How is Nintendo successful?

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
27,765
Speaking of...

What are people's opinions on the new Mario Golf? I was watching some streams and it looked pretty good. I lost count of how many hours I put into Toadstool Tour.
 

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
14,295
Nothing in this post is accurate.

Says the man who has already been programmed by Nintendo. All you need to do is prove to me that any of the game titles in that Shovelware List got a major update to their game functionality / hook this latest version? Otherwise, they're all repackaged crap!

Nintendo can create new IP, but it is such a rare occasion, the last time they were forced to do it was to prop-up The Failure Console - Splatoon. They will continue to not do anything else creative, as long as you continue buying moar Shovel!

They either create slightly-different New Shovel, or they port old .
 
Last edited:

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
27,765
Says the man who has already been programmed by Nintendo. All you need to do is prove to me that any of the game titles in that Shovelware List got a major update to their game functionality / hook this latest version? Otherwise, they're all repackaged crap!

Nintendo can create new IP, but it is such a rare occasion, the last time they were forced to do it was to prop-up The Failure Console - Splatoon. They will continue to not do anything else creative, as long as you continue buying moar Shovel!

They either create slightly-different New Shovel, or they port old .
Please tell me about how your other major developers release game sequels with significant updates to game functionality and gameplay hooks.
 

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
14,295
Please tell me about how your other major developers release game sequels with significant updates to game functionality and gameplay hooks.


I'm just saying, Nintendo stands in nth same Hallowed Ground as EA's FIFA and Sims series, while you don't get the choice of multi-platform capability on Nintendo.

You py an extra hardware premium to get the chance to buy more overpriced Nintendo-branded Shoveleware Titles at a total Profit Margin that EA's best wet dream couldn't possibly imagine!
 

Nytegard

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 8, 2004
Messages
3,474
Nintendo's own published data in your link only goes back to FY'98, so I'd like to know where your annual numbers are coming from.
Included sources in the original post. I'm not saying it wasn't influential. I'm not saying there weren't good games. I'm just stating that from a business standpoint, it was a failure. Like I said previously, it doesn't matter how much you sell. If you sell half of what you previously sold, that is not good from a business perspective. It's not about the customer perspective here. There are plenty of things that are adored by customers and don't sell well. That's why we end up with cult classics. It's one thing for an indie player to have a cult classic. That can make them happy. But if you were previously the king and now you're just another player looking up... And the N64 was a critical piece of how they lost their crown.
I'm just saying, Nintendo stands in nth same Hallowed Ground as EA's FIFA and Sims series, while you don't get the choice of multi-platform capability on Nintendo.

You py an extra hardware premium to get the chance to buy more overpriced Nintendo-branded Shoveleware Titles at a total Profit Margin that EA's best wet dream couldn't possibly imagine!
Animal Crossing and Pokemon, yes, those are highly saturated. Some of the other games though you mentioned aren't. And really, it's a matter of perspective. The further away you step back, the more all video games look the same. I mean, name a game that was original, and you'd probably have to go back to the early 80s, and even then, they were most likely based off of something else.

But that's also the beauty of childhood. It doesn't matter if Pokemon Sept. 2021 Edition is 99.9% similar to the Pokemon Jun 2021 Edition. To a 5 year old kid who's never played Pokemon, it's new. And that is a good business strategy. You're always bringing in a new audience. But you're probably going to be older when playing FIFA or Madden or Call of Duty. If you're not building a new audience, you're eventually going to lose your audience. Yes, that is partially why Nintendo can get away with similar tactics (even though I disagree that it's to the same extent). You have fond memories of what you played as a child more than what you played as a teenager or older. And you graduate from Nintendo to Sony/Microsoft when you get older too. But you don't graduate from Sony/Microsoft elsewhere, which is why FIFA/Madden/CoD get blasted as being repetitive.
 

chameleoneel

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
4,688
There are several dozen 3d Mario games, all of which are barely different

They keep delaying their new expensive-to-make, with uncertain returns games to once every 5-10 years (Zelda, Metroid Prime, Xenoblade), while still pumping out tons of trash like Pokemon, Mario Cart, Animal Crossing and Smash Brothers (all easy to make slightly-different rebadges of the previous version)
Mario 64, Mario 3d world, Paper Mario, Mario and Luigi series, Mario Odyssey, Mario Galaxy, Luigi's Mansion, Mario Sunshine, Yoshi's Wooly World, Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker, etc are all quite distinctly different games. Different core gameplay, different personality, etc.

once or twice per generation has been the development pace of major game series on all consoles----since Playstation 2/Xbox/Gamecube days. There have been exceptions. But its not common.

