Is Shiggy holding Nintendo back?
- Thread starter ninzel
- Start date
Not saying I agree or disagree, but wouldn't it be more accurate to look at what people are playing rather than what they bought? If COD and friends are getting millions of game hours a day, and Mario + Fitness are sitting on shelves barely touched, then the OP would stand. If Wii is getting as much or more playtime than the HD games, then gamers (at least half of them anyhow) are perfectly happy with Nintendo's offerings.
So are you suggesting that because they sold the most software this gen, that nothing is wrong at Nintendo , that they are track to win next gen and nothing needs to be looked at or can discussed?
I think Nintendos previously strong mindshare is seriously being eroded. I predict they will loose next gen..
I am convinced Myiamoto suffers from the Peter Pan syndrome hence why Nintendo games have been traditionally mostly all "rainbows, smilie faces, cute cuddly things, talking mushrooms, turtles, elves in tights, princesses" and stuff. That or he smokes a lot of crack and eats magic mushrooms. Check the original Super Mario for example. It was a genious. Nothing was like it.
And it was full of random shit. A plumber who knows nothing about plumbing, but is an expert at breaking bricks with his head, he kills turtles and mushrooms, but hangs out with another talking mushroom, he tries to save a princess who was kidnapped by a king lizard, he consumes mushrooms to grow big, eats flowers to shoot fire balls, he eats stars to become unstoppable, he walks on clouds and climbs through beanstalks.
Moving three decades later, there hasnt been much change in what Nintendo produces. Its still the old Nintendo character we grew up with. I know for sure the kid I was in the 80s who loved Super Mario games, now wants a different, darker and more mature experience.
So, what do kids want to play today? Do they still view games like we did back then? Do they love these kind of games? How would they percieve the next Nintendo console sitting next to the next Sony and MS console?
What if kids dont care about these "cute" games anymore but care about games in general and how they play? But does it matter? Since its the parent who buys and not the kid?
The parent will sure prefer a cheaper console with less violence to buy for his/her kid. But is the market comprised of kids big enough to satisfy Nintendo's business prospects?
Thats what Nintendo was thinking when they came up with the WiiU and thats how they think when they build their own software for their consoles.
This is the logic why Wii came with less power, cheap, a different controller and "happy" software. This is what the GC tried to be but couldnt differentiate itseld. They wanted the highlight to be the controller so they didnt want people to make performance comparisons with the Wii. They suspected that the highlighted experience combined with good price would fulfill the needs of the parents, kids and casuals. So the appropriate software had to accompany that logic which is the logic they had since their first console in the 80s.
Certainly Nintendo doesnt care what the core gamer wants, or the casual gamer who plays "mature" games. They "know" what the segment they believe exists wants.
But on the other hand MS and Sony saw what Wii did with the casual market and what worked with casuals and kids. Now they tend to offer experiences that attract more casuals too. And the casual market isnt made out of kids only. It remains to be seen if the Wii market changes preferences and if Sony and MS manage to offer a more spherical product this time around that offers everything to everyone strongly enough to overshadow Nintendo's own casual offerings. If the current Wii market changed preferences and want more mature and immersing games combined with unique gameplay methods than what they did before, the WiiU wont cut it (assuming MS and Sony come up with compelling and innovative products)
It might probably be all GC again because the new casual market will grow tired of the same franchises and there wont be much of a difference in terms of gameplay between what they will get from Nintendo and competition. The GC showed that the casual and old big Nintendo franchises werent what most people wanted, hence demand for the GC was small. The Wii only refreshen these franchises for the particular generation but not for the future.
And it was full of random shit. A plumber who knows nothing about plumbing, but is an expert at breaking bricks with his head, he kills turtles and mushrooms, but hangs out with another talking mushroom, he tries to save a princess who was kidnapped by a king lizard, he consumes mushrooms to grow big, eats flowers to shoot fire balls, he eats stars to become unstoppable, he walks on clouds and climbs through beanstalks.
