Revolution = "paradigm shift"

[GwymWeepa]

I keep hearing people say Nintendo should be on top because they have the "highest-quality games." First of all, that's a tired line straight from the mouth of Howard Lincoln, former head of NOA. Second of all, "high-quality" is a very subjective thing. And lastly, "high-quality" is only one part of the puzzle.

Sony has shown that to succeed in this business, you also need "high quantity." Because customers want CHOICE.

For the past two generations, Nintendo has not given consumers enough choice. They have continued to pump out game after game of Mario and Zelda, and for whatever reason, their commitment to third parties has taken the form of more lip service than anything.

And sorry, but Nintendo deserves its kiddy image. Just because the games are family friendly and "fun for everyone" doesn't mean they'll appeal to your average 16-29 year old.

I mean, look what Nintendo has done. Their flagship games this gen are the same as they ever were: cute, colorful, cartoony. Heck, they even moved further in that direction by redesigning Link to look like a little cartoon girl - clearly not what Zelda fans wanted.

And they think this stuff will be a hit with middle schoolers, or even grade-schoolers these days?

Hell, no. With peer pressure the way it is, there's no way on earth kids today will admit to playing Mario Sunshine or even a great game like Super Monkey Ball. Not when their peers are jacking cars and banging prostitutes over on PS2.

If you think Nintendo's "purple lunchbox" design takes some heat here, on these forums, can you even imagine the ridicule it takes out there on the playground?

And these kids, they're Nintendo's primary demographic. They always have been.

Nintendo needs to wake up and realize that this isn't the 80s anymore. Times have changed. Kids have changed. The game industry has changed. The longer they keep hitting 'Snooze,' the more market share competitors are going to take from them.

Great post.

 

[Kolgar]

Two logical reasons why the share of third parties on GameCube is smaller than on PlayStation 2 or Xbox.

First of all, the userbase is smaller than that of PlayStation 2, and about equal to that of Xbox. Many software is released on PlayStation 2 because that's where most money can be made for third parties, it's the largest potential market.

Secondly, on GameCube, software sales are dominated by Nintendo first and second parties. Almost all the (multi-) million sellers are Nintendo titles, or titles that come from third parties that co-operate with Nintendo very closely (Capcom, Sega,...).

Microsoft has very few first and second party developers in comparison, and offers therefore a bit more potential for third party sales, along with Microsoft's (financial) efforts to obtain titles.

Good points. But they paint a troubling picture for Nintendo.

If it's true that people buy Nintendo consoles primarily to play Nintendo games - and it is true, based on the perpetually lackluster performance of third-party games on Ninty consoles - then what does that mean?

To me, it says that Nintendo has become a niche player.

They've become so well known for Mario and Zelda and the like, that people will buy them for that and those who don't simply won't, regardless of whatever other games (Rogue Squadron, RE) exist on the platform.

You don't go to Taco Bell for hamburgers, right? In the same way, Nintendo has taught people that you don't buy a Nintendo system for any other reason than to play Nintendo games.

That's fine if they're happy being a niche player as the Disney of video games. But it means they'll never be on top again, and they won't be one of the companies growing the market by reaching new types of gamers.

They'll be the kids' console.

Perhaps they're doomed to that. Remember how Sega gained marketshare with Genesis by positioning themselves as "cooler" than Nintendo? And how Sony dethroned Nintendo by targeting older gamers?

Both companies dealt serious blows to the Nintendo name. In two generations, "Nintendo" went from meaning "video games" to meaning "uncool" and "kiddy."

I once overheard a friend of mine telling a friend of hers that her son was "playing Nintendo." The kid got really indignant and immediately corrected his mom. "I'm playing Xbox, Mom."

Apparently, the kid thought himself too grown up for Nintendo, and didn't want to be associated with it.

And so, Nintendo's strength has also become its weakness. The company has a good hold on kids and fans of its franchise games, but those same games are also a turn-off to a lot of other gamers.

How to correct this? Next gen, they need to court third-party support like never before. They need to secure not one, not two, but a SLEW of big, exclusive third-party games. And they themselves need to branch out more - maybe by taking Zelda and making it a truly "mature" game of swords and sorcery with its debut on Revolution.

Personally, I think it may be too late for the company to change developers' and consumers' minds. Nintendo's said for two generations now how things would be different and how they'd do this and do that, and in the end, consumers are left with a spotty release schedule of "high-quality," but cartoony games.

The real "Revolution" Nintendo needs is a change to its thinking.

 

[Ty]

Depends on how u look at it .

Sure but no matter how you spin it, you can't logically say using carts (the most proven medium at the time) is a risk. Some of the other stuff you said can be argued, fine. But N64 using carts = risk does not compute imo.