Also, all of the Mario Karts have major differences. Again, making them feel distinct. The only release which hasn't been like that, is Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Which is a remaster with some extra content. Remasters are something which everyone have been releasing. Considering how every Mario Kart has been amazing---I'm inclined to give Nintendo a pass on 8 Deluxe, until they can think up ideas worthy of the next Mario Kart.

Says the man who has already been programmed by Nintendo. All you need to do is prove to me that any of the game titles in that Shovelware List got a major update to their game functionality / hook this latest version? Otherwise, they're all repackaged crap!

Nintendo can create new IP, but it is such a rare occasion, the last time they were forced to do it was to prop-up The Failure Console - Splatoon. They will continue to not do anything else creative, as long as you continue buying moar Shovel!

They either create slightly-different New Shovel, or they port old .
Splatoon is amazing. Again, Nintendo delivers fresh, inventive, distinct games. Another example, is Arms. Also a new Nintendo game IP on Switch.

Switch has sold 78 million in 4 years. Failure console???

I'm just saying, Nintendo stands in nth same Hallowed Ground as EA's FIFA and Sims series, while you don't get the choice of multi-platform capability on Nintendo.

You py an extra hardware premium to get the chance to buy more overpriced Nintendo-branded Shoveleware Titles at a total Profit Margin that EA's best wet dream couldn't possibly imagine!
Switch is portable. Which Sony and MS do not offer. Sony's past 2 attempts to do portables, have not resulted in good sales (Actually, the PSP sold pretty well. But Sony clearly did not make good plans to support it with games). Microsoft has never made a portable console. Nintendo is the industry leader in portable consoles, for decades.
 
Last edited:

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
27,765
Included sources in the original post. I'm not saying it wasn't influential. I'm not saying there weren't good games. I'm just stating that from a business standpoint, it was a failure. Like I said previously, it doesn't matter how much you sell. If you sell half of what you previously sold, that is not good from a business perspective. It's not about the customer perspective here. There are plenty of things that are adored by customers and don't sell well. That's why we end up with cult classics. It's one thing for an indie player to have a cult classic. That can make them happy. But if you were previously the king and now you're just another player looking up... And the N64 was a critical piece of how they lost their crown.
I looked at the CSV in your link and it only goes back to FY'98, like I said. I can't find any annual sales data going back beyond that. The point was that in the absence of that data it would appear that the N64 was selling consoles at a similar rate to the SNES, as it had half the lifetime of that console and sold more than half the total.
 

TheSlySyl

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
1,535
Animal Crossing and Pokemon, yes, those are highly saturated. Some of the other games though you mentioned aren't. And really, it's a matter of perspective. The further away you step back, the more all video games look the same. I mean, name a game that was original, and you'd probably have to go back to the early 80s, and even then, they were most likely based off of something else.
This is so outrageously false. Pikmin, Wii Sports (literally one of the best selling franchises of all time), Splatoon, ARMS, boxboy, chibi robo, yo-kai watch, xenoblade, all the Mii games... there's literally hundreds of examples just since the damn wii.
https://nintendo.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Nintendo_games_by_year_(US)
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,736
Also I think it's a reach to say people truly like their hardware. People like the games, and are willing to deal with their hardware in order to play them.

I disagree. The Switch has it's faults, but it's a great system. The Wii U was an outstanding console with a bad name and terrible marketing. I'm not the world's biggest fan of the Wii, but I'd never call it bad hardware. Their handhelds have all been excellent. If I didn't like the system itself, I wouldn't be playing the games on it.

As for games being better on other systems: Ehhh, maybe. Or we'd end up with the same over homogenized crap we get from every other AAA studio. In some ways, I believe the hardware limitations of Nintendo consoles pushes developers into needing to find creative ways to work around it. In other ways it might limit what they can do, but outside of graphics I'm not really sure if putting the games on a much stronger system would make them drastically better.
 

Nytegard

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 8, 2004
Messages
3,474
I looked at the CSV in your link and it only goes back to FY'98, like I said. I can't find any annual sales data going back beyond that. The point was that in the absence of that data it would appear that the N64 was selling consoles at a similar rate to the SNES, as it had half the lifetime of that console and sold more than half the total.
Like I said, I modified the post and included more, rather than Nintendo. If you want a bigger breakdown:
https://vgsales.fandom.com/wiki/Third_generation_of_video_games
https://vgsales.fandom.com/wiki/Fourth_generation_of_video_games
https://vgsales.fandom.com/wiki/Fifth_generation_of_video_games
 

