Topic: What Nintendo could have done for year one (but can still implement!)

[Soren]

EXACTLY, these things are already linked to miiverse so they could through an update add support for an achievement system

Call me old-fashioned(and really, what's the deal with these kids that can't stay off the lawn...) but the only achievement that really matter is beating the game. And Miiverse already lets you brag about that.

[Spak-Spang]

I think Miiverse was supposed to be Nintendo's social achievement system.  Personally, I don't care about achievements.  I know many people do because they feel they get more out of a game.  But, honestly, I think it is padding for the game.  Look, you beat the game...but can you beat this level without being seen?  Can you beat this level without taking damage? 

Honestly I don't care.  I don't need to brag to my friends how good I am with achievements. 

I don't want achievements.  I would rather have more actual game.  Or special levels with unique challenges...but not same content achievement stuff.

That being said, I know this is only my opinion and other gamers love achievements...so you should provide a system to make them for gamers.  Still, I do not believe any gamer will choose one version of a game over another because of achievements. 

[Ian Sane]

I don't give a damn at all about achievements... but they're the industry standard now so Nintendo should have included them.  This "well you don't need X because we have Y" nonsense has been a problem since the N64.  Nintendo needs to realize that when they make people choose, they often DON'T choose Nintendo.  They should aim to match and exceed - to offer what the competition has plus more.  Being better is good, being different means squat.

In regards to "everyone" games, there are tons of games for "everyone" that I love.  But the concept is flawed because they don't end up appealing to everyone.  They tried to appeal to everyone on the N64 and Nintendo was kiddy in the minds of teens and young adults.  They tried to appeal to everyone on the Wii and Nintendo was seen as casual in the minds of more experienced gamers.  Different people connect with different content.  When Nintendo aims almost all of their content at "everyone" they are just making a lineup that appeals to those that connect with that type of content and no one else.  Since the Playstation brand debuted, Sony's consoles that typically been considerably better recieved by the public than Nintendo's.  The reason why is that the Playstations actually have a lineup that appeals to everyone.  They have casual games and hardcore games, 'E' rated titles suitable for children and 'M' rated gorefests.  All genres are accounted for (a big part of this is strong third party support) and all demographics.  THAT is how you appeal to everyone.  Different people connect with different games so you have a wide variety of games to ensure that anyone can buy your console and find something worth playing.  Nintendo tries to achieve this by making almost all of their games suitable for all audiences.  This results in ONE type of game that appeals to ONE type of person and no one else.  You either connect with almost everything Nintendo makes or their console is damn near worthless to you with no middleground.  And the sales reflect that as every Nintendo console except the Wii underperformed and the Wii succeeded on being a massive fad with ONE specific casual audience and was seen as irrelevent to everyone else.  "Something for everyone" means all types of games for all audiences in your library, not having every game attempting to be suitable for everyone.

[Spak-Spang]

I don't give a damn at all about achievements... but they're the industry standard now so Nintendo should have included them.  This "well you don't need X because we have Y" nonsense has been a problem since the N64.  Nintendo needs to realize that when they make people choose, they often DON'T choose Nintendo.  They should aim to match and exceed - to offer what the competition has plus more.  Being better is good, being different means squat.

In regards to "everyone" games, there are tons of games for "everyone" that I love.  But the concept is flawed because they don't end up appealing to everyone.  They tried to appeal to everyone on the N64 and Nintendo was kiddy in the minds of teens and young adults.  They tried to appeal to everyone on the Wii and Nintendo was seen as casual in the minds of more experienced gamers.  Different people connect with different content.  When Nintendo aims almost all of their content at "everyone" they are just making a lineup that appeals to those that connect with that type of content and no one else.  Since the Playstation brand debuted, Sony's consoles that typically been considerably better recieved by the public than Nintendo's.  The reason why is that the Playstations actually have a lineup that appeals to everyone.  They have casual games and hardcore games, 'E' rated titles suitable for children and 'M' rated gorefests.  All genres are accounted for (a big part of this is strong third party support) and all demographics.  THAT is how you appeal to everyone.  Different people connect with different games so you have a wide variety of games to ensure that anyone can buy your console and find something worth playing.  Nintendo tries to achieve this by making almost all of their games suitable for all audiences.  This results in ONE type of game that appeals to ONE type of person and no one else.  You either connect with almost everything Nintendo makes or their console is damn near worthless to you with no middleground.  And the sales reflect that as every Nintendo console except the Wii underperformed and the Wii succeeded on being a massive fad with ONE specific casual audience and was seen as irrelevent to everyone else.  "Something for everyone" means all types of games for all audiences in your library, not having every game attempting to be suitable for everyone.

Ian I think the problem is defining everyone.  Nintendo defines games for everyoneas games anyone can play because there is no barrier like questionable content.  They also try to make the games as approachable as possible...which goes into the art direction Nintendo supports. 

However, by your definition Nintendo makes. Several games. With varying target markets.  This is vastly different to Nintendo than making their games for everyone...because I believe Nintendo defines target markets by game genres more than ages.  Take Pokemon...it is clearly designed for JRPG fans of all ages, but if you hate RPGs you will hate the game.

F-zero, Advanced Wars, Fire Emblem, Metroid, Zelda, Xenosaga...all these games fall into that approach. 

[NWR_insanolord]

I'd argue very few games Nintendo makes are realistically targeted at everyone. Stuff like Nintendo Land fits the bill, and I'd put the New Super Mario Bros. games in that category, but can you honestly say that any Metroid game is designed to be played by all people? Zelda games have a high barrier to entry, despite Nintendo's attempts to mitigate that. Looking at the rest of the year, Pikmin is a very complex game once you get deep into it, and Donkey Kong Country is likely to be way too difficult for a large sector of the gaming populace to complete without heavy Super Guide use.