Topic: What is "nintendo-like" quality?

[Plugabugz]

This kinda made me think ever since CEO of Ubisoft said they aim to achieve this in a year from now. What is, strictly speaking, the main parts of nintendo's quality to game production? Can other people take on board those elements?

It's all well and good that Ubi want to do achieve this, and to be frank even EA can do it, but how i'm seeing it is it'd only be possible if there's a change in management in nearly all devs and (mostly) publishers. I can see the business angle here - Sales dictate profit, but quality normally dictate the sales to start with.

If nintendo got something potentially good out of N-Space and something incredible out of Retro then its entirely possible for other people to achieve the same?

[KDR_11k]

I think some of it is that Nintendo realizes when a game is bad or less than it can be and is willing to fix it instead of relying on brands and licenses to sell the game in spite of its "quality". Other companies seem to have delusions of quality (not saying Nintendo doesn't but it's usually much smaller and rarer) for games that barely reach 7.0.

[GoldenPhoenix]

I think Nintendo quality is simple, they usually don't release half baked games. They are seldom afraid to delay games to get the best quality out of them, regardless of public opinion. Not to mention I think they have an atmosphere that strives towards perfecting gameplay. One thing I've noticed about most NIntendo games is they seldom have game killing glitches or even glitches that hamper gameplay (Yes I know there are exceptions).

[GoldenPhoenix]

Oops double post.

[Kairon]

I personally believe that Nintendo like quality emerges from a holistic bottom-up approach. Nintendo lets games dictate their surroundings, not the other way around. Nintendo games are rarely reactionary, and tend to be completely integrated into what the gameplay needs, instead of what outsiders think the game needs.

Yes, Nintendo is quality, polish, technical proficiency, willingness to delay a game for quality reasons, accessible by the mass market... but more than that, Nintendo develops the gameplay and game design systems first, and the graphics, story, features, etc. of the game only later take form not to be excellent on their own merits, but merely to support the core gameplay.

This, I believe, is one of the reasons why Nintendo (Miyamoto)  games will probably NEVER have any RPG-like depth to their stories: they believe that stories exist only to provide structure for the gameplay and nothing more.

[Chozo Ghost]

Nintendo Quality means delaying games for months or years if necessary instead of pushing out something that is buggy and incomplete.

[Ian Sane]

Nintendo-like quality means striving to make every game a contender for best game of all time.  Well they obviously don't acheive that all the time and have high and low periods of output but that usually comes across as the goal.

Some of it I think though is just raw talent and know-how.  You'll play games from other companies where some things are complicated for no reason or parts of the game drag because of some story element.  Nintendo seems to think of the gameplay first and as they design you can tell they tweak.  They tweak the controls to make sure everything is tight and feels instintively natural to the player.  You rarely push the jump button when you meant to shoot.  I can imagine they sit down and test "which button is someone instinctively going to assume will be the jump button?"  You can tell they go over the details.  They don't tie themselves to genre conventions.  They think about what they want to do and then figure out how to make it work.  That's where the auto-jump in Zelda comes from.  Everyone else would throw a jump button on there because it's 3D so we need a jump button.  Nintendo looks at it and goes "why do we need to jump in a Zelda game like we do in a Mario game?"  "Can't we just design the game so that not only will an auto-jump always work but that you will never feel the need for a jump button because there aren't hidden places you can't reach without it?"

I don't know if that can be taught all that well without Nintendo being directly involved in development.  I gave a few observations out but the hell would I have ever thought of auto-jump or Z-targetting.  Ubisoft not only has to know how Nintendo thinks but they have to be talented enough to come to similar conclusions.  They can always try to think outside the box like Nintendo does to solve a problem but that doesn't mean they'll come to a good conslusion doing so.

If Nintendo made Splinter Cell they would never introduce a "standing in a split between two hallway walls" move and then never put a scenario in that requires it.  Little stuff like that makes the difference.

[Nick DiMola]

Quote
Originally posted by: Chozo Ghost
Nintendo Quality means delaying games for months or years if necessary instead of pushing out something that is buggy and incomplete.

I don't understand why anyone would have the drive to achieve "Nintendo Quality."  I know someone who worked on that Monster Madness game for the 360/PC and the company still managed to sell 250k copies of the game, and will only be selling more when it releases on the PS3. The publisher managed to PROFIT, something like $5 million. If a company can get away with making a crappy game and still sell about 300k copies of the game, why dump money and effort into actually making something great, especially when you have first parties with a vested interest to go up against?