Moving three decades later, there hasnt been much change in what Nintendo produces. Its still the old Nintendo character we grew up with. I know for sure the kid I was in the 80s who loved Super Mario games, now wants a different, darker and more mature experience.
So, what do kids want to play today? Do they still view games like we did back then? Do they love these kind of games? How would they percieve the next Nintendo console sitting next to the next Sony and MS console?
What if kids dont care about these "cute" games anymore but care about games in general and how they play? But does it matter? Since its the parent who buys and not the kid?
The parent will sure prefer a cheaper console with less violence to buy for his/her kid. But is the market comprised of kids big enough to satisfy Nintendo's business prospects?
Thats what Nintendo was thinking when they came up with the WiiU and thats how they think when they build their own software for their consoles.
This is the logic why Wii came with less power, cheap, a different controller and "happy" software. This is what the GC tried to be but couldnt differentiate itseld. They wanted the highlight to be the controller so they didnt want people to make performance comparisons with the Wii. They suspected that the highlighted experience combined with good price would fulfill the needs of the parents, kids and casuals. So the appropriate software had to accompany that logic which is the logic they had since their first console in the 80s.
Certainly Nintendo doesnt care what the core gamer wants, or the casual gamer who plays "mature" games. They "know" what the segment they believe exists wants.
But on the other hand MS and Sony saw what Wii did with the casual market and what worked with casuals and kids. Now they tend to offer experiences that attract more casuals too. And the casual market isnt made out of kids only. It remains to be seen if the Wii market changes preferences and if Sony and MS manage to offer a more spherical product this time around that offers everything to everyone strongly enough to overshadow Nintendo's own casual offerings. If the current Wii market changed preferences and want more mature and immersing games combined with unique gameplay methods than what they did before, the WiiU wont cut it (assuming MS and Sony come up with compelling and innovative products)
It might probably be all GC again because the new casual market will grow tired of the same franchises and there wont be much of a difference in terms of gameplay between what they will get from Nintendo and competition. The GC showed that the casual and old big Nintendo franchises werent what most people wanted, hence demand for the GC was small. The Wii only refreshen these franchises for the particular generation but not for the future.
If something is wrong with Nintendo, then something must really be wrong with Sony and MS.
I don't know where you are getting all the 'on track to win next gen' and such from my post.
This just seems like another one of those "Why doesn't Nintendo make more "mature' cinematic games like Uncharted and Halo instead of colorful kiddy lame games like Mario and Zelda, it's what gamers want."
There always seems to be these kinds of threads with 'hardcore' gamers on message boards who think the industry is all about them and are out of touch with the real world. ^ The guy above me for example.
These people see cinematic, M rated games as mature and colorful, less cinematic games, such as many of Nintendo's offerings as being for kids, parents and 'casuals'.
Don't get me wrong though, I enjoy cinematic games just as much as I enjoy gameplay-focused games, but I've always found the cinematic and M rated = mature, 'hardcore' & for adults and colorful & not M-rated = 'casual' and for kiddies to be annoying and stupid.
In my opinion, these people don't know anything about real maturity.
Well, I don't know what Wii's attach rate has become since Nintendo dropped it, but through most of the generation it was in the same range as PS360's.
* Anyways, to answer the thread, I'm waiting to see what this supposed new WiiU IP of Miyamoto is before I determine how relevant he is at this stage.
Last edited by a moderator:
Why the hell should Nintendo stop doing what they do best, and is getting more and more exclusive at being the only company that does? And lets not forget that Nintendo is not only the king of casual thanks to Wii, but they are also the king of challenge when it comes to games. There is nothing easy about their Mario games. Most of Nintendos games are just that, games. At the core there is nothing else to find and it's a pleasure to those that enjoy that kind of games.
Shigeru Miyamoto has single handily sold me every nintendo console since the N64, it took a lot of time with the Wii to be honest, because i have no place in my heart for unpredictable unprecise controllers (my kids do.. so). A setting with Mario Galaxy and my kid playing bowling sold it. But without him they would have had nothing, i know, they would have had something else, but they would lack 25 million copies of New Super Mario Bros and 32 million copies of Mario Kart Wii, which imho proves.. that there is a big market for Shigeru Miyamoto games.
