Come on, Nintendo is not unique in milking their IPs. id finally has a new one, Rage, but for years it was Wolfenstein, Doom and Quake. Valve is Half-Life, Portal and Team Fortress. Blizzard is Warcraft, Diablo and Starcraft (Diablo was bought in the first place, anyway). Square has been milking the Final Fantasy gravy train for 20 years.
Mortal Kombat 9, Street Fighter Super Turbo Awesome 2 The Sequel, Prince of Persia, Dragon Quest....
However, you know what Nintendo has done with their IPs that people are claiming are always the same? Innovate. The original Super Mario Brothers is not Mario 64 is not Sunshine is not Galaxy. Yeah, he's usually trying to save the princess, but I challenge you to find one Mario Brothers hardcore fan who plays Mario because they find the story compelling. It's about playing what has always been one of the best platformers around.
Actually no, I'd say what some people are saying here is that this is what they don't do very often.
Zelda is the least innovated on series I can think of.
Mario 2D was basically unchanged but with new powerups and then made a big innovative jump to 3D where it's been mostly the same, but 64->Galaxy was a nice enough jump. Of course, since it's all about the platforming everything else involved that's been static for years no one gives a shit about.
But that's really ignoring that just sticking with not just known IPs, but known game series is part of what's being talked about. You'll hardly find me defending some of those other ones mentioned (fighting games are a whole weird other world). And some of those mentioned aren't stagnant at all or just don't even have enough entries to be considered "milking".
I dunno, this sounds a bit like claiming Ferrari has stagnated because all they make are awesome sports cars.
Games approachable by all ages is sort of Nintendo's thing. It's not stagnation, it's just their niche, and they're awesome at it.
Imagine paying for the new Ferrari 2012 Convertible based on Ferrari's sparkling lineup, believing it'll last six years or more based on their amazing track record only to find out that it'll last approximately two due to your age group, that the "Convertible" now requires you pay for the roof extension (memory card) but every other replacement part you might ever need fixed (Game cartridges) costs more because Ferrari still wanted to be "Convertible" but you have to buy the roof just like everyone else buying a Dodge Stratus! (Playstation/Dreamcast)
Now imagine that you are also no longer able to get your Ferrari serviced (buy third party games) anywhere but an official Ferrari dealership (you can't get hardly any) because Ferrari decided it was much more profitable to not compete with other repair shops. (Nintendo hates third party games.)
So now you're stuck with an expensive investment with irremovable set of child safety seats in the back (Forced family friendliness on all titles), you have to pay for the convertible roof when you didn't before, and if you want any repairs you have to now take it to overpriced super-expensive official dealerships to get as much as a tire change. Yeah, you'd be pretty irate too I'd hope.
And until Ferrari proves itself again, I would sure be hesitant to trust anything it puts out as anything other than meaningless spin meant to hide the fact it has nothing to offer.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
Come on, Nintendo is not unique in milking their IPs. id finally has a new one, Rage, but for years it was Wolfenstein, Doom and Quake. Valve is Half-Life, Portal and Team Fortress. Blizzard is Warcraft, Diablo and Starcraft (Diablo was bought in the first place, anyway). Square has been milking the Final Fantasy gravy train for 20 years.
Mortal Kombat 9, Street Fighter Super Turbo Awesome 2 The Sequel, Prince of Persia, Dragon Quest....
However, you know what Nintendo has done with their IPs that people are claiming are always the same? Innovate. The original Super Mario Brothers is not Mario 64 is not Sunshine is not Galaxy. Yeah, he's usually trying to save the princess, but I challenge you to find one Mario Brothers hardcore fan who plays Mario because they find the story compelling. It's about playing what has always been one of the best platformers around.
Actually no, I'd say what some people are saying here is that this is what they don't do very often.
Zelda is the least innovated on series I can think of.
Mario 2D was basically unchanged but with new powerups and then made a big innovative jump to 3D where it's been mostly the same, but 64->Galaxy was a nice enough jump. Of course, since it's all about the platforming everything else involved that's been static for years no one gives a shit about.
But that's really ignoring that just sticking with not just known IPs, but known game series is part of what's being talked about. You'll hardly find me defending some of those other ones mentioned (fighting games are a whole weird other world). And some of those mentioned aren't stagnant at all or just don't even have enough entries to be considered "milking".
Zelda is the least innovated series you can think of? Not Call of Duty, Halo, Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, SRS, F-Zero, Need for Speed, Madden or Suikoden and those are all series of roughly comparable amounts of games that have much less innovation off the top of my head.
Sometimes people seem to forget that Zelda has innovated a ton, there are top down, 3D, and Sidescrolling incarnations on home consoles. Not to mention every game has had at least one or two gimmicks that completely set them apart from the rest, or radically different control schemes. The two latest Zelda games to come out, Phantom Hourglass and Spirite Tracks, use the touchscreen for everything and had some cool puzzles that built on that. Majora's Mask had the groundhog day thing, Seasons and Ages had the alternate world gimmick and the mounts.
And every time they release a genuinely new and different experiences people bitch like crazy. Spirit Tracks had you team up with Zelda directly and control her as a ghost possessing things while driving a crazy magic train, Wind Waker took place on a bunch of tiny islands and made sailing a huge part of the game, Majora's Mask made masks and transformations integral to the experience.
Saying that Valve "milks" Portal is ... a little suspect. Especially if one is trying to use it as an example to show how Valve doesn't innovate.
e: and because I *KNOW* someone is going to rag on this: Yes, Portal 2 had PORTALS in it, just like Portal 1. What I mean is that the whole idea of Portal was a huge questionmark for many people and very different from most of the games around it.
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
edited April 2011
My point was that lots of companies do what Nintendo does with regards to software, but they all get free passes, I guess. Nintendo does innovate, just not with every single title. And it's unfair and unreasonable to expect them to.
I dunno, this sounds a bit like claiming Ferrari has stagnated because all they make are awesome sports cars.
Games approachable by all ages is sort of Nintendo's thing. It's not stagnation, it's just their niche, and they're awesome at it.
Imagine paying for the new Ferrari 2012 Convertible based on Ferrari's sparkling lineup, believing it'll last six years or more based on their amazing track record only to find out that it'll last approximately two due to your age group, that the "Convertible" now requires you pay for the roof extension (memory card) but every other replacement part you might ever need fixed (Game cartridges) costs more because Ferrari still wanted to be "Convertible" but you have to buy the roof just like everyone else buying a Dodge Stratus! (Playstation/Dreamcast)
Now imagine that you are also no longer able to get your Ferrari serviced (buy third party games) anywhere but an official Ferrari dealership (you can't get hardly any) because Ferrari decided it was much more profitable to not compete with other repair shops. (Nintendo hates third party games.)
So now you're stuck with an expensive investment with irremovable set of child safety seats in the back (Forced family friendliness on all titles), you have to pay for the convertible roof when you didn't before, and if you want any repairs you have to now take it to overpriced super-expensive official dealerships to get as much as a tire change. Yeah, you'd be pretty irate too I'd hope.
