Nintendo's Modern Reputation

[Jess]

Hi all,

As a gamer of more retro systems like Nintendo, Super NES and the N64 i remember how notable Nintendo's reputation was. Even going up against the PS1 it still had games that challenged it. But as someone who does not own a current gaming console for this generation can someone explain to me why the Wii is considered to be the lesser of all of them.

Is it the graphics? Is it because of the more family friendly elements? It's disheartening to see Nintendo not be top dog I suppose in a way considering what it did for gaming in general but I understand there are more options out there for more hardcore gamers.

Basically, is a Wii or upcoming Wii U worth a purchase? Or should I just stick with my Super NES and N64. When did Nintendo become the least favorite console? Is this from the Wii or is this left over from the Gamecube days? Thanks for any info.

 

[Jess]

And sorry for the misspelling. The title is obviously supposed to be Modern* not moder

 

[Soapy]

Basically, is a Wii or upcoming Wii U worth a purchase?

Sure, but there's really no reason to buy the Wii now because the Wii U is going to be backwards compatible.

Me personally, I didn't get a Wii, but I've started stockpiling all the Wii games that interested me so I can play them on the Wii U, which will also keep my Wii U from collecting dust between Nintendo's big releases for that console.

When did Nintendo become the least favorite console? Is this from the Wii or is this left over from the Gamecube days?

It's actually from the N64 days. The PS1 outsold it by quite a bit. Continuing the trend, the Game Cube was absolutely destroyed by the PS2 and even sold less than the first Xbox.

The Wii on the other hand has outsold both the PS3 and 360, however it has a very bad reputation for a multitude of reasons.

• Its hardware is very poor.

• It doesn't support HD resolutions.

• Its online functionality is a joke.

• It introduced motion controls, which are mostly imprecise and only fun in short bursts.

• It has a disproportionate amount of casual shovelware compared to the other consoles.

• With very few exceptions, it has awful third party support.

• The current gaming zeitgeist generally favors gritty realism and cinematic presentation, which Nintendo is pretty much the antithesis of.

• It is viewed as "uncool" because it became kind of a fad for a couple years. Popular with soccer moms and nursing homes, etc.

• This one is a tad overdramatic, but it seemed like a betrayal of sorts because Nintendo openly said they were targeting "non-gamers" instead of their fans and the enthusiast crowd.

 

[Jess]

Ah. Thank you. So is the Wii U planning on heavily competing with the new next gen consoles now by upgrading hardware and other functions?

 

[Soapy]

Well, even though the Wii U is technically a "next gen" console, its specs are comparable to the current generation. (Xbox 360 and Playstation 3)

 

[:eek:]

Hard to tell for now how powerful Wii U will be. I think it's a safe bet that it will be less powerful than Sony's and Microsoft's next machines, but there have been rumours lately that it might be even less powerful than PS 3 and Xbox 360. But it's only two months until E3, so we will know for sure soon.

 

[StrainedEyes]

I'm sure it will be more powerful than the 360 and the PS3, but it won't stack up to whatever's next. It'll be a bridge between the two.

 

[WolfCypher]

Hi all

Well, hello yourself, Sir or...

As a gamer of more retro systems like Nintendo, Super NES and the N64 i remember how notable Nintendo's reputation was. Even going up against the PS1 it still had games that challenged it. But as someone who does not own a current gaming console for this generation can someone explain to me why the Wii is considered to be the lesser of all of them.

Considered the lesser...I'm sure you mean what the general opinion is, but if you want the facts, the Wii has outsold all the other current generation systems so severely its won this console race before the race is even done. The truth remains that it may not be the fan-favorite for the hardcore audience, but just going by a consumer's POV, its the best of the three.

Basically, is a Wii or upcoming Wii U worth a purchase? Or should I just stick with my Super NES and N64. When did Nintendo become the least favorite console? Is this from the Wii or is this left over from the Gamecube days? Thanks for any info.