As for hero games and blod and gore, 3rd party should take care of that so that kids can get screwed up just as easily with a Wii U as a PS3 or XBOX. Imagine Nintendo trying to be all macho and shit with bunch of new "hardcore" games for "real" gamers, they wouldn't have a chance.
And just a comment on the Mario/Peter Pan thingy, there is nothing wrong with one man saving the entire universe in Halo, Uncharted or Mass Effect, but a guy that should be a plumper is getting heat because he can run on rainbows and smash bricks with his head.. wtf? To me both genres are totally off the reality chart, it takes a generation of kids brought up with games like that to believe that there is anything real about those games.
Shigeru Miyamoto has single handily sold me every nintendo console since the N64, it took a lot of time with the Wii to be honest, because i have no place in my heart for unpredictable unprecise controllers (my kids do.. so). A setting with Mario Galaxy and my kid playing bowling sold it. But without him they would have had nothing, i know, they would have had something else, but they would lack 25 million copies of New Super Mario Bros and 32 million copies of Mario Kart Wii, which imho proves.. that there is a big market for Shigeru Miyamoto games.
As for hero games and blod and gore, 3rd party should take care of that so that kids can get screwed up just as easily with a Wii U as a PS3 or XBOX. Imagine Nintendo trying to be all macho and shit with bunch of new "hardcore" games for "real" gamers, they wouldn't have a chance.
And just a comment on the Mario/Peter Pan thingy, there is nothing wrong with one man saving the entire universe in Halo, Uncharted or Mass Effect, but a guy that should be a plumper is getting heat because he can run on rainbows and smash bricks with his head.. wtf? To me both genres are totally off the reality chart, it takes a generation of kids brought up with games like that to believe that there is anything real about those games.
SMB came out in arcade format in what, 1985? 84? Around then anyway. If you check many games around that time period, the first half of the 80s, they were a LOT more random than these days.
Reasons for this is A: gaming was a new thing back then. Designers were as lost as everybody else by and large as nobody had built up much prior experience yet, they threw ideas at the wall, trying to see what stuck.
B: graphics back then actually were graphics. Simple, stark designs, blocky pixels, limted palette and fewer still in the way of simultaneous shades. You couldn't really do much. Mario has coveralls and a moustache due to only 3 colors available for his sprite. Who wears coveralls? Workers. He became a plumber because Super Mario Bros had turtles coming out of pipes; originally before he even was Mario he was more like a construction worker; Jumpman. In Donkey Kong you ran around girders and smashed barrels with a hammer.
Yes, he is, but not for the reasons you guys are saying. Miyamoto's a great creative type, but he makes a bad manager because he too often falls in the trap of making games for himself rather than for players. The most obvious example is how he didn't make a 2D Mario game for nearly 20 years because he finds 3D Mario far more interesting to make, despite the demand for it. He needs a good manager to rein him in when he wants to make crap like Wii Music, or decides it's a good idea to base a handheld machine around a feature that induces headaches and requires that you sit stone-still. He's also the reason for this dumb Wii U pad.
Miyamoto's biggest weakness is that he thinks there's no reason to make a new game if there's no new control mechanic or other whiz-bang gimmick to put in it. This results in refusal to make sequels to popular games and a kind of myopia where he thinks that taking an old game, adding some new mechanic, and rereleasing it is just like making a new game.
Miyamoto's biggest weakness is that he thinks there's no reason to make a new game if there's no new control mechanic or other whiz-bang gimmick to put in it. This results in refusal to make sequels to popular games and a kind of myopia where he thinks that taking an old game, adding some new mechanic, and rereleasing it is just like making a new game.
Considering that his franchises have been existing for so long, can he really make a new sequel without being too similar to his predecessors unless there is a gimmick involved? I wonder.