And until Ferrari proves itself again, I would sure be hesitant to trust anything it puts out as anything other than meaningless spin meant to hide the fact it has nothing to offer.
Wouldn't this analogy be better if we said the Wii was a dodge caravan and you bought it because it shuttled a lot of people around and even though it wasn't pretty it did the job well?
And hey you could get little tv screens for the kids in the back if you wanted?
My point was that lots of companies do what Nintendo does with regards to software, but they all get free passes, I guess. Nintendo does innovate, just not with every single title. And it's unfair and unreasonable to expect them to.
I don't think anyone has said those other companies get free passes. Like ... anywhere.
shryke on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
My point was that lots of companies do what Nintendo does with regards to software, but they all get free passes, I guess. Nintendo does innovate, just not with every single title. And it's unfair and unreasonable to expect them to.
I don't think anyone has said those other companies get free passes. Like ... anywhere.
Dac and the quoted ZP post said exactly that. They even brought up Valve as a company that couldn't get away with it, except Valve is getting away with it with Half-Life. Half-Life is great, but Half-Life 2 and it's episodes are not reinventing the FPS genre or anything.
My point was that lots of companies do what Nintendo does with regards to software, but they all get free passes, I guess. Nintendo does innovate, just not with every single title. And it's unfair and unreasonable to expect them to.
I don't think anyone has said those other companies get free passes. Like ... anywhere.
Dac and the quoted ZP post said exactly that. They even brought up Valve as a company that couldn't get away with it, except Valve is getting away with it with Half-Life. Half-Life is great, but Half-Life 2 and it's episodes are not reinventing the FPS genre or anything.
I'm not sure that's really a valid criticism of any game though. Its not really a reasonable threshold to hold any game to.
My point was that lots of companies do what Nintendo does with regards to software, but they all get free passes, I guess. Nintendo does innovate, just not with every single title. And it's unfair and unreasonable to expect them to.
I don't think anyone has said those other companies get free passes. Like ... anywhere.
Dac and the quoted ZP post said exactly that. They even brought up Valve as a company that couldn't get away with it, except Valve is getting away with it with Half-Life. Half-Life is great, but Half-Life 2 and it's episodes are not reinventing the FPS genre or anything.
Except Half-Life 2 was a change over Half-Life 1. New story/interaction/storytelling/etc, refined/changed the combat, added crazy physics engine, etc.
It doesn't have to reinvent the genre on every level to count as innovation.
Plus, you know, there's only 2 of the games.
shryke on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
edited April 2011
To Styrofoam: And you're right. I agree. In fact, that's the point that I've been trying to make, that Nintendo isn't doing anything better or worse than other developers, yet some people expect them to be oh so much better.
Shryke: 5, actually, with a sixth coming. The episodes count as discrete titles as far as I'm concerned, especially considering the development time involved. Half-Life 2 did make some big improvements over the original, but not any more revolutionary than, say, Mario 64 or Galaxy or Ocarina or whatever over their predecessors.
I think Nintendo is in an interesting spot, basically because they started with some serious street cred among the hardcore gamers, and then made a system that the "traditional gamer" eventually came to view as cheap and gimmicky and a medium for seriously shitty shovelware.
So, the PS2?
The most popular console always gets bulldozed with shovelware. Everyone's suddenly forgetting that to get quality gaming on PS2, you pretty much stuck to mostly first party and had to sift through the crap to get gems in the third party market.
my sense is that Nintendo is obligated to say that their console will blow the other guys out of the water technically and that it's going to be the most advanced thing yet and so on. But the truth is that their market of casual gamers, old people and parents with young children is a much more desirable market overall than the market of hardcore gamers.
They printed money with the Wii without even needing to lure good developers or invest heavily in quality games. Why would they go in a new direction?
It's also not that hard to catch up, considering the PS3 and 360 are 6 year old hardware essentially at this point. They spent all their R&D money on the controller last time and didn't bet the entire farm going SUPER GRAPHICS and NEW CONTROL SCHEME all at the same time. Part of the reason why Wii used the same chip but just much faster as the GameCube is because the Wiimote was originally going to be a GameCube peripheral/project. It made more sense to take what every developer already knew with the GameCube and go "now 3 times faster guys!" because they knew every fucker was just going to port their PS2 projects anyway.
Now that they're experienced in manufacturing and developing motion hardware, they can spend money researching a higher technical profile like they did for SNES/N64/GameCube.
I think Nintendo is in an interesting spot, basically because they started with some serious street cred among the hardcore gamers, and then made a system that the "traditional gamer" eventually came to view as cheap and gimmicky and a medium for seriously shitty shovelware.
So, the PS2?
The most popular console always gets bulldozed with shovelware. Everyone's suddenly forgetting that to get quality gaming on PS2, you pretty much stuck to mostly first party and had to sift through the crap to get gems in the third party market.
While the PS2 had a lot of shovelware finding the good, or great, games wasn't hard at all. IMO it had a much better ratio of hits vs garbage, and what's wit hthat first party bit? PS2 had great 3rd party support. The first party games weren't really the main draw to the system at all, at least not for the first 3 or 4 years. PS3 has definitely had to lean more on its 1st party efforts than PS2 ever did.
My point was that lots of companies do what Nintendo does with regards to software, but they all get free passes, I guess. Nintendo does innovate, just not with every single title. And it's unfair and unreasonable to expect them to.
Yeah, I wouldn't argue that Nintendo doesn't innovate. I would argue, however, that Nintendo quite often seems to innovate indiscriminately, where "innovation" is a rote value that must be achieved without much impetus or demand behind it. The Wii's motion control scheme is extremely novel, but I would honestly much rather use a regular controller for tradition titles, leaving the Wiimote solely for the areas it most naturally fits, like Mario Cart and Wii Sports. Looking at the videos for Skyward Sword, I'm just overcome with apathy and tedium at the thought of having to make a swinging motion every time I want to use my sword.
As well, I just think that in regards to story, context, and tone, Nintendo has found the niche they want to be in, and it's one decidedly aimed at youngsters. As a young man looking at 30 soon, that holds no great interest, I have to say. I don't think Nintendo has any real incentive to court my specific niche, but again that's kind of frustrating because I'm not entirely used to Nintendo being so exclusive and mercenary. I just want a Zelda game that has exactly the same tone and feel as, say, Metroid Prime.
I apologize if it's been brought up before as I haven't quite read the full thread, but given the natural focus on motion control when it comes to discussions about the Wii, has anyone seen the videos for razer's new motion control thing?
I found that the Wii motion controls, while really good for games built to use them, were not ideal for traditional stuff (not to say that's a flaw, obviously traditional controllers are useless at motion control, different control schemes are always going to be best for different games) like FPS, but I never tried the accessory wii sensor thing (whatever it was called, as I mentioned earlier I more or less gave the Wii away in a successful gambit to get the parents of a friend of mine into gaming.)
Though I have to say that while the video looks good, portal 2 seems like kind of an ideal option for FPS motion control. You aren't aiming for headshots when you play portal 2. Still, I'll likely give it a try. Despite being burned on a crappy (and well known to be crappy, and that's what I get for not checking reviews first) razer keyboard, I like their mice enough to be willing to give it a shot.