Eshelmen

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
5,293
Their main goal isn't pushing graphical limits just for the sake of it. Fun vs shiny.
1629914258553.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: J3RK
like this

inbedwithhomer

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 2, 2001
Messages
167
It's not a reach what so ever. I'm a people and I preferred their hardware many times over the competition. The SNES is my second favorite piece of hardware ever. And dispite the PS2 being more powerful than the N64 in 2001, I still preferred the N64 hardware over the ps2's because of the 4 controllers ports and it's higher number of 4 player games. You sound like you think the world revolves around you and just you're own preferences. But in reality it doesn't. People are different and not everyone wants the same thing as you.
I should have elaborated and said their current hardware. With two exceptions, Nintendo hardware has always been at least "in the hunt" when it was released. Those two exceptions being the original Wii, and the Switch. Historically, Nintendo has cared about graphics and gave their first party developers the best tools to properly execute their creative vision. This hamstrung current hardware doesn't live up to what Nintendo can do and has done.

Trying to imply that Nintendo "doesn't care" about this or that is an economic decision and not a creative one. They can and have put a better foot forward that showed them to be the model and not an exception. Also any specious arguments that declare I'm "not their customer" are absurd in the light of having been a long-term customer with an interest in their software.
 

J3RK

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
9,819
Speaking of...

What are people's opinions on the new Mario Golf? I was watching some streams and it looked pretty good. I lost count of how many hours I put into Toadstool Tour.

I love it! I don’t watch or play real golf. However, I had the Power Golf pack-in with my TurboGrafx way back when. I initially scoffed at it. :)

Then I played it three-player with my dad and brother, and we couldn’t put it down. Constantly laughing, and having a blast with a silly golf game.

Then I grabbed Mario Golf on the N64 later, and it was largely the same fun experience. I’ve been hooked on the series (not on the portables as much) since. It’s fun to play with friends while having a Scotch or three :D

My brother and I have also hunted down all of the good arcade golf games (like the Neo Geo ones for example) as well.

The new Mario Golf is basically the same context, taken further, and looking nicer. My previous favorite was the Gamecube version. This one is just a fancier version of that. Now I play it with my daughters, and they like it too.

If you like the series, you’ll like this one.

Just add a drink or two ;)

Side note: I HATE all tennis games.
 

J3RK

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
9,819
As far as the original topic here:

As most people mentioned, N has fun games. They’re different. You will not find another platformer or light adventure RPG with more polish and appeal than Mario and Zelda. That is pretty much unquestionable. I’ve played everything. :D Sure, you can find deeper true RPGs. Sure, you can find platformers with higher end graphics. They never FEEL like a Nintendo game of the same type.

That’s just a small example.

Their library isn’t like anything on other platforms. There is some overlap of course, but definitely different.

The Switch is also a different way to play games. It’s not a big powerful console, but it does what it needs to do perfectly. I would love a more powerful version, but it’s still just fine for what I use it for.

It isn’t what I’d call an either/or scenario.

Get a big powerful console or PC, then add a Switch, and you have the best of both worlds. There’s no reason one can’t play big shiny AAAs on a big shiny console or PC, and play Nintendo games and indies on a Switch. Why limit yourself?

Nintendo knows what types of things they do well, they’re willing to experiment a bit, and they leave the rest to the other guys.

You don’t have to be a fanboy to acknowledge this, and liking Nintendo doesn’t make you less cool. It’s pretty apparent that they’re doing what they do right, or they wouldn’t sell millions upon millions if units of everything they put out. It’s not just 80’s kids. That just happened to be the era that they cemented their position.

I’m not a fan of some of their old licensing practices and things like that. They’ve also had a few questionable launches, a few flops, etc. That’s kind of beside the point though. They’re successful DESPITE those things.
 
Last edited:

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,098
I should have elaborated and said their current hardware. With two exceptions, Nintendo hardware has always been at least "in the hunt" when it was released. Those two exceptions being the original Wii, and the Switch.
The Wii U also was not remotely competitive either. Additionally if you look at their history in terms of mobile consoles as well, they've always been middle of the road; leaving players like Sega and Sony to take the top end with things like Game Gear and PSP. Enter the Switch....
Historically, Nintendo has cared about graphics and gave their first party developers the best tools to properly execute their creative vision. This hamstrung current hardware doesn't live up to what Nintendo can do and has done.
This statement is loaded at best. Because for you to prove that argument, you'd have to show that Nintendo themselves have been hamstrung and unable to accomplish something that they 'wanted' to do creatively. And frankly, you can't. At best you'd have conjecture.