There arent too many ideas you can come up with for a particular franchise after so many years. You pretty much exhausted and squeezed out your imagination for a particular game universe. You also cant depart too much away from what people loved from the old. On the other hand people grow tired of the same old despite that they loved them. So what do you do?
Introduce a new external gimmick
If we check out his latest games, I feel that the whole innovation in the Wii iterations relies on the Wiiremote, the external gimmick, than internal innovative game design ideas.
If we take away the motion controller they arent much different from their predecessors. The GC didnt have any gimmick involved yet the same franchises werent killer ups for the console nor did they create any huge demand for the hardware. But witth the Wii, people wanted them because the controller was a new way to play.
Probably thats why he still insists in making games as long as there is a new gimmick involved. Nintendo probably has the most and oldest franchises ever living up to today and they are rarely coming up with completely new games if we exclude some party and casual games like Wii sports and Nintendogs.
They rely on past successes and they are scared to experiment and create totally new experiences that depart from the old Nintendo style since they dont know if they will succeed.
He's made six 2D Mario games in the span of twenty-five years. That's not exactly a slave-like, exhausting pace. I don't believe for one second that there are no talented level designers out there that could have come up with some good Mario levels between SMW and NSMB.
What's an "innovative game design idea?" Water packs and armies of plant-men didn't sell consoles. Baseball, bowling, golf and tennis did. I don't think golf is "innovative," but people lined up by the million to play it.
I don't remember Nintendo making anything like Wii Sports or Wii Fit for the Gamecube. And New Super Mario Bros didn't rely much on motion control. I think you don't understand the phenomenon very well.
I think this is completely wrong. Rather, I think Miyamoto defines "new experience" very differently than everyone else, and this is his big weakness that makes him a bad manager.
Was COD4's campaign a new experience? Most people thought it was. It was a breakneck, playable action movie in a fresh, modern setting. But by Miyamoto's standards, it wasn't. You could aim down the sights, shoot bad guys hiding behind walls, and throw grenades in COD1, 2, and 3. And there aren't any environmental puzzles--you just run a gauntlet in each level. That's not new!
Last edited by a moderator:
But not all wanted to see just 2D Mario games. They couldnt abandon the 3D Mario games completely. A 3D Mario on the N64 was the natural evolution. Mario 64 had lots of work and was a massive success. They tried to mimic that success on the GC which didnt do as well at all. After Ninendo's failed 3D attempts its when people begun to ask more for 2D Marios and lets not forget that there are more 2D Mario games made if we count the portables.
I cant tell you what an innovative game design is since its different every time. If it was something standard I could explain now it wouldnt be called "innovative". If I could come up with innovative game designs to use as an argument to your post I would have been a f*cking genious and sought by the gaming industry
You see, an external gimmick is an easier way than trying to come up with innovations. Thats why millions lined up to play those "baseball, bowling and tennis games" which otherwise nobody would have cared with a traditional gaming controller. Without the Wiimote they are old uninspiring games which have been tried again and again. Now you see why Myiamoto relies on the gimmicks so much
Exactly. Wii Sports and Wii Fit were impossible on a GC. A GC Sports wouldnt have sold much. Zelda and Super Mario games on the GC werent massive successes and they didnt sell consoles. Again you see the work of the gimmick doing wonders on the Wii. Again another indication why Myiamoto wants a gimmick.
I am not saying that other games cant be massive success by recycling old ideas under a new setting (to be honest I dont consider the new COD games "new" either). At the same time there are games that recycle ideas and fail miserably. For some franchises people hate changes even if its just the setting that changed. For others it does wonders. Its something you cant really predict. COD's massive record breaking success is crazy anyways. Its not a success that is occasionally mimicked. For COD a new setting works. For Nintendo's games, a new gimmick works. And I am not saying that Nintendo is doing well for not trying to invest on other games or release sequels of its franchises the way people appear to want. I am only pointing out why Nintendo prefers a new gimmick to release a new game. And its because they want to leverage risk, Again I am not saying its right or wrong
Personally I dont like Nintendos games either for the same reason you seem disappointed. But you know? They still sell. I dont like COD games either. But they sell like hot cakes regardless
If companies only made games that all people in the world wanted to play, they'd stop making games.