However, and I feel obliged to say this in every post I make about razer stuff, their branding strikes me as immature and silly and makes me feel embarrassed when I buy their products. *shakes fist*
edit: got a bit distracted there, but what I'm aiming at is that maybe motion controls are a completely viable interface.
edit 2: also, it's sure not cheap. I mean, when it comes out.
Is it even economically viable at this point to make a console that doesn't outperform the 360 and PS3?
Exactly. Saying it will outperform last generation consoles is like saying the sun will rise tomorrow. If it didn't, I'd be shocked. It's not a relevant comparison.
What it has to be measured again is the NEXT Sony/MS consoles. MS, at least, is releasing their next entry in the next year or 2 afaik. Will Nintendo again be the cheaper but less powerful of the 3? That would be the real question.
I think the big thing is that since the Gamecube -> Wii was such a small jump power wise, it's good to hear that it will actually make the large leap from Wii -> something better than the 360/PS3.
Imagine if Valve focused on just Half-Life because it was successful.
Again, from a business standpoint, they'd make tons of money. And the games would be fun.... But you wouldn't have Portal 1+2. Or TF2. Or... etc.
If you really want to nitpick, Valve hasn't ever created an original game IP outside of the Half-Life series in-house. TF2, Portal, L4D, Alien Swarm and Dota all originated with outside developers that Valve picked up and encouraged to thrive.
I think the main issue with the power of the Wii was not being able to take advantage of 720p/1080p. That was a real shame.
I think that's really one of the prime indicators that Nintendo really had no interest in competing with the PS3/360 on any real level.
That said, I can't help but think it's a much more business-driven decision than a creatively-driven decision. I have to say, much of what Nintendo has said lately about their entertainment mission smacks of self-interest for its own sake. I could be wrong, and Nintendo could really be very singularly focused on "innovation" and "gaming experience," but they don't seem to care that they're losing the favor of industry developers, creators, and the traditional gaming market.
The console sales for the PS3 and 360 units, which have much more overlap in terms of similar gaming experience, are about 25% higher than the Wii when combined, which tells me that people generally want a more traditional gaming experience. What's worse is when you look at the sales figures for the Wii games, with the exception of just two Mario games (Mario Kart and New Super Mario Bros), the top sellers for the Wii are games that included peripherals. Wii Play, which is a terrible game, is it's #2-selling title; also, it came with a free Wiimote. The sales gap between peripheral-based games and the other top-selling games is a whopping 100-200%. Three times as many people bought Wii Play than they did Super Mario Galaxy; almost six times as many bought Wii Play over Twilight Princess.
For context, Halo 3, another 1st-party exclusive title, sold twice as many copies as Zelda.
Those figures strongly indicate to me that the Wii, very largely, is an appeal to novelty and non-traditional gamers, who quite honestly seem to be fickle and relatively not altogether eager to translate their non-traditional status into traditional status. Meaning, the new gamers picking up Wii consoles and peripherals aren't becoming life-long gamers; hell, they're not even becoming life-long Nintendo fans. They just really seem to want to try out Wii Fit.
If this is model Nintendo wants to stick with in the next generation, I would seriously offer to them that they consider their imperative. Because I'm not sure offering last-gen power, upscaled titles, and yet another cumbersome and underemployed motion control power - again - is going to return them the same success they had with the Wii, even financially.
Right, as you said, it's a business thing. It's hard to say the Wii didn't compete when it no doubt costs the least to make and sold really well. Heck, even the first-party supremacy of the Wii just ends up putting more money in Nintendo's coffers.
Though 25% higher sales (particularly for two combined competitors) are hardly something to feel bad about. By any metric, the Wii is successful.
I kind of appreciate that the Wii was a new exploration in gaming. MS and Sony appreciate it too, I guess, given their forays into motion control (though in fairness sony had that webcam thing first, but that was barely supported.) I suppose, for me, that the Wii being a non-traditional system isn't really a bad thing. It's nice, to break more ground into alternate control schemes. I don't disagree that it doesn't get as many traditional gamers (but then again the n64 and gamecube sales are probably comparably lower to combined sony/MS sales by generation (ie, ps2/xbox outselling the gamecube when put together,) I'd figure --could be totally wrong, did not look anything up.) I just disagree that it's a fault against the system.
I mean, if people play non traditional games, and then join places like these forums, and post about liking those games... well, aren't they gamers as much as anyone else?
Ego on
Erik
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Right, as you said, it's a business thing. It's hard to say the Wii didn't compete when it no doubt costs the least to make and sold really well. Heck, even the first-party supremacy of the Wii just ends up putting more money in Nintendo's coffers.
Though 25% higher sales (particularly for two combined competitors) are hardly something to feel bad about. By any metric, the Wii is successful.
Well, when I say "compete," I mean, "appeal to the same market." With the exception of just a few titles, the Sony/MS conflict is a zero-sum equation; I don't have a 360 because I can play those games on my PS3. Even if I wanted to get a Wii port of a title, it's not going to be the same experience because of limited graphical and performance capability, plus the control scheme thingy.
It's not all that uncommon for gamers to have a Wii AND another console. I'd wager that's far more common than having both a PS3 and 360 but not a Wii, and also more common than having a Wii and nothing else (for "gamers," that is).
I mean, if people play non traditional games, and then join places like these forums, and post about liking those games... well, aren't they gamers as much as anyone else?
I don't know. It's a semantic argument, to be sure, but so many of Nintendo's peripheral-based games don't even follow what could be called a traditional gaming model. Can you beat Wii Fit? Does Wii Sports offer a storyline? A similar argument can be made for the hordes of people who play app-games like Angry Birds or FarmVille. Are they "gamers?"
I'm not trying to go down a "No True Scotsman" route, but I think it's fair to say that traditional gaming is still the preferred model, judging from sales, though not nearly to the extent it once was. But that's been the question all along, hasn't it? Is Nintendo going to try to regain that lost market, thus possibly regaining total market domination? Or are they happy with their relatively-new status as a (admittedly big) niche draw?
I dunno, this sounds a bit like claiming Ferrari has stagnated because all they make are awesome sports cars.
Games approachable by all ages is sort of Nintendo's thing. It's not stagnation, it's just their niche, and they're awesome at it.
Imagine paying for the new Ferrari 2012 Convertible based on Ferrari's sparkling lineup, believing it'll last six years or more based on their amazing track record only to find out that it'll last approximately two due to your age group, that the "Convertible" now requires you pay for the roof extension (memory card) but every other replacement part you might ever need fixed (Game cartridges) costs more because Ferrari still wanted to be "Convertible" but you have to buy the roof just like everyone else buying a Dodge Stratus! (Playstation/Dreamcast)
Now imagine that you are also no longer able to get your Ferrari serviced (buy third party games) anywhere but an official Ferrari dealership (you can't get hardly any) because Ferrari decided it was much more profitable to not compete with other repair shops. (Nintendo hates third party games.)