I agree with Chozo's definition of Nintendo quality, but the payoff is minimal for a 3rd party to achieve that quality. It's much easier to throw together an engine in a few months and build endless licensed games off of that engine and make money by the boatload. Nintendo strives to create quality games because the success of their system relies on the availability of quality titles. If Nintendo themselves can provide those titles, they will almost certainly profit greatly.

I suppose this is slightly off topic of the question asked, but what I'm saying is that in profit driven market achieving "Nintendo quality" is not a worthwhile venture.

[Flames_of_chaos]

Well if a game has awesome quality there tends to be better word of mouth of the title which can equate to better sales or more positive media coverage and buzz.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Mr. Jack


If a company can get away with making a crappy game and still sell about 300k copies of the game, why dump money and effort into actually making something great, especially when you have first parties with a vested interest to go up against

Kairon supports this policy!

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: Mr. Jack
I don't understand why anyone would have the drive to achieve "Nintendo Quality."  I know someone who worked on that Monster Madness game for the 360/PC and the company still managed to sell 250k copies of the game, and will only be selling more when it releases on the PS3. The publisher managed to PROFIT, something like $5 million. If a company can get away with making a crappy game and still sell about 300k copies of the game, why dump money and effort into actually making something great, especially when you have first parties with a vested interest to go up against?

I agree to this on a certain extent, but it simply drives to home my point in the Sony CEO thread about how Nintendo's constant attention to the bottomline and ensured long-term profitability means they can pursue long-term strategies.

Nintendo's dedication to Nintendo quality is a long-term strategy, ensuring a brand reputation that will let them innovate extensively, deliver quality, and STILL profit in lean years like with the Gamecube. Other development houses often live a hand-to-mouth existence, and hence never stop to think about what things will be like in the future because they can't see past the next paycheck, or are financially incapable of doing so.

Ironically, Nintendo actually delivers a LOT of those "crappy games" Mr. Jack. Remember Wii Play? Remember Mario Party 2 -8? Wario Ware? Nintendogs? Brain Age? Crap crap crap CRAP. But I mean that in the nicest way possible! &>

Nintendo just THINKS of these no-nonsense crappy games before anyone else does, thus earning them massive profits on a first mover basis. If third parties would have had the inventiveness to make Brain Age first, they could've been the ones reaping the benefits. If they had made a dog simulator first with touch screen implemented, they would've sold 14 million + copies worldwide. If they had made a mini-game collection like Wario Ware first, they wouldn't be stuck in the back with things like Hot PIXEL or W.T.F. and instead have a 200-300k warioware hit on their hands!

Ubisoft, interestingly enough, is pursuing one side of the Nintendo's strategy with the Word/French/Spanish Coach games, being the first to market with applicable yet simple new, simple, and hopefully cheap game types. They're also looking to be the first to market with a real next-gen horse simulator. They're already doing much better than MS' me-too attempts with Fusion Frenzy whatever and Viva Pinata.  

[Ian Sane]

"I don't understand why anyone would have the drive to achieve 'Nintendo Quality.' I know someone who worked on that Monster Madness game for the 360/PC and the company still managed to sell 250k copies of the game, and will only be selling more when it releases on the PS3. The publisher managed to PROFIT, something like $5 million. If a company can get away with making a crappy game and still sell about 300k copies of the game, why dump money and effort into actually making something great, especially when you have first parties with a vested interest to go up against?"

I think it's the difference between a short term and long term business plan.  If you make a high quality product you get a good reputation and thus loyal customers.  Do you think if Nintendo didn't establish a reputation for quality in the NES and SNES years that they would have survived the N64 and Gamecube?

The Monster Madness strategy above is a con.  It relies on the buyer being stupid enough to buy something of low quality.  That's short term because once you establish a reputation of making crap your product doesn't sell anymore.  Acclaim had that strategy and now they don't exist.

Ideally a videogame company wants to have a reputation where their own name has the selling power of a videogame franchise.  Look at a company like Blizzard.  They could release ANYTHING and people would pay attention because they're f*cking Blizzard and they kick ass.  Look at Nintendo who has a real fanbase of people that anticipate the release of new Nintendo games.

Does Ubisoft have that?  No.  Who the f*ck is a Ubisoft fan?  No one because they don't have a good reputation.  They release a well received game pretty much every year but for that one game they release 20 crappy ones.  I think the CEO of Ubisoft wants to see Ubisoft fansites.  He wants to see geeks (that don't work for the company) wearing Ubisoft T-shirts and other geeks saying to them "Cool!  Where did you get that shirt?"  He wants Ubisoft to be a big brandname in videogames where people notice the logo on the box and buy the game because they know they'll like it.  Ubisoft needs to have at least the consistency of Nintendo to achieve that.