From a creative standpoint, the Switch was designed to have decent battery life (up to 10 hours), do gaming on the go, and be an invitation to play games side by side with someone else in a mobile environment (as opposed to at home). I would say they did quite a bit creatively with the console. Certainly far more than any concept Sony or Microsoft has done, which has more or less just been: make it faster and integrate it more into a home theater environment (and make it even easier to program on like a PC). I realize that this isn't precisely what you were referring to, but to say that there were no creative decisions regarding their console that was accomplished is a misnomer.
Trying to imply that Nintendo "doesn't care" about this or that is an economic decision and not a creative one. They can and have put a better foot forward that showed them to be the model and not an exception.
Nintendo is a business. Games are something they make money with. Anyone stating that Nintendo should change their business model to meet their particular set of wants clearly doesn't understand that they only 'care' up to the point that it makes them money.
Making a $500-$600 console to compete with Sony and Microsoft is a money losing proposition. You don't make money by getting cool points. Putting a "better foot forward" is meaningless if you sell 1/3rd as many systems and your balance sheets are all in the red.
Also any specious arguments that declare I'm "not their customer" are absurd in the light of having been a long-term customer with an interest in their software.
You're the one that then said this:
I'd like to be their customer.
More to the point, you clearly don't understand my statements then because you think it's some sort of attack on your person, or indeed that it's personal. I'm only specifically talking about business principles.
I take for granted that I know this stuff, apparently it's not common knowledge, but this is a classic example of demonstrating a target market. Basically all of your complaints revolve around the fact that Nintendo hasn't targeted you. You want them to produce something that you specifically want, and they haven't done that because you're not the type of gamer they're trying to attract.

Nintendo is targeting price sensitive consumers, casual gamers, people who like things that are cute, people that look at consoles like appliances, long time franchise purchasers, and generally not competitive gamers (even games like Mario Kart are designed to penalize good players and Smash Bros despite its tournament scene is designed for casuals). Nintendo customers clearly also don't care about graphics. And indeed the overall internal Nintendo fan-boy discussion has been about gameplay > graphics and people spending 120+ hours doing chores inside of Animal Crossing.

You're way at the other end of the spectrum. You likely think nothing of owning all three consoles or spending multi-thousand dollar amounts on a PC simply to game on. You're serious about hardware and PC master race. Just by basically being on this forum you're already in the 1% if not .01%.

The bottom line is that it's a foregone conclusion that you can't make a product, ANY product that will satisfy the needs/wants of everyone. Any company then designs a product for your target market that will most satisfy them and will hopefully be a big enough piece of the pie to make overall sense for your business model. You're not in their target market group. You're not designed to be a Nintendo customer. If you were you wouldn't care about its "worst in class hardware". This is what I mean when I say: "there are already two other consoles designed for you". And "you're not their customer". Sorry that that bothers you but I was speaking from a literal perspective and again, not any form of statement about your character.

Or you can just accept Nintendo is Nintendo and they're going to continue doing what they're doing and simply take up J3RK's perspective, which is shared by most people that are into high end PC's AND Nintendo:
It isn’t what I’d call an either/or scenario.

Get a big powerful console or PC, then add a Switch, and you have the best of both worlds. There’s no reason one can’t play big shiny AAAs on a big shiny console or PC, and play Nintendo games and indies on a Switch. Why limit yourself?

Nintendo knows what types of things they do well, they’re willing to experiment a bit, and they leave the rest to the other guys.

You don’t have to be a fanboy to acknowledge this, and liking Nintendo doesn’t make you less cool. It’s pretty apparent that they’re doing what they do right, or they wouldn’t sell millions upon millions if units of everything they put out. It’s not just 80’s kids. That just happened to be the era that they cemented their position.
 
Last edited:

chameleoneel

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
4,688
Wii U preceded the PS4 and Xbox One, by a year. And was therefore, the most powerful console on the market, for a year.

In general, the lack of third party support for Nintendo, seems to be mostly the fault of game makers not willing to make compelling content for Nintendo's systems. They want to make one, general game, which can be generally ported to----everything.

The games market is strangely limited and difficult to predict. The past few years, we have seen a lot of game studios fold, because one game didn't sell millions.

Larger studios seem disappointed if they don't sell millions and often cancel sequels and/or drastically shift their gameplans. And overall----often don't want to afford making quality games with Nintendo as the focus.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,098
Wii U preceded the PS4 and Xbox One, by a year. And was therefore, the most powerful console on the market, for a year.
It being more recent doesn't make it faster. The Switch came out in 2017. The PS4 in 2013 and the PS4 Pro in 2016. Is the Switch faster than the PS4 and PS4 Pro? I'm just pointing out that your statement is a fallacy even if I understand what you're trying to say.
To your credit the Wii U's GPU's were technically faster than the 360 and PS3 but its CPU was much slower. I would think it's fair to say most people look at the Wii-U as bringing Nintendo to parity, that is the same level, as the PS3 and Xbox 1 and not really a generational leap. If anything it was closer to Nintendo playing catch-up +1, rather than having a system that was definitively faster.
In general, the lack of third party support for Nintendo, seems to be mostly the fault of game makers not willing to make compelling content for Nintendo's systems. They want to make one, general game, which can be generally ported to----everything.