So now you're stuck with an expensive investment with irremovable set of child safety seats in the back (Forced family friendliness on all titles), you have to pay for the convertible roof when you didn't before, and if you want any repairs you have to now take it to overpriced super-expensive official dealerships to get as much as a tire change. Yeah, you'd be pretty irate too I'd hope.
And until Ferrari proves itself again, I would sure be hesitant to trust anything it puts out as anything other than meaningless spin meant to hide the fact it has nothing to offer.
I don't think I could come up with a stupider analogy if I tried.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Yeah, I wouldn't argue that Nintendo doesn't innovate. I would argue, however, that Nintendo quite often seems to innovate indiscriminately, where "innovation" is a rote value that must be achieved without much impetus or demand behind it. The Wii's motion control scheme is extremely novel, but I would honestly much rather use a regular controller for tradition titles, leaving the Wiimote solely for the areas it most naturally fits, like Mario Cart and Wii Sports. Looking at the videos for Skyward Sword, I'm just overcome with apathy and tedium at the thought of having to make a swinging motion every time I want to use my sword.
I really have to take issue with the idea that the innovations they've offered were done without an overarching sense of strategy or purpose. It was very clearly part of a larger push to expand their demographic. The key word being expand. I don't know if I'm misreading some people here, but I keep getting the vibe that there's this belief that Nintendo is intentionally ignoring traditional games, and that they aren't interested in competing on that front with MS and Sony. Of course they're competing with MS and Sony. That they haven't done it successfully is no reason to assume a lack of interest.
Anyway, what do I expect about the next Nintendo console? ... that's a tough question. I imagine it will be more expensive than any of their previous entries, that's for sure. I mean, I don't think the 3ds being the price of a console gives them the option of making something cheaper. I'd say at least $350. Maaaaybe a smidge more. I imagine they're gunning to get as much of a head start on the others as possible too.
If this is model Nintendo wants to stick with in the next generation, I would seriously offer to them that they consider their imperative. Because I'm not sure offering last-gen power, upscaled titles, and yet another cumbersome and underemployed motion control power - again - is going to return them the same success they had with the Wii, even financially.
This was sort of my earlier point. I'm not sure of the extent to which Nintendo sought to take over the world with the Wii. I think it was a slightly more ambitious move than their past consoles that they assumed would be a cute gimmick to snag some gamers, and that they were as surprised as anyone when suddenly every damned person in the world decided they had to have one.
But even if they don't repeat the success of the Wii, they have a viable business model in basically making a slightly more powerful PS360 (which would be cheap to produce these days) and making more money off of their first-party titles (which sell plenty well to justify their continued existence).
And I really don't see their titles as stagnating - even the ones that aren't Mario Galaxy. They're just... established genres. God of War hasn't changed a lick since the first one, but each entry still did great. Dragon's Age 2 isn't really that different from Knights of the Old Republic, if you think about it - they've been milking the same basic engine for ten years now. Zelda has been at least as innovative as those games since OoT (which basically invented the 3D action-RPG genre), and has had fewer iterations. Ditto Metroid since the first Metroid Prime, which semi-pioneered the first-person platformer (though that honor really goes to Jumping Flash back on the PS1).
I mean, how innovative is something like the most recent Call of Duty game? Honestly? It's basically Quake with a great face lift and a few gimmicks. Which is fine, because it's a FPS, and the FPS genre by necessity has certain similarities to every other FPS. Sort of like Zelda games have certain similarities to other 3rd person action RPGs.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I think a lot of your questions would be answered if you understand that Nintendo is now a completely Blue Ocean company. Gamecube was their last attempt at competing in the "traditional" video game market. They were, quite frankly, crushed that generation. Not in the business sense of revenue and profit, their bottom line was still quite healthy, but in terms of marketshare and mindshare. People used to complain that their kids played too much Nintendo, and everyone knew that meant videogames, but in the past decade or so that's changed. Now people say Playstation or Xbox.
Marketshare and mindshare is critical to the health of a business. If you're in a competitive market, you need customers to think of your name first, because competitions makes things increasingly zero-sum. Everytime your comptetitor makes a sale, that not only nets them a customer, but costs you a customer.
Nintendo saw the writing on the wall, and to their credit they did an AMAZING job pivoting the focus of their hardware division. The Wii is an obvious result, but also consider the DS. Unlike home consoles, Nintendo still had Gameboy dominating in that arena. But they went Blue Ocean there too, even though the arguably did not have to, and are wildly successful as a result.
Maybe you're wondering, now that Nintendo has conquered the Blue Ocean and harvested huge rewards, will they return to the "traditional" gaming market?
I wouldn't count on it. Despite their huge success this generation, Nintendo is in an increasingly fragile position. Playstation and Xbox has eaten Nintendo's lunch when it comes to "traditional" home consoles, and the out of nowhere iPhone has started to eat Nintendo's hand-held dinner. And what companies are behind these products? Microsoft, Sony, and Apple. These are multi-billion dollar companies with a broad portfolio of products. Gaming is but a small subdivision to their empires, and Nintendo has no hope of competing head-to-head. What's more each company brings their own unique company sauce. Live, Blu-Ray, App Store. All of those were made possible because of cross-pollination from other parts of their company. Nintendo does not have that on nearly as large of a scope as their competitors.
As the lone pure-game company still out there, Nintendo has no other option than to keep innovating ideas and doing new/weird things. They have no choice but to create Blue Oceans to stay alive. I think we should just be glad they're good at it.
Yeah, I wouldn't argue that Nintendo doesn't innovate. I would argue, however, that Nintendo quite often seems to innovate indiscriminately, where "innovation" is a rote value that must be achieved without much impetus or demand behind it. The Wii's motion control scheme is extremely novel, but I would honestly much rather use a regular controller for tradition titles, leaving the Wiimote solely for the areas it most naturally fits, like Mario Cart and Wii Sports. Looking at the videos for Skyward Sword, I'm just overcome with apathy and tedium at the thought of having to make a swinging motion every time I want to use my sword.
I really have to take issue with the idea that the innovations they've offered were done without an overarching sense of strategy or purpose. It was very clearly part of a larger push to expand their demographic. The key word being expand. I don't know if I'm misreading some people here, but I keep getting the vibe that there's this belief that Nintendo is intentionally ignoring traditional games, and that they aren't interested in competing on that front with MS and Sony. Of course they're competing with MS and Sony. That they haven't done it successfully is no reason to assume a lack of interest.
I think the issue with Nintendo innovation is that they come up with an idea that they have (probably) some strategy for, but then force it upon developers. When the nintendo64 came out every game had to have polygonal graphics because that's what was innovative about the N64, whether the developer in question knew polygonal graphics from a hole in the ground or not. The DS required that games both use the extra screen and the touch-sensitive input system. Wii games Must Have Waggle.
It's fine that they innovate, and for every innovative system they put out there are a handful of first-party games that really use their innovation to its fullest extent, showing the public what they were thinking when they decided to release it in the first place. The problem is that they innovate in directions that are important or useful to Nintendo, rather than directions that are important to the larger game developing industry at the time, and then hold anyone who wants to develop for their system to using their innovative new features. This results in games with wonky or pointless motion-sensing or touch-sensing controls that probably would have been objectively better games on the same system without the enforced innovation.
