just don't see it. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but the NSMB are games are the extremely lazy, extremely safe games that they've put out to my knowledge.

 

I'm mostly referring to their console games. Mario Galaxy is half a decade old now, and I disagree that Skyward Sword had very much in the way of innovation apart from its controls. DKCR is a few years old now, and was followed by a sequel that doesn't look significantly different or ambitious. Punch Out!! is several years old now as well.

 

Kid Icarus Uprising... it's funny, KI:U is actually one of my favorite games; I absolutely loved it. But think of all the things it did - voice acting, cinematic gameplay, a relatively untouched genre, very creative new gameplay, and good online play. Could you direct me to a recent Wii or Wii U game that delivers on some of these aspects? Because I'm seeing a lot of safety coming from Nintendo right now, and have been for a few years. The only Wii U game that really seems to be doing something fresh and interesting is Wonderful 101, and that isn't even being developed by Nintendo. ... It's also not being advertised and will most likely receive dismal sales.

 

The past few years on the Wii haven't given us very many flagship Nintendo games that really tried anything too ambitious at all. Skyward Sword had its controls and not much else - otherwise it wouldn't be criticized the way it is. And I'm saying that as someone who had fun with it.

[Conando]

Skyward Sword was criticized for being different from the previous titles, actually. It was more similar to Metroid in philosophy than typical Zelda; more like Fusion in that respect due to linearity. If you seriously think Skyward Sword is like TP, Wind Waker, or OoT, then you haven't played it.

Edited August 2, 2013 by Wreck-It Ralph

[Sami]

Skyward Sword was criticized for being different from the previous titles, actually. It was more similar to Metroid in philosophy than typical Zelda; more like Fusion in that respect due to linearity. If you seriously think Skyward Sword is like TP, Wind Waker, or OoT, then you haven't played it.

 

In its lack of a large overworld and general guidedness, sure. But it was still very much a "Zelda is gone go get her by finding these items", "those items triggered an event so now you have to find these three other items", "alright now you're almost done find these three more items", and "k good job fight the boss then credits" formula. Like OoT, WW, and TP before it.

 

I don't know if the number was actually three but you get my point.

[Red Cap]

I'm mostly referring to their console games. Mario Galaxy is half a decade old now, and I disagree that Skyward Sword had very much in the way of innovation apart from its controls. DKCR is a few years old now, and was followed by a sequel that doesn't look significantly different or ambitious. Punch Out!! is several years old now as well.

Then how recent do the games need to be to qualify? DKCR came out in 2010, so if that doesn't count then the only games that DO count are 3DS games and a whole bunch of Wii U games we know next to nothing about. And the only truly "samey" one out of those is SM3DW (I don't care if it's samey because it's tons of fun regardless), and even then Miyamoto has said that he's working on a new IP and everything sooo... Edited August 2, 2013 by Red Cap-Blue Spikes

[Conando]

If you want to go to as backboney as an argument as that, then it seems to imply that you don't want Zelda to be Zelda. Which I hope you know is an incredibly stupid idea for Nintendo.

[Autosaver]

I think complaining about Zelda formula is a bit useless considering Nintendo already confirmed they're going to change it up in the next game.

 

edit: also

 

Edited August 2, 2013 by Autosaver

[PSI Wind]

Question: How was Galaxy 1 not AAA and memorable?

[Autosaver]

Question: How was Galaxy 1 not AAA and memorable?

Opinions.

 

That's the problem with arguments. It's funny seeing the two spectrums argue. It's quite obvious - people have different tastes. But yes, Mario Galaxy is widely argued to be AAA and memorable. Some people disagree, of course.

[Ferno]

I'd actually say that recent Platformers like Mario Galaxy, Sonic Unleashed (HD), and the Ratchet and Clank games are the closest the Platforming genre has come to that AAA level (Even though Unleashed failed at alot of what it set out to do, but I'm just lumping it in with the others as an example because of it's comparable large scope and such.)

 

This is all in my opinion of course.

 

...lel there's that opinion thing again like someone said above.

Edited August 2, 2013 by Inferno

[Sami]

Question: How was Galaxy 1 not AAA and memorable?

 

Who said it wasn't?

 

It came out six years ago though. Again... recent stuff.

 

Edit - I'm going to reiterate this yet again because I feel like I'm being misunderstood. 

 

Galaxy = Good. Do that.

 

3D World = No.

Edited August 2, 2013 by Discoid

[PSI Wind]

Ah, okay. While I disagree with your 3D World view, that did make more sense.

[Conando]

I think complaining about Zelda formula is a bit useless considering Nintendo already confirmed they're going to change it up in the next game.

 

edit: also

 

 

To be fair, it will probably still be "Do all this and shit happens", but how you get that shit done and in what order is all up to you.

[RisingForever]

To be fair, it will probably still be "Do all this and shit happens", but how you get that shit done and in what order is all up to you.

 

So a Metroid game but with Link.

[Conando]

Metroid only really gives you the illusion of that unless you sequence break, well at least since after Super Metroid.

[The Kid]

Eh, considering how much I loved 3D Land I'd gladly take 3D World over another Galaxy. Playing it in person only made me more hyped for it.

