Topic: I do want the Wii U to fail

[Mop it up]

I've been kicking around the idea of writing an editorial for the site talking about how the people who think Nintendo has changed are crazy because they're basically the same company they've always been.

Although I don't think Nintendo have completely changed, they are definitely different now than in the past. For one example, before the Wii, Nintendo never released a new system with the same specs as last generation in favour of other features like a new controller. Another, before 3DS, Nintendo have never vastly overcharged for a system.

Now, that said, I think a problem some people have is that Nintendo have not changed enough. They still rely on their staple of franchises for most of the big sales, and they still make the same kind of games, for better or worse. People who have been playing Nintendo games since the beginning may simply be growing tired of their designs.

You can say Nintendo's philosophies are the same, and to that end, I'd agree. But the way at which they approach those philosophies has changed.
 

That's like watching someone walk off a cliff, then following them off the same cliff.

Well, it's more like watching someone fall off a cliff and then turning to the left to avoid it. Examining what they did right and avoiding what they did wrong. As I pointed out, this is the way it's been throughout history. Now, it could very well change in the future, but so far, the market leader hasn't changed without them screwing it up for themselves.

That said, I'm not saying Nintendo should flat-out copy the competition. They need to offer enough of what the competition has on top of their own unique spin that makes them Nintendo, which is a tough balance to achieve. The Wii did not do this, but it looks like the Wii U is trying to.

[Luigi Dude]

Nintendo were the ones that took their loyal customers for granted.  They were the ones that assumed we would all just stick around and put up with anything as long as they gave us our Mario "fix".  And that worked pretty well because a lot of Nintendo fans were fine with the Wii as long as it had Mario and Zelda and all the rest.  Am I selfish or is Nintendo greedy for selling their longtime customers short for a more lucrative casual audience?  The way I look at it I was a loyal customer with some valid complaints and they told me to stick it.  I want them back and if that means they have to hit rock bottom to realize their mistakes and change, then so be it.

Once again, the Wii had just as many games aimed at Nintendo's longtime audience as their previous systems.  Just because they released a few games that appealed to a different audience doesn't mean **** when everything else they released is aimed at the same audience they've always been aiming at.

Nintendo isn't a band that's changed it's music style, it's a fast food restaurant that's still making the same food with a few new items added to the menu.  Just because they added a few new items to the menu doesn't mean the whole store has changed when you can still buy most of the same products they had before.  Wii Sports would be like the salads fast food restaurants introduce to appeal to a more health concerned audience, but you can still buy the same burgers and fries they always had. 


If you're sick of the food Nintendo has, then it's okay to find a new store but don't act like they've left you when the only new thing they've done is add salads to the menu.

[Mop it up]

Once again, the Wii had just as many games aimed at Nintendo's longtime audience as their previous systems.

But the system itself was designed for a more casual audience. Following your analogy, it's more like a fine-dining restaurant becoming a fast-food joint. They still have the same menu items, except now they're cheaper and less tasty.

[broodwars]

Nintendo isn't a band that's changed it's music style, it's a fast food restaurant that's still making the same food with a few new items added to the menu.  Just because they added a few new items to the menu doesn't mean the whole store has changed when you can still buy most of the same products they had before.  Wii Sports would be like the salads fast food restaurants introduce to appeal to a more health concerned audience, but you can still buy the same burgers and fries they always had. 

If you're sick of the food Nintendo has, then it's okay to find a new store but don't act like they've left you when the only new thing they've done is add salads to the menu.

My problem with Nintendo isn't that they've added new menu items that don't appeal to me.  It's that their longstanding menu items don't seem as well-made and don't taste as good as they used to.  They also aren't adding many new items to rejuvenate the menu that appeal to me.

I'm not sick of their food.  It's tried-and-true, and when I have a particular craving it's always there.  I just want to see their chefs allowed to experiment with new entrees that are fresh and exciting while still appealing to me.  Right now, the same recipes have been re-used for so long that the chefs clearly seem to be getting bored doing it and it shows in the final product.

Meanwhile, I see this other restaurant (Sony) that may not be so consistent in the quality of their food, but it feels like I'm constantly seeing their chefs (and the chefs they have on contract) experimenting with new recipes I haven't tasted before that I want to eat.  I just wish considering Nintendo's whole focus on "inclusiveness" that they wouldn't be so afraid to experiment with new flavors outside of their core recipes that would also appeal to those same patrons.  Sometimes just adding those flavors to existing recipes doesn't make them taste better.

And wow, this food analogy is stretched beyond belief. 