Varying factors. Adding to Soapy just a little bit;

IT LOST ITS 3RD PARTY DOMINANCE. With the NES and SNES, Capcom, Square, Konami, Midway, EA, Namco...everyone was making games for Nintendo. Everyone was giving Nintendo their best. And then the N64 up'd and declared "no CDs...still cartridges." Developing games in the CD format was far easier and less expensive than doing so on cartridges. The biggest strike was when Square, a HUGE supporter for Nintendo (so much so they created an irreversible rift between themselves and Sega), cancelled any plans on a Final Fantasy 7 for the N64. Instead of limiting their next project, they moved onto a system that could support their vision with the Playstation, which used CD-Roms. They were able to take a large game (a 2-disc game stretched into 3 discs) which would not have all fit on a practical cartridge. And many other developers started to just focus their most ambitious projects for the rival systems.

This became most problematic for the Wii. While PS3 and 360 would get proper titles, the Wii would get lucky just to get gimmick versions of franchise games. Instead of a real Castlevania (which Sony and Microsoft got) Nintendo got a horrible Castlevania FIGHTING game that FORCED motion controls. Sony and Microsoft got real Final Fantasy games while Nintendo's home console gets the lesser Crystal Final Fantasy games. Instead of any real SoulCalibur game, Nintendo gets a terrible SC adventure-ish game. And many, many anticipated games just never even appeared in even a watered-down form, on the Wii. No Ninja Gaiden. No Skyrim. No Capcom fighters (save for the excellent sleeper hit Tatsunok vs. Capcom). No Resident Evil 5. No Metal Gears. Even worse (in America), a severe lack of FPS.

When Nintendo was on top, platformers, and action-adventure run-&-bops featuring light-hearted mascot characters were the most dominate genre in the video-gaming world. The times have changed and now all games must cater to this new demand for gritty, overly serious, guns-ablazing, Modern Warfare audience. If the game doesn't involve shooting, brown or gray environments, war-torn settings, overly masculine/meat-head buff men, and if a system isn't drowning in these kinds of games, it will NEVER be the popular system. Used to be a time when grown gamers looked forward to a Nintendo system JUST to play a game where you control a large ape or a pink puffball...sure they looked like cartoon characters, but the gaming masses saw through that and said "hey...these games are some of the BEST games on the market!" Not anymore. My ex-co-workers would scoff at the idea of playing even a game like Legend of Zelda SIMPLY because "it looks like a kiddie game/was on a kid's system"...

Personally, I don't want Nintendo to change THEIR image. Continue with the quality Marios, Kirbys, and Pokémons...but start stepping up your gear so that 3rd-Party developers CAN give Nintendo their titles, including the shooters these kids won't shut up about. If Nintendo can stop falling behind on the tech so developers can actually put their games on the system without compromise, we can get Nintendo ports of actually GOOD titles. Sticking with carts when CDs became relevant? Dumbing down your own tech while the competitors reach whole new levels of graphics that the 3rd-Parties are drawn to? Isolating your loyal fanbase by purely focusing on the soccer moms and casual rainy-day gamers with silly motion controls and "Wii Party" games, over quality Nintendo titles (like more Metroid and StarFox) and NOT trying to bring in the heavy-hitting Capcom and EA titles...these are reasons why Nintendo is stigma'd with the last-place mentality gamers give it.

I still love Nintendo and I'm glad the Wii of all systems won this war, but I feel it had to compromise too much to get that gold. I want a Nintendo that can give us what only Nintendo can give us, while not being the system 5 years behind, like always.

 

[Thundercrack85]

If you're a fan of Nintendo's work, a Wii isn't a bad purchase. There are some great (exclusive) games for it, even if they are family friendly.

I play games rated M all the time, and Mario Galaxy is still an awesome game. And its sequel is even better.

And I've been told it has some other games. The Legend of Samus or something.

 

[FrostBite]

I think reputation is kind of subjective term in this case. If you mean bad reputation with nerds (I don't mean that derogatorily at all, more of a compliment actually) sure, yeah, 'course. Lack of third-party support, worse hardware, subpar online services. They want the best of the best of the best. If you mean the general household? Dang Nintendo's bigger now than it ever was.

They expanded my favorite medium into far more households than it ever would have been in, and probably (yet again) helped to turn around an inevitable crash of the industry (that we are more than likely headed towards) from no longer catering to a niche group of the populace. Instead of catering to gamers, they made new ones.