The fact that Nintendo keeps giving us innovations that only Nintendo seem to know what to do with ends up with the situation exemplified by the Wii, where there are a handful of truly stellar games that use the innovative features the way Nintendo apparently planned all along, and then either nothing at all else to leverage them or a glut of shovelware. Motion control is clearly not a gimmick, but when only (some) first-party titles and a scant gathering of third-party titles get it right while every other game that doesn't just outright suck has motion control tacked on like a third pinky makes it feel like a gimmick.
Maybe you're wondering, now that Nintendo has conquered the Blue Ocean and harvested huge rewards, will they return to the "traditional" gaming market?
Keep in mind that competing for traditional gamers and serving an expanded audience aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. I think it would be a bad idea not to pursue traditional gamers.
As an aside, I disagree strongly with the idea that Nintendo was taken by surprise by their success with the Wii.
I think the issue with Nintendo innovation is that they come up with an idea that they have (probably) some strategy for, but then force it upon developers. When the nintendo64 came out every game had to have polygonal graphics because that's what was innovative about the N64, whether the developer in question knew polygonal graphics from a hole in the ground or not. The DS required that games both use the extra screen and the touch-sensitive input system. Wii games Must Have Waggle.
I don't really understand. Having it, even as a focus, isn't the same as enforcing it's use.
The problem is that they innovate in directions that are important or useful to Nintendo, rather than directions that are important to the larger game developing industry at the time, and then hold anyone who wants to develop for their system to using their innovative new features.
I think that's highly debatable. I mean, as you said with the motion controls--it may not have been used effectively often enough for our liking, but it's clearly got potential. That potential was as much for third parties as Nintendo...it just wasn't utilized.
I really have to take issue with the idea that the innovations they've offered were done without an overarching sense of strategy or purpose. It was very clearly part of a larger push to expand their demographic. The key word being expand.
"To make more money!" isn't a reason to create a thing, it's reason to sell a thing. The simple fact is that the Wiimote isn't inherently innovative in and of itself; just because I'm moving my hands differently to play Metroid doesn't change the fact that it's still a Metroid game. Am I wrong, or can't you even opt to use the old GameCube controllers with certain titles?
The use of the Wiimote is innovative in the context of games like Wii Sports, where your actions mimic the actions on the screen in a context that makes some semblance of sense. The way I swing a baseball bat is important in considering how well my Mii can swing a baseball bat; the way I can twist my hand to open a door in Metroid is in no measurable way more effective or integral than just pushing a button on a controller.
I don't know if I'm misreading some people here, but I keep getting the vibe that there's this belief that Nintendo is intentionally ignoring traditional games, and that they aren't interested in competing on that front with MS and Sony. Of course they're competing with MS and Sony. That they haven't done it successfully is no reason to assume a lack of interest.
In a very literal sense, you're right, especially in terms of sports games. But in practical terms, Nintendo is a first-party system; that's where they make their money, and that's seemingly all they care about as far as development goes. And that's why all the AAA developers pulled up stakes.
Wouldn't this analogy be better if we said the Wii was a dodge caravan and you bought it because it shuttled a lot of people around and even though it wasn't pretty it did the job well?
And hey you could get little tv screens for the kids in the back if you wanted?
Actually no, the better analogy would be that I bought the Ferrari (N64 hype of a next gen SNES with mature, compelling content and RPGS) and was given a Dodge Caravan (hackenyed overpriced console that did nothing the way It said it would, and I don't have anyone to ferry around in a Dodge Caravan ) and I will now not trust anything Ferrari puts out until it has sufficiently proven it will give me a sports car again and not just trick me into buying another Dodge Caravan.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I wouldn't count on it. Despite their huge success this generation, Nintendo is in an increasingly fragile position. Playstation and Xbox has eaten Nintendo's lunch when it comes to "traditional" home consoles, and the out of nowhere iPhone has started to eat Nintendo's hand-held dinner. And what companies are behind these products? Microsoft, Sony, and Apple. These are multi-billion dollar companies with a broad portfolio of products. Gaming is but a small subdivision to their empires, and Nintendo has no hope of competing head-to-head. What's more each company brings their own unique company sauce. Live, Blu-Ray, App Store. All of those were made possible because of cross-pollination from other parts of their company. Nintendo does not have that on nearly as large of a scope as their competitors.
Except there's more than a decent amount of fault to be laid at the feet of Nintendo itself for its limited scope. Nintendo, for 20 solid years, WAS video games. They had the power, and money, and clout to expand their portfolio; right now we could be talking about the Nintendo Phone or Nintendo TV or whathaveyou, instead we talk about the latest new gadgets from Apple, who 20 years ago was basically dead in the water.
And yet still, Nintendo refuses to commit to these emerging markets in home & personal entertainment, often sternly refusing any entreaty as some kind of adulteration of their mission. As well, Microsoft and Sony's success in the home console market wasn't a given, and there's a massive console graveyard out there filled with 3DOs and Dreamcasts; Sony and MS found the niche that the market was looking for, and it was a market that Nintendo simply abandoned.
I think the issue with Nintendo innovation is that they come up with an idea that they have (probably) some strategy for, but then force it upon developers. When the nintendo64 came out every game had to have polygonal graphics because that's what was innovative about the N64, whether the developer in question knew polygonal graphics from a hole in the ground or not. The DS required that games both use the extra screen and the touch-sensitive input system. Wii games Must Have Waggle.
I don't really understand. Having it, even as a focus, isn't the same as enforcing it's use.
I've never dealt with Nintendo as a 3rd-party publisher so I don't really know, but I'm fairly certain that I've read in years past that Nintendo does require prospective 3rd party publishers to use whatever they consider to be the key features of their system.
The problem is that they innovate in directions that are important or useful to Nintendo, rather than directions that are important to the larger game developing industry at the time, and then hold anyone who wants to develop for their system to using their innovative new features.
I think that's highly debatable. I mean, as you said with the motion controls--it may not have been used effectively often enough for our liking, but it's clearly got potential. That potential was as much for third parties as Nintendo...it just wasn't utilized.
Which is why I said it wasn't what the industry was interested in. A larger portion of the industry seems to be getting interested now, some years after the fact, but at the time nobody knew what to do with motion control. There were not developers sitting around thinking, "Man, I have a great game idea... if only there were a system with motion control I could develop it for."
Integrated online services and high-def video were things that the industry was apparently ready for when current gen consoles came out, so we have tons of big-name, AAA titles that use those. Enough so that it seems weird now that those things were new or could be considered innovative 6 years ago. Motion control wasn't, so we don't, and 6 years later it's still 'the coming thing'.
Which is why I said it wasn't what the industry was interested in. A larger portion of the industry seems to be getting interested now, some years after the fact, but at the time nobody knew what to do with motion control. There were not developers sitting around thinking, "Man, I have a great game idea... if only there were a system with motion control I could develop it for."