[Soren]

I'm hungry. Guess I'll eat my copy of Mario Kart Wii

[Ian Sane]

I think there are a lot of Nintendo fans for which it works like this:

Are there Mario and Zelda games being made?  Are they good?  If so, then content.

I'm a Nintendo fan because I'm looking for the next Super Mario Bros.  I don't mean the next literal Super Mario Bros. game I mean the next game Nintendo releases that moves videogaming forward like Super Mario Bros. did.  I looked forward to the next Mario and Zelda not merely because I liked the formulas of those series but rather that they consistently experimented with that formula and used it to innovate.  Being a Nintendo fan meant you never knew what new idea was coming up next, only that it would likely kick ass.

But this is the era of safe Nintendo sequels.  This is the era of NSMB where the whole goal of the series seems to be to just give people the same safe gameplay of Super Mario World.  This is the era of casual titles that are INTENTIONALLY unambitous so as to provide unintimidating gameplay for non-gamers.  The Wii was practically a repackaged Gamecube.  The whole idea was that Nintendo was NOT going to move forward and would merely stay the course with a new controller gimmick.  The company has become increasingly conservative and I became a fan specifically because they were daring.

Another part of Nintendo I liked was their commitment to quality.  There games typically did not have bugs or unresponsive controls - the two unforgivable sins of shitty games.  While the QA is still pretty solid the Wii was FULL of games with wonky controls and the whole design of the controller was from a marketting perspective instead of practicality.  This betrays a key element of what made Nintendo great.

So what do I want?

- A modern console for modern games instead of an out-of-date console with lousy third party support that lacks the gameplay experiences that the others systems offer.
- New ambitious ideas from Nintendo including both brand new IP and creative sequels to existing series (Super Mario Galaxy is good, NSMB is not).  The mere existence of these games is not good enough.  Games that do not fall into this category should be uncommon.  This is not to be a "sometimes" thing.
- A responsive and practical controller and game controls where I do not have to fight the controller the whole time to enjoy myself.

Of course Nintendo was slipping away from what inspired me to be a fan of them over the years.  Sticking with cartridges and staying offline for an extra gen were very out-dated dinosaur ideas that we all rightly **** on them for at the time.

[MrPhishfood]

I can see the reoccurring theme here is:

Me me me, its all about me. I want to be amazed like back in the old days. I can't tell you what I want specifically but I know it makes me want to go "wow"

[broodwars]

I can see the reoccurring theme here is:

Me me me, its all about me. I want to be amazed like back in the old days. I can't tell you what I want specifically but I know it makes me want to go "wow"

Well, let me put it to you this way: are you buying my hypothetical next Nintendo console?  Are you buying the games that would be in my library?  Are you going to play the games you bought for my library?  No?  Then in that case, I'd say it makes every bit of difference how such consoles and their libraries appeal to the individual buyer, and everyone else's opinion is pretty irrelevant in the end.

I don't really give a damn what makes you content about a console's library (and likewise you shouldn't care what makes me content about a console's library), because if it doesn't make me content it really doesn't matter, does it?  I'm the one paying the bill in the end and making a commitment to this thing. 

By all means, enjoy what you like.  But other people will enjoy what they like, and if something they bought (or are potentially interested in buying) doesn't have what they like, they have every right to have an issue with it.

And that's all I have to say on that.  If a console purchase isn't all about "me me mem its [sic] all about me", you're a fool because what you want SHOULD be the most important thing in this case.  A console should always appeal to as many audiences as possible, and it makes good business sense to do so, but if you as the purchaser aren't happy with it it really doesn't matter.

[Adrock]

That's like watching someone walk off a cliff, then following them off the same cliff.

Well, it's more like watching someone fall off a cliff and then turning to the left to avoid it. Examining what they did right and avoiding what they did wrong. As I pointed out, this is the way it's been throughout history. Now, it could very well change in the future, but so far, the market leader hasn't changed without them screwing it up for themselves.

That said, I'm not saying Nintendo should flat-out copy the competition. They need to offer enough of what the competition has on top of their own unique spin that makes them Nintendo, which is a tough balance to achieve. The Wii did not do this, but it looks like the Wii U is trying to.

I'm confused. It sounds like you're correcting my statement, but then you just reiterated everything I said in the part of the quote you cut out. I'm not disagreeing with you. The cliff analogy was to illustrate how completely copying a competitor can lead to the same mistakes. That's why I said it can backfire. It certainly helps if the market leader does something stupid, but you can't wait for it. You have to keep coming up with new and better ideas.

[Mop it up]

You have to keep coming up with new and better ideas.