I'm wondering why you think making a 2D Mario game requires abandoning 3D Mario games completely. They made both a 2D Mario and a 3D Mario for the Wii. They actually made a sequel to the 3D Mario, despite it being half as popular as the 2D Mario game.
Yeah, sports games and arcade-style games are pretty unpopular. Have been for years. That's why nobody makes them any more.
Wii sales fell off a cliff in 2009 and never recovered. Their last big hit was Wii Sports Resort, I think, or Wii Fit Plus (both sequels people wanted!), whichever came out first.
That doesn't explain Pikmin, Wii Music, the Wii U pad, the DS, and the Wii Remote. I don't think your explanation matches what Miyamoto says and does. The problem with the "Miyamoto is risk averse" explanation is it doesn't explain the weird risks he takes and why he is so reticent to make sequels. The "Miyamoto defines 'newness' the way he always says he does" not only explains his behavior, but has the additional benefit of matching his own words about himself.I am only pointing out why Nintendo prefers a new gimmick to release a new game. And its because they want to leverage risk, Again I am not saying its right or wrong
If you don't know what "innovative" means, then I don't think you really understand what I'm talking about.
Last edited by a moderator:
Good. So Nintendo should be doing 2D and 3D Mario games, Which they do. So why complain?
So......fantasy sports games have been traditionally on the same league as and sell as much as Tiger Woods, Fifa, Pro Evolution, Madden, NBA, MLB, etc. Rrrrriiight.
So you claim Wii Sports would have broken sales records on the GC and been a GC million hardware seller regardless of motion controller. Stupid Nintendo. They didnt think about it before. What was that awesome system selling sports game they made on the GC? What was it called? Mario Power Tennis?
Its called saturation. I dont know what this has to do with my point.
Cant comment on Pikmin since I know too few about the game. Wii Music is not a high budget title, it was a Rock Band/Guitar Hero idea with more freedom which were proven success, and they hoped it would sell by the backetloads. Well you cant succeed on everything, Sometimes you will fall short. The WiiU tries to mimic Wii's success, the Wii was an attempt to avoid other risks such as going head to head with competition and big hardware costs.
I have no idea why you consider the DS a bigger risk than any other idea they could have come up with for a next gen portable
Why is he reticent to make sequels? The same franchises that defined Nintendo in the 80's still exist today,
Oh I dont? As far as I know, you didnt say anything about innovation on your first post I quoted. I dont know...what was the closest example of innovation you have brought up after you replied to MY reference to innovation (which varies from game to game)? COD with a different setting? Or Mario in 2D?
They may not have captured the PS360 gamers, but Nintendo is actually _still_ very popular among their "traditional" family with young kids userbase. My son went to elementary school for just 2 months, and came back with Pokemon cards from friends, and DS-envy. I'd say most parents are comfortable with Nintendo titles, and that's a good thing.
Even though I like PS3 games, I want Nintendo to be around to address my kids' needs.
As for their plans to target the tech-savvy, core gamers; I'm sure they will learn from their mistakes quickly.
There is little reason why Iwata will be restrictied by Shiggy when they look at a different user base. Shiggy can just delegate a different guy to take of them with different titles. The end user Nintendo-kiddy perception may be hard(er) to change though.
Even though I like PS3 games, I want Nintendo to be around to address my kids' needs.
As for their plans to target the tech-savvy, core gamers; I'm sure they will learn from their mistakes quickly.
There is little reason why Iwata will be restrictied by Shiggy when they look at a different user base. Shiggy can just delegate a different guy to take of them with different titles. The end user Nintendo-kiddy perception may be hard(er) to change though.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Well someone or something is holding Nintendo back.
I don't know if it's Shigeru Myiamoto is part of the reason, it could be..
On the other hand, it seems he was quite fond of Watchdogs and went to the Ubisoft stand on person to see and play the game.