Integrated online services and high-def video were things that the industry was apparently ready for when current gen consoles came out, so we have tons of big-name, AAA titles that use those. Enough so that it seems weird now that those things were new or could be considered innovative 6 years ago. Motion control wasn't, so we don't, and 6 years later it's still 'the coming thing'.
That the industry wasn't actively interested in motion controls preceding the Wii, doesn't mean that their introduction wasn't important to the gaming industry as a whole (which is what I had originally thought you were proposing).
Narom on
<cursive>Narom</cursive>
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Integrated online services and high-def video were things that the industry was apparently ready for when current gen consoles came out, so we have tons of big-name, AAA titles that use those. Enough so that it seems weird now that those things were new or could be considered innovative 6 years ago. Motion control wasn't, so we don't, and 6 years later it's still 'the coming thing'.
I'll go further than that and say that motion control is actually a fairly limiting beast, and not a method of control suitable for every situation.
Take for instance a very good Wii title, Punch Out. I love the way you can literally box against your opponents. Also, I can play for about 30 minutes at a time before I start thinking I'm about to have a heart attack from pure exertion.
That's not an experience I want to carry over to, say, Lemmings.
Posts
Actually no, I'd say what some people are saying here is that this is what they don't do very often.
Zelda is the least innovated on series I can think of.
Mario 2D was basically unchanged but with new powerups and then made a big innovative jump to 3D where it's been mostly the same, but 64->Galaxy was a nice enough jump. Of course, since it's all about the platforming everything else involved that's been static for years no one gives a shit about.
But that's really ignoring that just sticking with not just known IPs, but known game series is part of what's being talked about. You'll hardly find me defending some of those other ones mentioned (fighting games are a whole weird other world). And some of those mentioned aren't stagnant at all or just don't even have enough entries to be considered "milking".
Imagine paying for the new Ferrari 2012 Convertible based on Ferrari's sparkling lineup, believing it'll last six years or more based on their amazing track record only to find out that it'll last approximately two due to your age group, that the "Convertible" now requires you pay for the roof extension (memory card) but every other replacement part you might ever need fixed (Game cartridges) costs more because Ferrari still wanted to be "Convertible" but you have to buy the roof just like everyone else buying a Dodge Stratus! (Playstation/Dreamcast)
Now imagine that you are also no longer able to get your Ferrari serviced (buy third party games) anywhere but an official Ferrari dealership (you can't get hardly any) because Ferrari decided it was much more profitable to not compete with other repair shops. (Nintendo hates third party games.)
So now you're stuck with an expensive investment with irremovable set of child safety seats in the back (Forced family friendliness on all titles), you have to pay for the convertible roof when you didn't before, and if you want any repairs you have to now take it to overpriced super-expensive official dealerships to get as much as a tire change. Yeah, you'd be pretty irate too I'd hope.
And until Ferrari proves itself again, I would sure be hesitant to trust anything it puts out as anything other than meaningless spin meant to hide the fact it has nothing to offer.
Zelda is the least innovated series you can think of? Not Call of Duty, Halo, Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, SRS, F-Zero, Need for Speed, Madden or Suikoden and those are all series of roughly comparable amounts of games that have much less innovation off the top of my head.
Sometimes people seem to forget that Zelda has innovated a ton, there are top down, 3D, and Sidescrolling incarnations on home consoles. Not to mention every game has had at least one or two gimmicks that completely set them apart from the rest, or radically different control schemes. The two latest Zelda games to come out, Phantom Hourglass and Spirite Tracks, use the touchscreen for everything and had some cool puzzles that built on that. Majora's Mask had the groundhog day thing, Seasons and Ages had the alternate world gimmick and the mounts.
And every time they release a genuinely new and different experiences people bitch like crazy. Spirit Tracks had you team up with Zelda directly and control her as a ghost possessing things while driving a crazy magic train, Wind Waker took place on a bunch of tiny islands and made sailing a huge part of the game, Majora's Mask made masks and transformations integral to the experience.
What, exactly, would you have them do?
e: and because I *KNOW* someone is going to rag on this: Yes, Portal 2 had PORTALS in it, just like Portal 1. What I mean is that the whole idea of Portal was a huge questionmark for many people and very different from most of the games around it.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
Wouldn't this analogy be better if we said the Wii was a dodge caravan and you bought it because it shuttled a lot of people around and even though it wasn't pretty it did the job well?
And hey you could get little tv screens for the kids in the back if you wanted?
I don't think anyone has said those other companies get free passes. Like ... anywhere.
Dac and the quoted ZP post said exactly that. They even brought up Valve as a company that couldn't get away with it, except Valve is getting away with it with Half-Life. Half-Life is great, but Half-Life 2 and it's episodes are not reinventing the FPS genre or anything.
I'm not sure that's really a valid criticism of any game though. Its not really a reasonable threshold to hold any game to.
Except Half-Life 2 was a change over Half-Life 1. New story/interaction/storytelling/etc, refined/changed the combat, added crazy physics engine, etc.
It doesn't have to reinvent the genre on every level to count as innovation.
Plus, you know, there's only 2 of the games.
Shryke: 5, actually, with a sixth coming. The episodes count as discrete titles as far as I'm concerned, especially considering the development time involved. Half-Life 2 did make some big improvements over the original, but not any more revolutionary than, say, Mario 64 or Galaxy or Ocarina or whatever over their predecessors.
Its pretty much what Halo did.
....Other than the fact that Halo was the only decent title in that series, but I think I'm in the distinct minority in that assessment.....
So, the PS2?
The most popular console always gets bulldozed with shovelware. Everyone's suddenly forgetting that to get quality gaming on PS2, you pretty much stuck to mostly first party and had to sift through the crap to get gems in the third party market.
It's also not that hard to catch up, considering the PS3 and 360 are 6 year old hardware essentially at this point. They spent all their R&D money on the controller last time and didn't bet the entire farm going SUPER GRAPHICS and NEW CONTROL SCHEME all at the same time. Part of the reason why Wii used the same chip but just much faster as the GameCube is because the Wiimote was originally going to be a GameCube peripheral/project. It made more sense to take what every developer already knew with the GameCube and go "now 3 times faster guys!" because they knew every fucker was just going to port their PS2 projects anyway.
Now that they're experienced in manufacturing and developing motion hardware, they can spend money researching a higher technical profile like they did for SNES/N64/GameCube.
While the PS2 had a lot of shovelware finding the good, or great, games wasn't hard at all. IMO it had a much better ratio of hits vs garbage, and what's wit hthat first party bit? PS2 had great 3rd party support. The first party games weren't really the main draw to the system at all, at least not for the first 3 or 4 years. PS3 has definitely had to lean more on its 1st party efforts than PS2 ever did.
Yeah, I wouldn't argue that Nintendo doesn't innovate. I would argue, however, that Nintendo quite often seems to innovate indiscriminately, where "innovation" is a rote value that must be achieved without much impetus or demand behind it. The Wii's motion control scheme is extremely novel, but I would honestly much rather use a regular controller for tradition titles, leaving the Wiimote solely for the areas it most naturally fits, like Mario Cart and Wii Sports. Looking at the videos for Skyward Sword, I'm just overcome with apathy and tedium at the thought of having to make a swinging motion every time I want to use my sword.