I was trying to explain that this is the part where we disagree. Would the Wii be the market leader if the PS3 didn't flounder at launch? Somehow, I doubt it would be. Why would all those PS1 and PS2 owners ditch the PS3 for a competitor if the PS3 offered them what they wanted? Whether you copy or be unique, you can't take over the market until the leader messes up.

[MrPhishfood]

Well, let me put it to you this way: are you buying my hypothetical next Nintendo console?  Are you buying the games that would be in my library?  Are you going to play the games you bought for my library?  No?  Then in that case, I'd say it makes every bit of difference how such consoles and their libraries appeal to the individual buyer, and everyone else's opinion is pretty irrelevant in the end.

I never said I cared about what you buy or what you like. Its pretty irrelevant to whine about things that will probably never change in a place where your voice will probably not be heard by the people responsible for such changes. The Wii U is launching soon, the hardware specs are finalised, deal with it. If dealing with it means coming to a Nintendo focused forum to voice your grievances then keep up with it. Just be aware it doesn't make a difference to anything.

[Kairon]

I can see the reoccurring theme here is:

Me me me, its all about me. I want to be amazed like back in the old days. I can't tell you what I want specifically but I know it makes me want to go "wow"

Well, let me put it to you this way: are you buying my hypothetical next Nintendo console?  Are you buying the games that would be in my library?  Are you going to play the games you bought for my library?  No?  Then in that case, I'd say it makes every bit of difference how such consoles and their libraries appeal to the individual buyer, and everyone else's opinion is pretty irrelevant in the end.

I don't really give a damn what makes you content about a console's library (and likewise you shouldn't care what makes me content about a console's library), because if it doesn't make me content it really doesn't matter, does it?  I'm the one paying the bill in the end and making a commitment to this thing. 

By all means, enjoy what you like.  But other people will enjoy what they like, and if something they bought (or are potentially interested in buying) doesn't have what they like, they have every right to have an issue with it.

And that's all I have to say on that.  If a console purchase isn't all about "me me mem its [sic] all about me", you're a fool because what you want SHOULD be the most important thing in this case.  A console should always appeal to as many audiences as possible, and it makes good business sense to do so, but if you as the purchaser aren't happy with it it really doesn't matter.

Ah, but doesn't this line of thinking mean that Nintendo owes us nothing and we don't owe them anything? That we are responsible for our own happiness, and that there is no such thing as "betrayal" unless we betray ourselves? That it's my right to love Wii Music, your right to dislike it, and Nintendo's right to make all a Wii Music 2?

All this talk about personal responsibility for one's own gaming tastes and choices almost sounds like Nintendo isn't to blame for any personal discontent... WE are!

[Oblivion]

[Evan_B]

Some games, though brilliantly made, don't appeal to everyone. Can you believe that I think Super Mario Galaxy is abysmal? Probably not, but it's not the messiah of 3D platforming everyone talks it up to be. I don't even think Galaxy 2 does much more. But for every game I wasn't fond of, there was a Xenoblade or Last Story or Muramasa or Cursed Mountain or Sonic Colors. I'm really in no way displeased with the first or third party offerings- if anything, it helped me pinpoint my tastes a bit more. Also, things on the Wii were way more colorful and exciting, and that's my personal niche. I'm just done with the brown and "grounded in reality" attempts that are so frequent on other consoles.

[Adrock]

Would the Wii be the market leader if the PS3 didn't flounder at launch? Somehow, I doubt it would be. Why would all those PS1 and PS2 owners ditch the PS3 for a competitor if the PS3 offered them what they wanted?

Yes. I'm not even going to say "probably." Nintendo's success with the Wii isn't inherently tied to Sony's troubles at launch. Look at many of the people who bought the Wii and made it so hard to find for such a long time. They weren't looking at a PS3 at all. Nintendo beat Sony by appealing to everyone outside of PS1/PS2 owners. In a separate post, I said Nintendo's strategy "worked but didn't work." This is one of the reasons why.

Whether you copy or be unique, you can't take over the market until the leader messes up.

To use a different example, Apple beat RIM in the smartphone market by changing people's perception of what a smartphone should be. RIM didn't really mess up per se. Had Apple never entered the smartphone market, RIM would likely have remained the gold standard of smartphones at the time. Apple just one-upped them and RIM lacked a counter-strategy. Did RIM mess up or did Apple just have better ideas? I suppose it depends on how you look at it.

I agree with this statement (especially since I pretty much said the same thing on page 1):

I'm not saying Nintendo should flat-out copy the competition. They need to offer enough of what the competition has on top of their own unique spin that makes them Nintendo, which is a tough balance to achieve. The Wii did not do this, but it looks like the Wii U is trying to.