 

[one]

Nintendo needs to wake up and realize that this isn't the 80s anymore. Times have changed. Kids have changed. The game industry has changed. The longer they keep hitting 'Snooze,' the more market share competitors are going to take from them.

So, you basically mean PSP will kick NDS's ass?

 

[see colon]

So, you basically mean PSP will kick NDS's ass?

pfft.... the ngage owns the portable arena now. psp and nds will fall before the mighty power of nokia!

 

[Evil_Cloud]

Good points. But they paint a troubling picture for Nintendo.

If it's true that people buy Nintendo consoles primarily to play Nintendo games - and it is true, based on the perpetually lackluster performance of third-party games on Ninty consoles - then what does that mean?

To me, it says that Nintendo has become a niche player.

Troubling? Nintendo makes more profit on first and second party sales than Sony or Microsoft. Many third party titles have performed very well on GameCube, like Sonic Adventure, Super Monkey Ball 1 & 2, Resident Evil Remake & Zero, Soul Calibur 2,... (all above 500K)

Very few games can be put under the label of niche products in the games industry, developers and publishers always try to aim as big as they can. Many Nintendo games still sell by the bucketloads, and games like Pikmin and Animal Crossing have both topped +500,000 units for example. If that's niche, you clearly don't understand the word.

They've become so well known for Mario and Zelda and the like, that people will buy them for that and those who don't simply won't, regardless of whatever other games (Rogue Squadron, RE) exist on the platform.

You don't go to Taco Bell for hamburgers, right? In the same way, Nintendo has taught people that you don't buy a Nintendo system for any other reason than to play Nintendo games.

Strange, I know many people who've bought a GameCube for (exclusive) titles from companies like Sega, Capcom, Konami, Square-Enix, Treasure, Bandai,... :?

People know GameCube isn't just about Zelda and Mario, but they do know most titles on GameCube are from Nintendo.

That's fine if they're happy being a niche player as the Disney of video games. But it means they'll never be on top again, and they won't be one of the companies growing the market by reaching new types of gamers.

They'll be the kids' console.

Perhaps they're doomed to that. Remember how Sega gained marketshare with Genesis by positioning themselves as "cooler" than Nintendo? And how Sony dethroned Nintendo by targeting older gamers?

Both companies dealt serious blows to the Nintendo name. In two generations, "Nintendo" went from meaning "video games" to meaning "uncool" and "kiddy."

I once overheard a friend of mine telling a friend of hers that her son was "playing Nintendo." The kid got really indignant and immediately corrected his mom. "I'm playing Xbox, Mom."

Apparently, the kid thought himself too grown up for Nintendo, and didn't want to be associated with it.

If you were to call Nintendo niche, you could as well call Xbox niche, as both are about equal to each other in userbase. (with the difference Nintendo made quite a large profit, and Microsoft made a terrible loss of +$3 billion).

And yes, Nintendo will never be number one again, as the current market is very different from the market of the past. Just look at Electronic Art's top sellers and you've got the picture, it's all about being cool, being licenced, being mature,...

Nintendo does not have to change into an EA-like company with Mario pimping Princess Peach, Zelda drinking alcohol, Link shooting Ganon with a shotgun, Mario Kart with tuneable karts,... They are profitable, and as long as they are profitable and continue to grow they're safe. This doesn't mean Nintendo hasn't got any problems or things they could do better, however.

And so, Nintendo's strength has also become its weakness. The company has a good hold on kids and fans of its franchise games, but those same games are also a turn-off to a lot of other gamers.

How to correct this? Next gen, they need to court third-party support like never before. They need to secure not one, not two, but a SLEW of big, exclusive third-party games. And they themselves need to branch out more - maybe by taking Zelda and making it a truly "mature" game of swords and sorcery with its debut on Revolution.

Personally, I think it may be too late for the company to change developers' and consumers' minds. Nintendo's said for two generations now how things would be different and how they'd do this and do that, and in the end, consumers are left with a spotty release schedule of "high-quality," but cartoony games.

The real "Revolution" Nintendo needs is a change to its thinking.

I agree Nintendo needs to get more IP, but it would be bad for them if they would only make mature titles, they'd alienate from their current userbase.

They need to find a better balance between mature and all audience titles. In my opinion, they should make both mature as all audience titles based on their franchises. Much like the mature Zelda and the cell-shaded Zelda on GameCube, with the only difference more titles and also more new Nintendo IP and franchises.