The games market is strangely limited and difficult to predict. The past few years, we have seen a lot of game studios fold, because one game didn't sell millions.

Larger studios seem disappointed if they don't sell millions and often cancel sequels and/or drastically shift their gameplans. And overall----often don't want to afford making quality games with Nintendo as the focus.
This is generally only a facet of mega-corporations that are making AAA titles. EA, Activision, Ubisoft. Everyone else is fine with making games targeted at single platforms with reasonable expectations. There have been a lot of studios bought and killed for 'sales'. It's what happens when a company goes full corporate and can't reason out that not every game is going to sell 10m units and to simply be okay with 'profitable' rather than 'mega-profitable' as 'that's not a good enough use of their resources'.

There have been games from third parties specifically designed for Nintendo systems, but the list is short. Off the top of my head:
Ikaruga
No More Hero's 1/2
Bayonetta 2
Resident Evil 4 (which later became multi-platform, but at launch was just for GC).
MadWorld
Astral Chain
The Wonderful 101
Viewtiful Joe

Actually in general PlatinumGames has been a supporter of Nintendo consoles. But obviously they're pretty small. Anyway, like you say, the list of games is painfully short.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
27,765
It being more recent doesn't make it faster. The Switch came out in 2017. The PS4 in 2013 and the PS4 Pro in 2016. Is the Switch faster than the PS4 and PS4 Pro? I'm just pointing out that your statement is a fallacy even if I understand what you're trying to say.
To your credit the Wii U's GPU's were technically faster than the 360 and PS3 but its CPU was much slower. I would think it's fair to say most people look at the Wii-U as bringing Nintendo to parity, that is the same level, as the PS3 and Xbox 1 and not really a generational leap. If anything it was closer to Nintendo playing catch-up +1, rather than having a system that was definitively faster.

This is generally only a facet of mega-corporations that are making AAA titles. EA, Activision, Ubisoft. Everyone else is fine with making games targeted at single platforms with reasonable expectations. There have been a lot of studios bought and killed for 'sales'. It's what happens when a company goes full corporate and can't reason out that not every game is going to sell 10m units and to simply be okay with 'profitable' rather than 'mega-profitable' as 'that's not a good enough use of their resources'.

There have been games from third parties specifically designed for Nintendo systems, but the list is short. Off the top of my head:
Ikaruga
No More Hero's 1/2
Bayonetta 2
Resident Evil 4 (which later became multi-platform, but at launch was just for GC).
MadWorld
Astral Chain
The Wonderful 101
Viewtiful Joe

Actually in general PlatinumGames has been a supporter of Nintendo consoles. But obviously they're pretty small. Anyway, like you say, the list of games is painfully short.
These are just the games I've played from the N64 and Gamecube that are or were exclusive to a Nintendo platform for years:

Automobili Lamborghini
Baten Kaitos: Eternal Wings and the Lost Ocean
Baten Kaitos Origins
Castlevania (1999)
Castlevania: Legacy of Darkness
Clayfighter 63⅓
Extreme-G
Duke Nukem: Zero Hour
F1 Pole Position 64
Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles
Mega Man Network Transmission
Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes
MRC: Multi-Racing Championship
NFL Quarterback Club '98
NFL Quarterback Club '99
Phantasy Star Online Episode III: C.A.R.D. Revolution
Quest 64
Road Rash 64
Rush 2: Extreme Racing USA
Star Wars Rogue Squadron II: Squad Leader
Star Wars Rogue Squadron III: Rebel Strike
Tales of Symphonia
Top Gear Overdrive
Top Gear Rally 2
Turok 3: Shadow of Oblivion
Wipeout 64
World Championship Racing
Yu-Gi-Oh! The Falsebound Kingdom

That is not to say anything about the countless NES, SNES, Gameboy, Gameboy Color, DS, 3DS, and Wii exclusive third-party titles I've played over the years.
 

chameleoneel

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
4,688
It being more recent doesn't make it faster. The Switch came out in 2017. The PS4 in 2013 and the PS4 Pro in 2016. Is the Switch faster than the PS4 and PS4 Pro? I'm just pointing out that your statement is a fallacy even if I understand what you're trying to say.
To your credit the Wii U's GPU's were technically faster than the 360 and PS3 but its CPU was much slower. I would think it's fair to say most people look at the Wii-U as bringing Nintendo to parity, that is the same level, as the PS3 and Xbox 1 and not really a generational leap. If anything it was closer to Nintendo playing catch-up +1, rather than having a system that was definitively faster.
I...don't' think I said anything about the Switch being faster than anything else.