As well, I just think that in regards to story, context, and tone, Nintendo has found the niche they want to be in, and it's one decidedly aimed at youngsters. As a young man looking at 30 soon, that holds no great interest, I have to say. I don't think Nintendo has any real incentive to court my specific niche, but again that's kind of frustrating because I'm not entirely used to Nintendo being so exclusive and mercenary. I just want a Zelda game that has exactly the same tone and feel as, say, Metroid Prime.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_1Ao2cd5BM
I found that the Wii motion controls, while really good for games built to use them, were not ideal for traditional stuff (not to say that's a flaw, obviously traditional controllers are useless at motion control, different control schemes are always going to be best for different games) like FPS, but I never tried the accessory wii sensor thing (whatever it was called, as I mentioned earlier I more or less gave the Wii away in a successful gambit to get the parents of a friend of mine into gaming.)
Though I have to say that while the video looks good, portal 2 seems like kind of an ideal option for FPS motion control. You aren't aiming for headshots when you play portal 2. Still, I'll likely give it a try. Despite being burned on a crappy (and well known to be crappy, and that's what I get for not checking reviews first) razer keyboard, I like their mice enough to be willing to give it a shot.
However, and I feel obliged to say this in every post I make about razer stuff, their branding strikes me as immature and silly and makes me feel embarrassed when I buy their products. *shakes fist*
edit: got a bit distracted there, but what I'm aiming at is that maybe motion controls are a completely viable interface.
edit 2: also, it's sure not cheap. I mean, when it comes out.
I think the big thing is that since the Gamecube -> Wii was such a small jump power wise, it's good to hear that it will actually make the large leap from Wii -> something better than the 360/PS3.
If you really want to nitpick, Valve hasn't ever created an original game IP outside of the Half-Life series in-house. TF2, Portal, L4D, Alien Swarm and Dota all originated with outside developers that Valve picked up and encouraged to thrive.
I think that's really one of the prime indicators that Nintendo really had no interest in competing with the PS3/360 on any real level.
That said, I can't help but think it's a much more business-driven decision than a creatively-driven decision. I have to say, much of what Nintendo has said lately about their entertainment mission smacks of self-interest for its own sake. I could be wrong, and Nintendo could really be very singularly focused on "innovation" and "gaming experience," but they don't seem to care that they're losing the favor of industry developers, creators, and the traditional gaming market.
The console sales for the PS3 and 360 units, which have much more overlap in terms of similar gaming experience, are about 25% higher than the Wii when combined, which tells me that people generally want a more traditional gaming experience. What's worse is when you look at the sales figures for the Wii games, with the exception of just two Mario games (Mario Kart and New Super Mario Bros), the top sellers for the Wii are games that included peripherals. Wii Play, which is a terrible game, is it's #2-selling title; also, it came with a free Wiimote. The sales gap between peripheral-based games and the other top-selling games is a whopping 100-200%. Three times as many people bought Wii Play than they did Super Mario Galaxy; almost six times as many bought Wii Play over Twilight Princess.
For context, Halo 3, another 1st-party exclusive title, sold twice as many copies as Zelda.
Those figures strongly indicate to me that the Wii, very largely, is an appeal to novelty and non-traditional gamers, who quite honestly seem to be fickle and relatively not altogether eager to translate their non-traditional status into traditional status. Meaning, the new gamers picking up Wii consoles and peripherals aren't becoming life-long gamers; hell, they're not even becoming life-long Nintendo fans. They just really seem to want to try out Wii Fit.
If this is model Nintendo wants to stick with in the next generation, I would seriously offer to them that they consider their imperative. Because I'm not sure offering last-gen power, upscaled titles, and yet another cumbersome and underemployed motion control power - again - is going to return them the same success they had with the Wii, even financially.
Though 25% higher sales (particularly for two combined competitors) are hardly something to feel bad about. By any metric, the Wii is successful.
I kind of appreciate that the Wii was a new exploration in gaming. MS and Sony appreciate it too, I guess, given their forays into motion control (though in fairness sony had that webcam thing first, but that was barely supported.) I suppose, for me, that the Wii being a non-traditional system isn't really a bad thing. It's nice, to break more ground into alternate control schemes. I don't disagree that it doesn't get as many traditional gamers (but then again the n64 and gamecube sales are probably comparably lower to combined sony/MS sales by generation (ie, ps2/xbox outselling the gamecube when put together,) I'd figure --could be totally wrong, did not look anything up.) I just disagree that it's a fault against the system.
I mean, if people play non traditional games, and then join places like these forums, and post about liking those games... well, aren't they gamers as much as anyone else?
Well, when I say "compete," I mean, "appeal to the same market." With the exception of just a few titles, the Sony/MS conflict is a zero-sum equation; I don't have a 360 because I can play those games on my PS3. Even if I wanted to get a Wii port of a title, it's not going to be the same experience because of limited graphical and performance capability, plus the control scheme thingy.
It's not all that uncommon for gamers to have a Wii AND another console. I'd wager that's far more common than having both a PS3 and 360 but not a Wii, and also more common than having a Wii and nothing else (for "gamers," that is).
I don't know. It's a semantic argument, to be sure, but so many of Nintendo's peripheral-based games don't even follow what could be called a traditional gaming model. Can you beat Wii Fit? Does Wii Sports offer a storyline? A similar argument can be made for the hordes of people who play app-games like Angry Birds or FarmVille. Are they "gamers?"
I'm not trying to go down a "No True Scotsman" route, but I think it's fair to say that traditional gaming is still the preferred model, judging from sales, though not nearly to the extent it once was. But that's been the question all along, hasn't it? Is Nintendo going to try to regain that lost market, thus possibly regaining total market domination? Or are they happy with their relatively-new status as a (admittedly big) niche draw?
I don't think I could come up with a stupider analogy if I tried.
Anyway, what do I expect about the next Nintendo console? ... that's a tough question. I imagine it will be more expensive than any of their previous entries, that's for sure. I mean, I don't think the 3ds being the price of a console gives them the option of making something cheaper. I'd say at least $350. Maaaaybe a smidge more. I imagine they're gunning to get as much of a head start on the others as possible too.
This was sort of my earlier point. I'm not sure of the extent to which Nintendo sought to take over the world with the Wii. I think it was a slightly more ambitious move than their past consoles that they assumed would be a cute gimmick to snag some gamers, and that they were as surprised as anyone when suddenly every damned person in the world decided they had to have one.
But even if they don't repeat the success of the Wii, they have a viable business model in basically making a slightly more powerful PS360 (which would be cheap to produce these days) and making more money off of their first-party titles (which sell plenty well to justify their continued existence).
And I really don't see their titles as stagnating - even the ones that aren't Mario Galaxy. They're just... established genres. God of War hasn't changed a lick since the first one, but each entry still did great. Dragon's Age 2 isn't really that different from Knights of the Old Republic, if you think about it - they've been milking the same basic engine for ten years now. Zelda has been at least as innovative as those games since OoT (which basically invented the 3D action-RPG genre), and has had fewer iterations. Ditto Metroid since the first Metroid Prime, which semi-pioneered the first-person platformer (though that honor really goes to Jumping Flash back on the PS1).