I'm kind of backward though, back in the SNES days I was a SEGA boy, and I never cared for the NES. N64 was okay, and the Gamecube was fine. I've owned every console, but never loved one as much as the Wii so far. I guess I am one of the lone core-gamers that think Nintendo's best work has been on the Wii, it's just that everyone else basically pumped out trash and abandoned it.

Which, yeah, if you aren't into their stuff (and a lot of people aren't, just like a lot of people aren't into a lot of things) what can you turn to on the console? Nothing. Nothing at all. Heck I have all three consoles because I feel they all have unique game-changers on their consoles... but what if your household can only afford one of these?

If you have a kid, you're likely going to get the Wii (because, let's face it, there's nothing of substance or quality for children on the PS3/360 unlike when we were kids). If you're a gamer who likes racing/action/mature/FPS/WRPG/Online games, you have to turn to the 360/PS3. Sure Nintendo has games in each of those genres, very good ones, but they don't have a variety to pick from.

Still I wouldn't take the internet as gospel, New Super Mario Bros. Wii and Mario Kart Wii are... well, two of the best selling games of all time. They profited on every console sold to a massively selling piece of hardware that was 10-years old on the inside. They brought motion gaming to the table (and then dropped it--but that's another discussion), and have created some of their top rated content of all time for the Wii. Heck, they even managed to take a disastrous scenario with the 3DS and flip it on it's head and start selling a product that should have died like hotcakes. Their "reputation" amounts to little more than still being the all seeing overlords of the gaming universe. Even people who don't like Nintendo, can't shut up about Nintendo.

I doubt their money cares. Why should you? We're gamers, enjoy the games.

If Nintendo can stop falling behind on the tech so developers can actually put their games on the system without compromise, we can get Nintendo ports of actually GOOD titles.

I'm inclined to agree, but, much like I just said, when it comes to Nintendo, conventional wisdom never works. When the Gamecube was stronger than the PS2, and it did receive ports, none of them sold. At all. It received freaking classics that were leagues beyond their counterparts (RE4 GC vs. PS2), and they still didn't sell. Likewise, the DS was infinitely weaker than the competition, and gets a lot more quality content from outside developers than the PSP ever did.

Third parties just can't sell on a Nintendo console (handhelds they do fine on). They can't. Part of that has to do with (honestly) the amount of content that Nintendo themselves brings out and who their userbase is. A lot of their product is really high quality stuff. They, effectively, have a cannibalization of their own market. If new Mario's release at the same time as a Metal Gear game, Metal Gear isn't going to sell, at least, not to Nintendo's fanbase. When third-parties see this discrepancy in sales figures they feel no need to release their content on Nintendo's platforms. Third-parties have been saying this for years.

Why invest where you can't sell? You can't sell there not because of the hardware much of the time, but due to the demographic you're reaching for. Sony ads cater to a certain type of consumer, Microsoft to another, and Nintendo to their own. The big three each have a split piece of the market.

Nintendo's smartest move was going the "cheaper hardware" route. They can push it, even if other devs can't. Meaning more profit from consoles, cheaper price points so more people buy those consoles, and more resources to develop with for future titles, which, in turn, sell more because they are more well made.

 

[Octoberist]

As progressive as they are with some of their tech, I think Nintendo is kinda stagnant with their IPs. Mario and Zelda are great, but show some new clever titles too. That's my problem with Nintendo; they take one giant step forward with innovation then two baby steps back with their catalog.

 

[Thundercrack85]

That's probably because they see Mario as their bread and butter. They've made Mario platformers, Mario RPGs (good ones too), Mario racing games, Mario sports games. Hell, it's surprising we haven't had a Mario FPS yet. There's still time.

Zelda actually gets relatively few titles. For every Zelda game there are a dozen Mario titles.

This year alone we have Mario Party 9, Paper Mario 3DS, Mario Tennis Open, Luigi's Mansion 2, and Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games. And it's a slow year.

 

[Octoberist]

I understand that, and from a business point, it makes sense because it's the cash cow. But it's still stagnant and eventually the core audience will feel it too, if not already.

There is time for sure, but they need to release new original titles for the Wii U.

 

[Thundercrack85]

With the Wii, I assume they had very limited draw. It's presumably more profitable for third parties to make a game that can be played on two powerful consoles (the Xbox 360 and PS3) than one weak console.