 

But it's all personal preference I guess.

[tenchibr]

I need to know the true definition of AAA, because I thought it was about this, according to Wiktionary:

 

Symbol[edit]

AAA

1. (sports, North America) The highest level of minor league baseball, often used by extension in other sports to indicate the highest level of minor league play in that sport as well.
2. A very narrow shoe size.
3. (finance) The highest credit rating given by debt analysis agencies such as Standard & Poor's, Moody's, and A.M. Best.
4. (video games) A quality video game expected to sell well, typically with a higher budget than budget software.^[1]

 

Now here's an example of an AAA's budget:

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/18/business/fi-ct-duty18

 

Call of Duty cost $40 million to $50 million to produce, people close to the project said, about as much as a mid-size film. Including marketing expenses and the cost of producing and distributing discs, the launch budget was $200 million, on par with a summer popcorn movie -- and extremely high for a video game.

 

I am sure Galaxy must have costed at least $1 million, but no way it had a fifth of the budget CoD:MW2 did. We will never know for sure because Nintendo keeps that kind of data tight-lipped, but I just don't see it. Putting that into perspective, that is the reason why I don't see Nintendo's titles as AAA. Review-wise and quality-wise, sure, but going by the definition, there is just no way those games were expensive.

[Autosaver]

I like 3D World due to the style of making it easier for other people to play along with the multiplayer.

 

I prefer playing with others, so 3D World is perfect.

[Sami]

If we're going to debate semantics, I'll just say that by "AAA" I meant "industry leader, king of its trade, extremely impressive in multiple aspects". Not purely budget.

 

Mario Galaxy was big, ambitious, memorable, and creative. AAA. 3D World, in comparison, is very clearly a small-time, budget title. Not so AAA.

 

 

Oh, and I forgot to reply to this - 

 

If you want to go to as backboney as an argument as that, then it seems to imply that you don't want Zelda to be Zelda. Which I hope you know is an incredibly stupid idea for Nintendo.

 

 

Why can't we have something as ambitious as this again? Why does Majora's Mask have to be the odd one out? It introduced a new tone and atmosphere to the games, a new overarching game mechanic (three day cycle), and a new way to explore the overworld and talk to people (everyone has their schedule, acts a certain way, and has a distinct personality). 

 

You can't tell me Skyward Sword is not more similar to OoT than Majora's Mask.

 

 

Edit - For the record, I don't mean to be patronizing or antagonizing here. I just enjoy the debate, seeing as how both sides are giving good arguments here.

Edited August 2, 2013 by Discoid

[Red Cap]

Who said it wasn't?
 
It came out six years ago though. Again... recent stuff

.

What year does a game have had to be made in for it to be recent enough for you? You said before that DKCR isn't recent enough. You also said you were talking about main-series console games, so there are literally only four Nintendo games that you could possibly be talking about: Kirby's Return to Dream Land, Skyward Sword, Nintendo Land, and New Super Mario Bros U. Edited August 2, 2013 by Red Cap-Blue Spikes

[Sami]

Again, how recent is recent to you? You didn't count DKCR as being recent enough, and since you said you were talking about console games then there are literally only four games that you could possibly be talking about: Kirby's Return to Dream Land, Skyward Sword, Nintendo Land, and New Super Mario Bros U.

 

Alright, fair enough. DKCR counts. It's a new game, and it does new things. I quite like it as well, but that's not quite relevant in regards to this argument. That being said, it still isn't very far out of Nintendo's comfort zone... a 2D platformer starring one of their mascots, but fair enough. My bad on that one.

 

 

I'm also referring to what they have in store for Wii U, however. The lineup we've been promised is not ambitious or creative at all, in my opinion. Super Luigi U is being heralded as this big thing when it's really just a big expansion pack, Mario Galaxy 2 is inferior to its predecessor in all but level design (and maybe music, but the story, scale, and novelty of the original were no longer there) and really is more of an extremely large level expansion than a full new entry in the series, Skyward Sword didn't do much to stray from the formula mechanically and story-wise (apart from the controls, it still very much feels like a new take on the same thing), Kirby gets a pass because his games are so rare anyway that a 2.5D platformer is more of an "about time!" than "again?", and so on.

 

These are all good games, mind you. Skyward Sword disappoints me looking back for being as safe as it was, and I'm personally tired of the Zelda formula (I'd personally like them to try a darker, more somber tone with a completely new story and motivation, like Majora's Mask), but it was still polished and well-built. Like all of Nintendo's games. Mario Galaxy 2 is just kind of there for me because despite being an incredibly solid game, it doesn't quite deliver in the same way the original did. It's not fresh, new, exciting, or innovative. It might as well just be called More Mario Galaxy, and that was fine for the time, but it's been quite some time since we've seen something really push the boundaries of what we thought these games could do.

 

With the Wii U we have NSMBU. ... Not much needs to be said here. We've got DKCTP, which looks sort of like a Mario Galaxy 2 situation, Smash Bros, which is Smash Bros (but fine because of how rarely those games are released), and Mario Kart, which admittedly does seem to be new and interesting.

 

I'd love to discuss more individual games if you can think of any. I'm kind of tired at the moment so I'm drawing a blank.