 

[see colon]

I agree Nintendo needs to get more IP, but it would be bad for them if they would only make mature titles, they'd alienate from their current userbase.

nintendo gets new IP every generation. people just don't see it, or they spin off a rediculous amout of sequals and people complain that nintendo needs to get some new IP. that's basicly what happend with pokemon, for example. it debuted on the home consoles (in the US) on the n64 and gbc, one generation ago (and halfway through the 64 i might add). the problem is they pumped out so many sequals in such a short time (and got rich off it) that people complained that nintendo doesn't do anything new.

the gc saw the birth of pikman, eternal darkness, and custom robo. only pikman really got any fanfair, and it also got a sequal. by next generation when pikman 3 (or pikman revloution) comes out everyone will bitch that nintendo does nothing but make pikman and mario. yet rockstar will be congradulated for releasing the next GTA

 

[Evil_Cloud]

I agree Nintendo needs to get more IP, but it would be bad for them if they would only make mature titles, they'd alienate from their current userbase.

nintendo gets new IP every generation. people just don't see it, or they spin off a rediculous amout of sequals and people complain that nintendo needs to get some new IP. that's basicly what happend with pokemon, for example. it debuted on the home consoles (in the US) on the n64 and gbc, one generation ago (and halfway through the 64 i might add). the problem is they pumped out so many sequals in such a short time (and got rich off it) that people complained that nintendo doesn't do anything new.

the gc saw the birth of pikman, eternal darkness, and custom robo. only pikman really got any fanfair, and it also got a sequal. by next generation when pikman 3 (or pikman revloution) comes out everyone will bitch that nintendo does nothing but make pikman and mario. yet rockstar will be congradulated for releasing the next GTA

Yes there were new IP's introduced, but not much. The traditional Nintendo family hasn't changed at all, save Pikmin and Animal Crossing.

Eternal Darkness, Pikmin, Doshin The Gaint (although a conversion from N64DD version) and Animal Crossing (although a conversion from N64 Animal Forest) were new IP's, Custom Robo already existed on N64.

Four titles, from which two were succesfull, and two not so quite.

Where is the Nintendo that introduced tons of new characters and franchises? Yes, the risk has increased to launch IP, but games like Pikmin and Animal Crossing show new things can work out very well.

 

[darkblu]

Strange, I know many people who've bought a GameCube for (exclusive) titles from companies like Sega, Capcom, Konami, Square-Enix, Treasure, Bandai,... :?

i'd go even further and say that many late gc adopters (read: practically those people who (a) didn't rush to by a cube soon after its release, or (b) did not get it for their kids) give little about nintendo franchise. take me: 2 capcom & 1 retro games so far, one retro and one campcom title on my shopping list. no ninty titles whatsoever. so people can somehow find some value in the little cube without a single 1st party title. go figure

 

[see colon]

Where is the Nintendo that introduced tons of new characters and franchises?

and how does nintendo compare to other developers IRT new ip? especial first party devs. about the same, i think (you can't really compare microsoft because they have no "golden age" to look back on).

Four titles, from which two were succesfull, and two not so quite.

so about a 50% chance a new franchise will stand out. not really great odds, but not bad. at this point, though, i think nintendo is in "conserve money to make next generation better" mode, like they were this late in the n64 days. only a few stand out titles released, and that's pretty much it. i wonder if GC will get it's equivilent to CBFD.

2 capcom & 1 retro games so far, one retro and one campcom title on my shopping list. no ninty titles whatsoever.

by retro did you mean like midway acrade treasures or like retro studios?

 

[darkblu]

2 capcom & 1 retro games so far, one retro and one campcom title on my shopping list. no ninty titles whatsoever.

by retro did you mean like midway acrade treasures or like retro studios?

retro studios. i still consider them "2nd" party.

 

[Fox5]

Nintendo does not have to change into an EA-like company with Mario pimping Princess Peach, Zelda drinking alcohol, Link shooting Ganon with a shotgun, Mario Kart with tuneable karts,... They are profitable, and as long as they are profitable and continue to grow they're safe. This doesn't mean Nintendo hasn't got any problems or things they could do better, however.

Better tell that to nintendo, it may not be too late to stop them from making mario baseball and putting the mario characters in NBA Street...

Mario Baseball makes no sense at all, maybe the nintendo characters could be hidden characters(like the mortal kombat characters in slugfest), but the only sport I might associate mario with is basketball, because he can jump high, and even then I wouldn't put a really cartoony mario into a game with normal looking people. I guess the characters in NBA Street will be hidden unlockables, but I don't think there's anyone who wouldn't laugh at seeing them.

Eternal Darkness, Pikmin, Doshin The Gaint (although a conversion from N64DD version) and Animal Crossing (although a conversion from N64 Animal Forest) were new IP's, Custom Robo already existed on N64.

Doshin and Animal Crossing both had Japanese last gen releases, so how come you consider them new and not Custom Robo which had never been seen stateside before? There was also Cubivore.
BTW, Animal Crossing and Pikmin were probably helped by the fact that they didn't suck. Custom Robo, Doshin, and Cubivore did. And Eternal Darkness didn't really look unique, normal gameplay in it was pretty boring, it was the story and presentation(insanity effects) that made it good.