The Wii U might not have that problem now, but when the PS4, and the Xbox whatever come out, they'll have the same problem. Let's hope for Nintendo's sake that Sony and Microsoft take their time.

 

[Octoberist]

I agree. The market is changing so much now.

It's not just Nintendo but the whole Japanese market. Capcom is probably the only Japanese companies that has evolved and have been making games that's universal in appeal. Where as many Japanese developers are too stuck in their ways in this radical different gaming climate.

 

[Lily Adler]

That's probably because they see Mario as their bread and butter. They've made Mario platformers, Mario RPGs (good ones too), Mario racing games, Mario sports games. Hell, it's surprising we haven't had a Mario FPS yet. There's still time.

Zelda actually gets relatively few titles. For every Zelda game there are a dozen Mario titles.

This year alone we have Mario Party 9, Paper Mario 3DS, Mario Tennis Open, Luigi's Mansion 2, and Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games. And it's a slow year.

That is THE best idea ever.

But seriously, I would love to play a FPS with Mario and friends.

 

[Soapy]

[YT]J6OD6xDdfz0[/YT]

 

[FrostBite]

I agree. The market is changing so much now.

It's not just Nintendo but the whole Japanese market. Capcom is probably the only Japanese companies that has evolved and have been making games that's universal in appeal. Where as many Japanese developers are too stuck in their ways in this radical different gaming climate.

It's not universal appeal, it's western appeal. Big difference. Japanese games were big once because it was different, the style was new and radical. Now western games are big for the same reason. History shows that this will probably sway back and forth throughout the course of years. The Japanese hate Capcom recently as it is with the exception of Ace Attoreny, Monster Hunter, and Resident Evil. The last of which, they are westernizing heavily as of late and there's a big chance the Japanese will drop that as well. They are also heavily neglecting their western fans, while ripping them off with skeevy tactics and as such, prepare for their downfall in the coming years (they've already seen a ton of hits). Once they do, expect even more radical shifts than now to backpedal.

The market is changing a ton, I'll give you that. But we aren't the only market. (But we do make the most money for it, cha-ching!) I'm really happy that the market is so divided, because it means that there is so many different types of quality products floating around for so many people. While us niche only prefer certain types of games, others are appealing to new gamers in mass. Thus, our industry is expanding--it's a great thing.

Also, with the IPs remaining stagnant, yes, they are the same IPs, but let me tell you having variation in intellectual properties isn't something you commonly see. You see tons of third-parties work on tons of titles, but the fact is regular dev teams are stuck on regular/annualized titles. Assassin's Creed will keep being pumped out by the same teams, Call of Duty, Eurocom on Bond titles, etc. While some deviated after 3 or so (Naughty Dog, though I have a feeling Uncharted will prove to come back into their home soon enough), it isn't a common practice. Nintendo is no exception. While we would like to pretend they are some strange entity that cranks out new ideas (and they do, but I'll get to that in a second) they have to stay loyal to those brands lest they die in the water just like everyone else (MS, Capcom, Activision, etc.) Also, I'd like to add, a ton of new IPs have been cranking out of the studio every gen, most of which are overlooked or not intended for me and you. In the Gamecube era Pikmin fell on its face despite being brilliant. In the Wii era, the "Wii" line has penetrated the market full force. What you and I see as tedious mini-games are creating memories for a lot of young people the way Super Mario World did for us, count on them breaking it out when their 30 and going "Ugh! Things aren't the way they used to be! This is so awesome!"

Another difference here is that, unlike the others Nintendo adds a great deal of variety to their titles, keeps them fresh and interesting and doesn't annualized them to avoid market fatigue. It's a smart tactic. If the core, as a whole, avoids their titles, they'll change them. Remember all of the crappy Mario Sports titles being the "big-hits" on the Gamecube? They are now regulated to "back-up" while they crank out more popular titles. If we don't buy it, they don't get big hits. As it stands, their popularity is higher than ever before with a majority of the tried and true. When they do something different (Xenoblade) it under-performs. If people want to get rid of Mario, they need to stop buying Mario (and sales show, they haven't stopped no matter how much they complain.)