I was just trying to remind/inform people that the Wii-U was actually pretty powerful in its time. And for a time, was actually more or less the most powerful.
Indeed, it wasn't drastically more powerful in general pixel rate/flops. But being based on a much newer architecture and also has 2GB of shared RAM---helped it a lot, in areas where the older consoles struggled.

I'm also not so sure the CPU was much less powerful. Its slow in terms of clock speed (3 cores at 1.24ghz) and doesn't have the SMT features that 360 has. but it features Out of order execution (the PS3 and 360 do not) with a much shorter pipeline, completes 4 instructions per cycle, and has 3x more L2 cache. It also has 32MB of EDRAM. It may have been tough on CPU performance for certain, multi-plat games (especially those which used the 360 as the main dev platform). But customized code should have been fine, if not great, in comparison.


It being more recent doesn't make it faster. The Switch came out in 2017. The PS4 in 2013 and the PS4 Pro in 2016. Is the Switch faster than the PS4 and PS4 Pro? I'm just pointing out that your statement is a fallacy even if I understand what you're trying to say.
To your credit the Wii U's GPU's were technically faster than the 360 and PS3 but its CPU was much slower. I would think it's fair to say most people look at the Wii-U as bringing Nintendo to parity, that is the same level, as the PS3 and Xbox 1 and not really a generational leap. If anything it was closer to Nintendo playing catch-up +1, rather than having a system that was definitively faster.

This is generally only a facet of mega-corporations that are making AAA titles. EA, Activision, Ubisoft. Everyone else is fine with making games targeted at single platforms with reasonable expectations. There have been a lot of studios bought and killed for 'sales'. It's what happens when a company goes full corporate and can't reason out that not every game is going to sell 10m units and to simply be okay with 'profitable' rather than 'mega-profitable' as 'that's not a good enough use of their resources'.

There have been games from third parties specifically designed for Nintendo systems, but the list is short. Off the top of my head:
Ikaruga
No More Hero's 1/2
Bayonetta 2
Resident Evil 4 (which later became multi-platform, but at launch was just for GC).
MadWorld
Astral Chain
The Wonderful 101
Viewtiful Joe

Actually in general PlatinumGames has been a supporter of Nintendo consoles. But obviously they're pretty small. Anyway, like you say, the list of games is painfully short.
Nintendo actually payed a non-trivial amount of the development costs for Bayo 2. If not all of it. They have exclusive on Bayo 3, too. So, it may be a similar situation.
 
Last edited:

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
4,591
What killed the WiiU was the simple fact that the 3DS was out at the same time, and the vast majority of titles on the 3DS were just better, even if they were far more simple. Most people would just buy a 3DS, and call it a day if they wanted to play the Nintendo games. Only game on the WiiU that I found to be outstanding was Xenoblade Chronicles X. I really wish they'd port it already to the Switch. That game was amazing. The graphics were outstanding as well given how low-end the WiiU hardware was. I'd love to see that game rendered at 4K. It's basically the only reason i've hung onto the WiiU as I still play that game. Seriously, look at how good the graphics could be on the system with the pitiful rendering resolution, etc.

 

TheSlySyl

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
1,535
I would love a Switch port of Xenoblade X, especially if it handled the online portions better. I really enjoyed that title, probably even more than Xenoblade 2.
 

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
4,591
I would love a Switch port of Xenoblade X, especially if it handled the online portions better. I really enjoyed that title, probably even more than Xenoblade 2.
For some reason I just couldn't get into 2. I prefer the space/scifi setting of X for the series, and the mech aspect added so much variety to the game as well. I also felt the storyline of X was more interesting. 2 I basically didn't give a crap about the story.
 

jbltecnicspro

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
6,677
It being more recent doesn't make it faster. The Switch came out in 2017. The PS4 in 2013 and the PS4 Pro in 2016. Is the Switch faster than the PS4 and PS4 Pro? I'm just pointing out that your statement is a fallacy even if I understand what you're trying to say.
To your credit the Wii U's GPU's were technically faster than the 360 and PS3 but its CPU was much slower. I would think it's fair to say most people look at the Wii-U as bringing Nintendo to parity, that is the same level, as the PS3 and Xbox 1 and not really a generational leap. If anything it was closer to Nintendo playing catch-up +1, rather than having a system that was definitively faster.

This is generally only a facet of mega-corporations that are making AAA titles. EA, Activision, Ubisoft. Everyone else is fine with making games targeted at single platforms with reasonable expectations. There have been a lot of studios bought and killed for 'sales'. It's what happens when a company goes full corporate and can't reason out that not every game is going to sell 10m units and to simply be okay with 'profitable' rather than 'mega-profitable' as 'that's not a good enough use of their resources'.