I mean, how innovative is something like the most recent Call of Duty game? Honestly? It's basically Quake with a great face lift and a few gimmicks. Which is fine, because it's a FPS, and the FPS genre by necessity has certain similarities to every other FPS. Sort of like Zelda games have certain similarities to other 3rd person action RPGs.
I think a lot of your questions would be answered if you understand that Nintendo is now a completely Blue Ocean company. Gamecube was their last attempt at competing in the "traditional" video game market. They were, quite frankly, crushed that generation. Not in the business sense of revenue and profit, their bottom line was still quite healthy, but in terms of marketshare and mindshare. People used to complain that their kids played too much Nintendo, and everyone knew that meant videogames, but in the past decade or so that's changed. Now people say Playstation or Xbox.
Marketshare and mindshare is critical to the health of a business. If you're in a competitive market, you need customers to think of your name first, because competitions makes things increasingly zero-sum. Everytime your comptetitor makes a sale, that not only nets them a customer, but costs you a customer.
Nintendo saw the writing on the wall, and to their credit they did an AMAZING job pivoting the focus of their hardware division. The Wii is an obvious result, but also consider the DS. Unlike home consoles, Nintendo still had Gameboy dominating in that arena. But they went Blue Ocean there too, even though the arguably did not have to, and are wildly successful as a result.
Maybe you're wondering, now that Nintendo has conquered the Blue Ocean and harvested huge rewards, will they return to the "traditional" gaming market?
I wouldn't count on it. Despite their huge success this generation, Nintendo is in an increasingly fragile position. Playstation and Xbox has eaten Nintendo's lunch when it comes to "traditional" home consoles, and the out of nowhere iPhone has started to eat Nintendo's hand-held dinner. And what companies are behind these products? Microsoft, Sony, and Apple. These are multi-billion dollar companies with a broad portfolio of products. Gaming is but a small subdivision to their empires, and Nintendo has no hope of competing head-to-head. What's more each company brings their own unique company sauce. Live, Blu-Ray, App Store. All of those were made possible because of cross-pollination from other parts of their company. Nintendo does not have that on nearly as large of a scope as their competitors.
As the lone pure-game company still out there, Nintendo has no other option than to keep innovating ideas and doing new/weird things. They have no choice but to create Blue Oceans to stay alive. I think we should just be glad they're good at it.
I think the issue with Nintendo innovation is that they come up with an idea that they have (probably) some strategy for, but then force it upon developers. When the nintendo64 came out every game had to have polygonal graphics because that's what was innovative about the N64, whether the developer in question knew polygonal graphics from a hole in the ground or not. The DS required that games both use the extra screen and the touch-sensitive input system. Wii games Must Have Waggle.
It's fine that they innovate, and for every innovative system they put out there are a handful of first-party games that really use their innovation to its fullest extent, showing the public what they were thinking when they decided to release it in the first place. The problem is that they innovate in directions that are important or useful to Nintendo, rather than directions that are important to the larger game developing industry at the time, and then hold anyone who wants to develop for their system to using their innovative new features. This results in games with wonky or pointless motion-sensing or touch-sensing controls that probably would have been objectively better games on the same system without the enforced innovation.
The fact that Nintendo keeps giving us innovations that only Nintendo seem to know what to do with ends up with the situation exemplified by the Wii, where there are a handful of truly stellar games that use the innovative features the way Nintendo apparently planned all along, and then either nothing at all else to leverage them or a glut of shovelware. Motion control is clearly not a gimmick, but when only (some) first-party titles and a scant gathering of third-party titles get it right while every other game that doesn't just outright suck has motion control tacked on like a third pinky makes it feel like a gimmick.
As an aside, I disagree strongly with the idea that Nintendo was taken by surprise by their success with the Wii.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
I think that's highly debatable. I mean, as you said with the motion controls--it may not have been used effectively often enough for our liking, but it's clearly got potential. That potential was as much for third parties as Nintendo...it just wasn't utilized.
Anything currently going around on the internet.
"To make more money!" isn't a reason to create a thing, it's reason to sell a thing. The simple fact is that the Wiimote isn't inherently innovative in and of itself; just because I'm moving my hands differently to play Metroid doesn't change the fact that it's still a Metroid game. Am I wrong, or can't you even opt to use the old GameCube controllers with certain titles?
The use of the Wiimote is innovative in the context of games like Wii Sports, where your actions mimic the actions on the screen in a context that makes some semblance of sense. The way I swing a baseball bat is important in considering how well my Mii can swing a baseball bat; the way I can twist my hand to open a door in Metroid is in no measurable way more effective or integral than just pushing a button on a controller.
In a very literal sense, you're right, especially in terms of sports games. But in practical terms, Nintendo is a first-party system; that's where they make their money, and that's seemingly all they care about as far as development goes. And that's why all the AAA developers pulled up stakes.
Actually no, the better analogy would be that I bought the Ferrari (N64 hype of a next gen SNES with mature, compelling content and RPGS) and was given a Dodge Caravan (hackenyed overpriced console that did nothing the way It said it would, and I don't have anyone to ferry around in a Dodge Caravan
Except there's more than a decent amount of fault to be laid at the feet of Nintendo itself for its limited scope. Nintendo, for 20 solid years, WAS video games. They had the power, and money, and clout to expand their portfolio; right now we could be talking about the Nintendo Phone or Nintendo TV or whathaveyou, instead we talk about the latest new gadgets from Apple, who 20 years ago was basically dead in the water.
And yet still, Nintendo refuses to commit to these emerging markets in home & personal entertainment, often sternly refusing any entreaty as some kind of adulteration of their mission. As well, Microsoft and Sony's success in the home console market wasn't a given, and there's a massive console graveyard out there filled with 3DOs and Dreamcasts; Sony and MS found the niche that the market was looking for, and it was a market that Nintendo simply abandoned.
I've never dealt with Nintendo as a 3rd-party publisher so I don't really know, but I'm fairly certain that I've read in years past that Nintendo does require prospective 3rd party publishers to use whatever they consider to be the key features of their system.
Which is why I said it wasn't what the industry was interested in. A larger portion of the industry seems to be getting interested now, some years after the fact, but at the time nobody knew what to do with motion control. There were not developers sitting around thinking, "Man, I have a great game idea... if only there were a system with motion control I could develop it for."
Integrated online services and high-def video were things that the industry was apparently ready for when current gen consoles came out, so we have tons of big-name, AAA titles that use those. Enough so that it seems weird now that those things were new or could be considered innovative 6 years ago. Motion control wasn't, so we don't, and 6 years later it's still 'the coming thing'.
I'll go further than that and say that motion control is actually a fairly limiting beast, and not a method of control suitable for every situation.
Take for instance a very good Wii title, Punch Out. I love the way you can literally box against your opponents. Also, I can play for about 30 minutes at a time before I start thinking I'm about to have a heart attack from pure exertion.
That's not an experience I want to carry over to, say, Lemmings.