This gen nintendo has...
Shown that starfox doesn't have to be a space shooter. A new use for the license but not innovative.
Show that rogue squadron does have to be about flying space ships.
Created Luigi's Mansion, which was a fairly unique entry into the survival horror genre, I'd say the only game even semi close to it is illbleed.
Gave Zelda a new look, which I thought was incredible, even more so than seeing Jet Grind Radio for the first time.
Created a surprisingly innovative RTS/Platformer hybrid in Pikmin.
Allowed 3rd parties to produce new IPs, like Super Monkey Ball and Sega Soccer Slam from Sega, and Viewtiful Joe. Also capcom redefined Resident Evil with RE4.
Created Metroid Prime, which I see as sort of a halflife/metroid/zelda combo.
Created Animal Crossing, a unique take on the Sims idea that many think was much better.
Created another unique addition to the survival horror genre with Eternal Darkness.

And have nearly destroyed the markettability of Mario and ruined Kirby's reputation. I suppose they've hurt Link's as well. But mario has been pimped out to the extreme in many crappy and uninspired titles. Mario Sunshine was ok, but did nothing new and nintendo tried to make it more like the 2d Mario games than a direct clone of mario 64. Level design and objectives were generally more linear, especially the bouns levels(which were good and went all the way, they're what I'd expect a direct conversion from 2d mario to 3d to be like), and someone at nintendo decided that collectathons were fun. And Kirby just had a horrible game in Kirby Air Ride, and its gba sequels seemed about as uninnovative as can be.

retro studios. i still consider them "2nd" party.

That may be so, but they are definetely first party. Do you consider NST, who made WaveRace, to be 2nd or 1st party? How long does a company have to be fully owned by nintendo before it becomes 1st party?

 

[V3]

Better tell that to nintendo, it may not be too late to stop them from making mario baseball and putting the mario characters in NBA Street...

The Mario in V3 is rather funny

Beside DDR, Mario is also playing Mahjong in the upcoming NDS game

 

[Evil_Cloud]

I listed them, but I mentioned they appeared before that on N64DD.

Eternal Darkness was also first a N64DD game, same for Starfox: Adventures (Dinosaur Planet),...

 

[Fox5]

I listed them, but I mentioned they appeared before that on N64DD.

Eternal Darkness was also first a N64DD game, same for Starfox: Adventures (Dinosaur Planet),...

Those were both regular N64 games, but the difference is they were never released on an older system, Animal Crossing, Doshin, and Cubivore were all ports, at least Custom Robo was a new game.

 

[Evil_Cloud]

I listed them, but I mentioned they appeared before that on N64DD.

Eternal Darkness was also first a N64DD game, same for Starfox: Adventures (Dinosaur Planet),...

Those were both regular N64 games, but the difference is they were never released on an older system, Animal Crossing, Doshin, and Cubivore were all ports, at least Custom Robo was a new game.

Doesn't matter really, it just shows Nintendo should do a larger effort to create new characters/buy characters.

 

[cthellis42]

Devil May Cry felt very drag queen to me. Not sure if that's a clear image, but it was so cheesy it kept reminding me of drag queens. Queer Eye for a Straight Guy kind of feeling.

Er... um...

You... are a really strange guy.

 

[jvd]

i wonder if GC will get it's equivilent to CBFD.

the new zelda

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

Someone mentioned that GC was trash, well I would tend to disagree. A lot of the Console games overlap PC games so no need to by the console version of the game since GENERALLY SPEAKING you can get the PC game cheaper faster since you do not have to pay lisencing fees like you do for consoles.

Nintendo has a very successfull line of franchies

Mario
Zelda
StarFox
Donky Kong
Pinkmin

What Nintendo needs is to bring back 3rd party games to their system. Once they do that, then I believe they will do a lot better.

Do I miss GTA:SA on my GC nope as I do not play that type of game.
Same for just about any other game where you can do morally unacceptable things.

One place Nintendo excels is party games such as

Mario Kart
Mario Tennis
Super Monkey Ball setries
Super Smash brothers
Mario Party series
etc

These are games people will be playing for years to come.

I am 35 years old and I love to play Mario Games as they are simple easy to play and do not require a STEEP learning curve to have fun.

And finally Nintendo always been profitable with the GameCube, something that MS cannot claim with the X-box. If MS did not have the revenue from the rest of the company to keep x-box afloat, they would not be here today.

 

[London Geezer]

Devil May Cry felt very drag queen to me. Not sure if that's a clear image, but it was so cheesy it kept reminding me of drag queens. Queer Eye for a Straight Guy kind of feeling.

Er... um...

You... are a really strange guy.

Well i can't help it.