There have been games from third parties specifically designed for Nintendo systems, but the list is short. Off the top of my head:
Ikaruga
No More Hero's 1/2
Bayonetta 2
Resident Evil 4 (which later became multi-platform, but at launch was just for GC).
MadWorld
Astral Chain
The Wonderful 101
Viewtiful Joe

Actually in general PlatinumGames has been a supporter of Nintendo consoles. But obviously they're pretty small. Anyway, like you say, the list of games is painfully short.
Psst... not that it matters but ikaruga was out on the Dreamcast first. I think it was a NAOMI game (Sega arcade hardware).
 

jbltecnicspro

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
6,677
My favorite thing about Nintendo is that they have kid-friendly games. I don’t think I really could appreciate that fact until I became a father. My favorite thing about the Wii-U, for example is that most quality Nintendo titles support 4 player or 5 player coop. There’s something special about being able to sit around with your kids and play Kirby together.
 

TheSlySyl

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
1,535
For some reason I just couldn't get into 2. I prefer the space/scifi setting of X for the series, and the mech aspect added so much variety to the game as well. I also felt the storyline of X was more interesting. 2 I basically didn't give a crap about the story.
I can tolerate a LOT of anime crap, but the gacha system and main character design of Xenoblade 2 were both major steps down from the previous 2 titles.
Music and world, however, were amazing. Battle system relied a bit too much on that gacha system for creating broken blade combos though. In 1 and X there was way more strategy.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,098
I...don't' think I said anything about the Switch being faster than anything else.
It was a simile. I was pointing out that your idea that because one system came out after another one doesn't necessarily mean that it's faster. I used the Switch to illustrate that point.
What killed the WiiU was the simple fact that the 3DS was out at the same time, and the vast majority of titles on the 3DS were just better, even if they were far more simple. Most people would just buy a 3DS, and call it a day if they wanted to play the Nintendo games.
I'm not an expert, but the common thinking on the Wii U's failure is that it had a terrible confusing name and a lot of casuals (who Nintendo targets) weren't even aware that this was an entirely different system (it seemed like perhaps an overly expensive add-on... whoops). I also don't think it offered the same sort of experience to those types of players either. Wii probably sold 50M units just because of bowling, the Wii U technically was also about multiplayer, but it felt very de-emphasized with its main player getting a tablet and every other player feeling like a second class citizen. Then there was the timing inside of the market. They were trying to not release at the same time as Sony and Microsoft. In that they were successful but it felt like catch-up and too little too late rather than something that was going to take Nintendo forward as in that it caught them up to last gen and wasn't enough to get them to 'next-gen'.
FWIW: I do agree with you that the DS was likely another factor. And indeed it made a lot more sense to buy that system over the more expensive and tethered Wii U. In a lot of ways that's what makes the Switch what it is and precisely why its so genius as a console. Portable and designed around multiplayer at its core.

And we can add what this nugget as well: Fils-Aimé stated that the commercial failure of the Wii U, specifically the lack of clarity of the Wii U GamePad's function, and the lack of support from third-party publishers to build out its software library, led to how they changed the marketing and promotion for the Switch. He said the Switch's promotion was developed "to make it crystal clear what the proposition is" for the systems, and that they had "strong support" from large and small software developers and publishers to support the new console.[226]
Psst... not that it matters but ikaruga was out on the Dreamcast first. I think it was a NAOMI game (Sega arcade hardware).
Fair enough. The Dreamcast unfortunately was so short lived and I never really played with its hardware/software so I'm not aware of a lot of the titles for the platform. Save the really big ones like Powerstone. It was probably the first Sega console I would've really enjoyed. But I missed out on it due to bias.
FWIW: the Gamecube felt like a really good system to be Ikaruga's first console on. Certainly its fluidity and graphics seem native - built to be smooth even during its worst bullet-hell moments.
 

jbltecnicspro

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
6,677
It was a simile. I was pointing out that your idea that because one system came out after another one doesn't necessarily mean that it's faster. I used the Switch to illustrate that point.

I'm not an expert, but the common thinking on the Wii U's failure is that it had a terrible confusing name and a lot of casuals (who Nintendo targets) weren't even aware that this was an entirely different system (it seemed like perhaps an overly expensive add-on... whoops). I also don't think it offered the same sort of experience to those types of players either. Wii probably sold 50M units just because of bowling, the Wii U technically was also about multiplayer, but it felt very de-emphasized with its main player getting a tablet and every other player feeling like a second class citizen. Then there was the timing inside of the market. They were trying to not release at the same time as Sony and Microsoft. In that they were successful but it felt like catch-up and too little too late rather than something that was going to take Nintendo forward as in that it caught them up to last gen and wasn't enough to get them to 'next-gen'.
FWIW: I do agree with you that the DS was likely another factor. And indeed it made a lot more sense to buy that system over the more expensive and tethered Wii U. In a lot of ways that's what makes the Switch what it is and precisely why its so genius as a console. Portable and designed around multiplayer at its core.