And now we're hearing that he plans on making a FPS. We might be seeing an older Myiamoto in a different light, being a genius on something other than a Neverland game.
The truth is that japanese studios must really change their formulae if they want to survive.
Increasingly fewer people outside Japan care about 2D fighting games, turn-based RPGs, starship side-scrollers and visual novels.
It must be hard to develop a game whose target is a single country that's struggling to recover from an economic crysis and an earthquake+tsunami+nuclear accident.
I would like to see how a FPS would be, coming from the mind of a japanese team.
I don't know if it's Shigeru Myiamoto is part of the reason, it could be..
On the other hand, it seems he was quite fond of Watchdogs and went to the Ubisoft stand on person to see and play the game.
And now we're hearing that he plans on making a FPS. We might be seeing an older Myiamoto in a different light, being a genius on something other than a Neverland game.
The truth is that japanese studios must really change their formulae if they want to survive.
Increasingly fewer people outside Japan care about 2D fighting games, turn-based RPGs, starship side-scrollers and visual novels.
It must be hard to develop a game whose target is a single country that's struggling to recover from an economic crysis and an earthquake+tsunami+nuclear accident.
I would like to see how a FPS would be, coming from the mind of a japanese team.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think they have a different idea of fun and games. One of the problems is iOS gaming kinda overlaps with their philosophy (but cheaper !). Plus it's hard to communicate the subtle differences between Nintendo games and iOS games for families.
I would also like to see a Nintendo FPS just to see whether and how they can change up the formula. ^_^
I would also like to see a Nintendo FPS just to see whether and how they can change up the formula. ^_^
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
Yeah it's really hard to comminicate the ''subtle'' difference between doodle jump and Super Mario Galaxy...
Can we please once and for all get over the iOS games are the same as Nintendo games or iOS steals Nintendo's market BS?
Can we please once and for all get over the iOS games are the same as Nintendo games or iOS steals Nintendo's market BS?
Oh, it's true for my family at least. ^_^
My wife gave Wii away to the handyman after we got iPad for a year.
Like it or not, your busy, average consumers may not care about the game differences that much. They may not even play the games to find out for real. It took my wife one look, and one question to decide what to do with the hardware.
The Pokemon stuffed toy got a free pass though.
The problem is focus. When Game A sells 20 million units and Game B sells 10 million units, if you're going to make a sequel for only one of them, the choice should be obvious. But Nintendo lets its developers' vanity rather than consumer response determine where they invest their capital. That's a good way to run a company into the ground.
Nope. I think the controller broke barriers in tennis games to the same analog controls did in console racing games. I don't discount that at all. However, I do believe that if Wii Sports had been Mario Sports, the Wii wouldn't have been as big a hit. I also believe that if the pack-in, showcase Wii game had been really, really effective use of the controller in a dark, gritty sci-fi ARPG about an antihero trying to uncover his past one exploded alien reproductive organ at a time, it wouldn't have flown off the shelves, either.
They didnt think about it before. What was that awesome system selling sports game they made on the GC? What was it called? Mario Power Tennis?
It's called "not making games people want to play." Demand for games was still there. Wii Sports Resort was a huge hit. Wii Fit Plus was a huge hit. But Miyamoto's shortcomings began to show themselves again in Wii Music, and Animal Crossing. And you had two developer vanity products (products that were made to satisfy the demands of developers with little thought to what customers wanted) in Mario Galaxy 2 and Metroid: Other M.
Wii Music was a cornerstone of their 2008 lineup. And it was a weird game. (Tennis isn't weird. Fitness isn't weird.) It was a huge risk, not because it was expensive to develop, but because they had so little else planned for '08.
Because I remember the conventional wisdom 2004. A more powerful Game Boy, i.e., something like the PSP was the safe choice. A modest increase in power with two screens and a touch interface was not.
Because he typically takes 6 to 15 years to make one when the normal pace (judging by pretty much every other developer who has a big hit) is 2 to 3. Half-Life still technically exists, and I'd call Gabe Newell "reticent," too.
Similar threads