[Nick DiMola]

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Ironically, Nintendo actually delivers a LOT of those "crappy games" Mr. Jack. Remember Wii Play? Remember Mario Party 2 -8? Wario Ware? Nintendogs? Brain Age? Crap crap crap CRAP. But I mean that in the nicest way possible! &>

Agreed, and look how many copies Nintendo sells of their "crappy games." People want value.

Remember we ARE NOT average consumers. The average consumer has NO F-ING IDEA who Ubisoft is (or Nintendo or Microsoft or Sony for that matter). People know systems and that games exist for them. Brand loyalty only exists from the gaming enthusiasts. Obviously people who are gaming enthusiasts are not buying crappy games, but who cares? There are plenty of retards out there who will buy something just on box art alone, or the sticker price on the box. Plenty of crappy games sell VERY WELL because they appealed to a certain demographic for whatever ridiculous reason.

Look all I'm saying is that your average consumer is buying games based on variables totally different from what enthusiasts buy games for. They buy games like Wii Play because there is value there. They buy Mario (and his spinoffs) because they know the branding and feel comfortable making the purchase. Sure there is value in establishing some characters that people can recognize, but quickly making sub par games is probably far more profitable than making big budget polished beautiful games. If this wasn't the case why are 80% of all video games released utter crap?  

[Mikintosh]

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Ironically, Nintendo actually delivers a LOT of those "crappy games" Mr. Jack. Remember Wii Play? Remember Mario Party 2 -8? Wario Ware? Nintendogs? Brain Age? Crap crap crap CRAP. But I mean that in the nicest way possible! &>

Nintendo just THINKS of these no-nonsense crappy games before anyone else does, thus earning them massive profits on a first mover basis. If third parties would have had the inventiveness to make Brain Age first, they could've been the ones reaping the benefits. If they had made a dog simulator first with touch screen implemented, they would've sold 14 million + copies worldwide. If they had made a mini-game collection like Wario Ware first, they wouldn't be stuck in the back with things like Hot PIXEL or W.T.F. and instead have a 200-300k warioware hit on their hands!

The Mario Party games are subjective (I've always enjoyed them), but what wrong with Brain Age and Wario Ware? They both get good scores with each game, and with the former, it's cheaper to boot.

And I don't think a 3rd party WarioWare would have been successful, as the original lure of the first game was that it was a Mario universe game (I know that's why I bought it). That in reality it's not really connected to those games at all except for the inclusion of Wario is a moot point.

Nintendo's proved itself by putting out consistently great (and critically acclaimed) games for the last 20 years, so it can sell any game with its logo on it by having the Mario/Zelda/Pokemon "shine" fall onto it (hence why even tangential products like Nintendogs have items like Mario's Hat that can show up in screenshots as tying it to a proven series). Third parties can't do this not only because none of them have Nintendo's track record, but unlike Nintendo, they don't put care into the non-franchise games, for fear they won't make a profit. An EA Animal Crossing would just not have worked.

Most of the third-parties are like modern-day studios: pouring all their budget into blockbusters which have to either hit-or-miss, each one putting the studio on the line. Nintendo is the like the old studios: spread the money and time around so that most of its product is of solid quality; each individual one won't make as big of a splash (though there are the occasional smash hits), but the company itself is stable.

[Ian Sane]

"If this wasn't the case why are 80% of all video games released utter crap?"

Same reason 80% of all entertainment is crap.  Not everyone is of equal talent.  A lot of people are hacks.  The best is always an elite group.  And though it may be that a lot of companies are using the con strategy it isn't necessarily the best one to have.

Nintendo is probably the most successful videogame company to ever exist in that they've remained successful and profitable since Donkey Kong was released over 25 years ago.  Even in lean years they still remain profitable.  A quarter of a century of success.  Meanwhile look at defunct companies like Acclaim, Interplay or Atari.  All these guys pulled the "con people with crap" strategy and it didn't last.  They're gone or they're brand names someone else owns or companies only in their own mind.  Now it's not that simple but at the very least Nintendo has done quite well so I don't see why another company wouldn't want to emulate that.

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: Mikintosh
And I don't think a 3rd party WarioWare would have been successful, as the original lure of the first game was that it was a Mario universe game (I know that's why I bought it). That in reality it's not really connected to those games at all except for the inclusion of Wario is a moot point.

This is EXACTLY why you want to emulate Nintendo. Because even the crap that Nintendo makes people buy and call good.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon

Quote
Originally posted by: Mikintosh
And I don't think a 3rd party WarioWare would have been successful, as the original lure of the first game was that it was a Mario universe game (I know that's why I bought it). That in reality it's not really connected to those games at all except for the inclusion of Wario is a moot point.