And we can add what this nugget as well: Fils-Aimé stated that the commercial failure of the Wii U, specifically the lack of clarity of the Wii U GamePad's function, and the lack of support from third-party publishers to build out its software library, led to how they changed the marketing and promotion for the Switch. He said the Switch's promotion was developed "to make it crystal clear what the proposition is" for the systems, and that they had "strong support" from large and small software developers and publishers to support the new console.[226]

Fair enough. The Dreamcast unfortunately was so short lived and I never really played with its hardware/software so I'm not aware of a lot of the titles for the platform. Save the really big ones like Powerstone. It was probably the first Sega console I would've really enjoyed. But I missed out on it due to bias.
FWIW: the Gamecube felt like a really good system to be Ikaruga's first console on. Certainly its fluidity and graphics seem native - built to be smooth even during its worst bullet-hell moments.
Ikaruga handled the same on the Dreamcast. Treasure really knew their stuff. Anyways - I loved the GameCube. Dreamcast too. I miss being young and dumb with no responsibilities. Ah the days... :(
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
27,765
Playing Ikaruga on PC is great as you can rotate your 16:9 monitor and play as intended. I don't know if any of the old console ports had that option, but it makes an enormous difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: J3RK
like this

TheSlySyl

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
1,535
Playing Ikaruga on PC is great as you can rotate your 16:9 monitor and play as intended. I don't know if any of the old console ports had that option, but it makes an enormous difference.
It was always an option but sometimes a very difficult one to do correctly. For a while I tried playing it horizontal in 16:9 (you can change the controls so that they still make sense) but it fucked with my muscle memory too much.

I don't think I ever actually 1CCd Ikaruga, I know I could get to level 4 by full comboing 1-3.
Those days are long past.

The switch port can be played 9:16 just by using the screen vertically and having the joy cons detached and that's pretty damn rad.
 
Last edited:

J3RK

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
9,819
Playing Ikaruga on PC is great as you can rotate your 16:9 monitor and play as intended. I don't know if any of the old console ports had that option, but it makes an enormous difference.

As an absolute shooter addict, I do this all the time. Bought a nice swivel mount for my monitor just for this type of game. I actually prefer horizontal shooters, but vertical are great too when played properly. (display-wise) I was just playing Dimahoo the other day on my MiSTer like this.
 

Pivo504

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
2,693
I think they're still successful bc they honestly make the best video games in terms of game play. Look at all the amazing things they've done since the nes days.. I can still pick up an nes game, super nes and have a blast bc the game play is top notch. Look at how they tackled 3d games with the n64. Another reason is all the amazing ips they've created. I really hope Nintendo stays around for good bc they will always create some of the best video games ever. They might not be the prettiest or have the best hardware but they still have the best game play.
 

saadatrent

n00b
Joined
Aug 31, 2021
Messages
2
How is Nintendo successful when they're consistently behind the times, from not using CDs to having bad online?
They are successful because of the exclusives they have (mario ect) games they come out with are fun and have a great story line and are just enjoyable to play even if they aren't the best graphics, latest hardware, non hd ect.
 

Comixbooks

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
17,173
Nintendo has no idea what they're doing.
Put it this way they just bring back the Game Cube with no Gimmicks. They need more mature content for their system I think the kid friendly approach works but the stuff looks all the same.
 

chameleoneel

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
4,688
Nintendo has no idea what they're doing.
Put it this way they just bring back the Game Cube with no Gimmicks. They need more mature content for their system I think the kid friendly approach works but the stuff looks all the same.
There is A LOT of mature 3rd party content on Switch.

You won't find a lot of it from Nintendo, themselves. But they did help fund Bayonetta 2 and 3 ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: J3RK
like this

toast0

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
1,293
There is A LOT of mature 3rd party content on Switch.

You won't find a lot of it from Nintendo, themselves. But they did help fund Bayonetta 2 and 3 ;)
The switch has Night Trap of all things on it. Can't get more adult than that! (I don't know if the shower code still works)
 
Last edited:

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,736
Nintendo has no idea what they're doing.
Put it this way they just bring back the Game Cube with no Gimmicks. They need more mature content for their system I think the kid friendly approach works but the stuff looks all the same.

They've had the best selling system for years now, I think Nintendo knows what they doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: J3RK
like this
Top