I'm not trying to advocate Nintendo's superiority, I'm trying to advocate that they are like everyone else, but coming from a different angle. It's easy to point fingers at the odd man out and assume that because they are so radical in their approach that they are inherently worse due to non-conformity, it's harder to actually take that step back and go "Huh, they are doing what everyone else is doing."

Example: 10 year old tech for $250 sold in 2006, right? Rip-off, right? Or... $599 for 4-5 year old tech released in 2006?.. Ouch. Same thing.

Nintendo isn't really as odd as the core would believe, we just hate them because they don't pander to us anymore. Yet when they did, they almost left the business. If they were truly odd they'd have kept doing what we tell them to and they'd probably be in SEGA's position right now or, maybe more realistically Sony's (who has been floundering this entire generation and drowning in losses.)

[YT]J6OD6xDdfz0[/YT]

At first I was like "Huh, it really sucks the grit out." Then I saw the shy guys waddling toward him dazed and I was terrified.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

That's probably because they see Mario as their bread and butter. They've made Mario platformers, Mario RPGs (good ones too), Mario racing games, Mario sports games. Hell, it's surprising we haven't had a Mario FPS yet. There's still time.

Zelda actually gets relatively few titles. For every Zelda game there are a dozen Mario titles.

This year alone we have Mario Party 9, Paper Mario 3DS, Mario Tennis Open, Luigi's Mansion 2, and Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games. And it's a slow year.

I think because of this, Zelda is seen as more prestigious, which I think Nintendo realizes.

I wish Nintendo would end the Party series and stop with the sports spin-offs. Just keep the platformers (main series), the kart games, and the RPGs.

 

[FrostBite]

I think because of this, Zelda is seen as more prestigious, which I think Nintendo realizes.

I don't think they care about prestigious or not. Nintendo has came out and said Skyward Sword viciously under-performed, hit a plateau and died. 3 million to Mario Kart Wii that has sold almost 39 million and is continuing to sell in the global top 30 every week... and it came out 4 years ago.

Even Mario Party 8 sold more than Skyward Sword. Which is... a crime against humanity.

 

[WolfCypher]

Skyward Sword, Other M, and Donkey Kong returns undersold. Granted, they probably expected far more than DK should have been tasked with in sales, but they still say it undersold.

Do you know what the sale consensus is for Kirby Epic Yarn and Return to Dreamland?

 

[FrostBite]

Skyward Sword, Other M, and Donkey Kong returns undersold. Granted, they probably expected far more than DK should have been tasked with in sales, but they still say it undersold.

Do you know what the sale consensus is for Kirby Epic Yarn and Return to Dreamland?

...DK sold almost 5.5 million and more than any other DK game. For a franchise that took a gigantic break. WHAT WERE THEY EXPECTING!?

I have no idea what they expected for Kirby, seeing as Iwata is like his daddy, I don't know how much he'll care, he'll probably keep green-lighting those bad boys no matter what. I do know that both sold around 1mil-1.5mil it wasn't a big splash. Well, by Nintendo's sales figures standards. I don't think as much money was invested as say, Skyward Sword though.

 

[Soapy]

I think that's a sign that the Zelda franchise has gotten stale and is in desperate need of some sort of shake up.

 

[WolfCypher]

Mindblowing how DK outsold Zelda by that much.

I read that Nintendo was unhappy with the sales for DKCR...and you say they got 5.5 mill out. I have no idea why Nintendo would be unhappy...or I'm the victim of misinformation. Damn you, the internets!!1!

 

[Thundercrack85]

I don't think they care about prestigious or not. Nintendo has came out and said Skyward Sword viciously under-performed, hit a plateau and died. 3 million to Mario Kart Wii that has sold almost 39 million and is continuing to sell in the global top 30 every week... and it came out 4 years ago.

Even Mario Party 8 sold more than Skyward Sword. Which is... a crime against humanity.

That's the thing though, you may not like them, but Mario games have very broad appeal. Skyward Sword has rather limited appeal. And it was a subpar Zelda title. Emphasis on Zelda title (still pretty good by most standards).

I'd certainly agree that Zelda has become stagnant. The fact that Nintendo is still debating voice acting is a good example. The plot has also become incredibly repetitive.