This is EXACTLY why you want to emulate Nintendo. Because even the crap that Nintendo makes people buy and call good.

Am I the only one that finds it a tad bit ridiculous that you are calling games like Nintendogs crap? Not to mention the WarioWare games were quite unique they first came out, heck if it wasn't for Wario chances are we wouldn't be having so many mini game collections (Which may not be a bad thing). Regardless WarioWare was innovative and definitely was not crap.

[Maverick]

Kairon knows if Ubisoft made it he would be slobbering over it for days.

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: Maverick
Kairon knows if Ubisoft made it he would be slobbering over it for days.

I've got My French Coach DS right next to my pillow.

[Ian Sane]

"Am I the only one that finds it a tad bit ridiculous that you are calling games like Nintendogs crap?"

I don't care for those games at all but I'll admit that they're certainly not crap in a con way.  They're really just high quality games that I don't like.  I think "crap" is usually reserved for games that are poorly made.

[Mashiro]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Am I the only one that finds it a tad bit ridiculous that you are calling games like Nintendogs crap?"

I don't care for those games at all but I'll admit that they're certainly not crap in a con way.  They're really just high quality games that I don't like.  I think "crap" is usually reserved for games that are poorly made.

I fully agree =D

*waits for others to fill in the rest of this post*

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Mashiro

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Am I the only one that finds it a tad bit ridiculous that you are calling games like Nintendogs crap?"

I don't care for those games at all but I'll admit that they're certainly not crap in a con way.  They're really just high quality games that I don't like.  I think "crap" is usually reserved for games that are poorly made.

I fully agree =D

*waits for others to fill in the rest of this post*

Kairon is just upset because 3rd parties can't make games as good as Nintendo, even casual games like Nintendogs, so he is resorting to name calling of games from Nintendo to fill the hole in his heart caused by games like Far Cry.

[Chozo Ghost]

Quote
Originally posted by: Mr. Jack

Quote
Originally posted by: Chozo Ghost
Nintendo Quality means delaying games for months or years if necessary instead of pushing out something that is buggy and incomplete.

I don't understand why anyone would have the drive to achieve "Nintendo Quality."  I know someone who worked on that Monster Madness game for the 360/PC and the company still managed to sell 250k copies of the game, and will only be selling more when it releases on the PS3. The publisher managed to PROFIT, something like $5 million. If a company can get away with making a crappy game and still sell about 300k copies of the game, why dump money and effort into actually making something great, especially when you have first parties with a vested interest to go up against?

I agree with Chozo's definition of Nintendo quality, but the payoff is minimal for a 3rd party to achieve that quality. It's much easier to throw together an engine in a few months and build endless licensed games off of that engine and make money by the boatload. Nintendo strives to create quality games because the success of their system relies on the availability of quality titles. If Nintendo themselves can provide those titles, they will almost certainly profit greatly.

I suppose this is slightly off topic of the question asked, but what I'm saying is that in profit driven market achieving "Nintendo quality" is not a worthwhile venture.

You're right, but Nintendo games tend to be remembered as timeless classics more often than third party games are. Third parties profit by rushing something out, and it may sell very well initially, but 10 years from now do you think anyone will still be playing Monster Madness? That's the difference Nintendo Quality makes. If Super Mario Galaxy is as good as Mario 64, then you can be sure it will be played 10 years from now and beyond.

I don't see many 3rd party games having that long lasting appeal these days.

[Chozo Ghost]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian SaneDoes Ubisoft have that?  No.  Who the f*ck is a Ubisoft fan?  No one because they don't have a good reputation.  They release a well received game pretty much every year but for that one game they release 20 crappy ones.  I think the CEO of Ubisoft wants to see Ubisoft fansites.  He wants to see geeks (that don't work for the company) wearing Ubisoft T-shirts and other geeks saying to them "Cool!  Where did you get that shirt?"  He wants Ubisoft to be a big brandname in videogames where people notice the logo on the box and buy the game because they know they'll like it.  Ubisoft needs to have at least the consistency of Nintendo to achieve that.

Excellent point. There are some third parties which have loyal fans. Square-Enix, Koei, and even Sega come to mind. But are there many EA or Ubisoft fans? Not really. It's kinda strange though, because EA and Ubisoft are probably the largest third party developers, but despite their commercial success they have very few loyal fans.

They could probably benefit from some mascot or something which they could build franchises around, and maybe one day have the same cult of personality that Mario and friends now enjoy.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Nintendo-like quality is when their games were actually good.

You know, before Twilight Princess.