However, I disagree with that "you can't take over the market until the leader messes up." You can; it's just significantly harder to do so. A market leader messing up is merely an open invitation to strike. However, waiting for that to happen is not a strategy. Having new and better ideas for when/if that happens is. And it's a good one to have. You keep forging ahead. You remain proactive. I believe that's what Nintendo is doing and always have. They could stand to acknowledge that their competitors have done some things better than they have, but they can't simply chase their competitors. They have to try to do those things better, easier, and more efficiently.

[Kairon]

Do I detect an invalid assumption here? I'm sure Nintendo would like to be market leader, but I don't think they're willing to do whatever it takes to get there. Maybe there are some avenues to market success that Nintendo won't want to take?

[broodwars]

Ah, but doesn't this line of thinking mean that Nintendo owes us nothing and we don't owe them anything? That we are responsible for our own happiness, and that there is no such thing as "betrayal" unless we betray ourselves? That it's my right to love Wii Music, your right to dislike it, and Nintendo's right to make all a Wii Music 2?

Certainly (I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'd only begrudge them a Wii Music 2 if they showed they didn't learn anything from Wii Music 1), and I don't believe I've been crying "BETRAYAL!"  However, I do think they have a responsibility as a platform-holder and business to ensure or provide experiences to cater to all those that bought their console.  Otherwise, they have not served their customers well, and those customers have every reason to abandon them.

All this talk about personal responsibility for one's own gaming tastes and choices almost sounds like Nintendo isn't to blame for any personal discontent... WE are!

As I said, Nintendo has a responsibility as a platform holder and business to ensure those that bought their console are happy with the purchase, and that means ensuring a wide variety of experiences (even if you can't make those experiences yourself).  Otherwise, they deserve to fail in the marketplace to better competition that does perform their duty.

So far, it looks like Nintendo could be on their way to doing that with the Wii U.  They haven't to my satisfaction just yet because games like Bayonetta or Zombi U just aren't my thing, but if they keep this up one day the Wii U just might appeal to me.

[Adrock]

Do I detect an invalid assumption here?

Please specify.

[Chozo Ghost]

Aren't you the one who started an entire topic for the purpose of dissecting it and blowing it out of proportion?

1) I created the thread in the lounge. Someone (you?) moved it out into the open where it is getting a lot of focus and attention. I didn't intend for that to happen.

2) I only created the thread after having to suffer with that title under my name for the last however many months since June, and even though other mods changed my title at least twice during that time period you kept changing it back. You were the one who dissected it and blew it out of proportion.

3) I tried to talk to you about it in private over PM but you ignored me.

So it just seems like you are out to get me for some reason and I don't understand why. I never did anything to you.

[Chozo Ghost]

I only want the Wii U to fail if it deserves to.

This eloquently and concisely matches my position on the Wii U.

Way back in June when I said I wanted it to fail I was basing that off assumptions. I was going by how the Wii turned out, and the lackluster E3 showing didn't help matters. So I said something that at the time I meant, but it was based on assumptions. I didn't know the full story, and I still don't. We won't know that until a few years from now.

So for my part I apologize for my part of it, but with that being said it didn't need to be put in my title for all these months and make me look like I'm an anti-Nintendo troll when that's not the case. Even if I don't like the Wii brand I am not anti-Nintendo because I do love their other consoles and that's the reason I am here.

Years from now when we can see the full picture of the Wii U and if it looks like it deserves to fail, then I will say it deserves to fail and mean it. But if it doesn't deserve to fail then I hope it succeeds. No one will know the final verdict for a long time yet.

I think things are going to get better once the console is actually out and then there will be a lot more to discuss instead of the same arguments over and over since E3. Only when we have the details will we be able to put the assumptions to rest one way or the other.

[Chozo Ghost]

I can see the reoccurring theme here is:

Me me me, its all about me.

Well, back in E3 2011 when Reggie unveiled the Wii U for the first time, didn't he say the name "Wii U" was chosen because it was all about "U" (the gamer)? The "Wii" was about families and friends swinging controllers around in a living room, but the "Wii U" was supposed to be about going back to the individual gamer experience.

Or something like that.

[Adrock]

I only want the Wii U to fail if it deserves to.

This eloquently and concisely matches my position on the Wii U.

Doesn't that go without saying? "I want that thing that deserves to fail to succeed," said no one ever.

[Kairon]

Do I detect an invalid assumption here?

Please specify.

I guess I'm responding to one of the undercurrents of this conversation, that Nintendo somehow has a responsibility to win EVERYONE into their camp and become number 1 in the market and have all the games and I mean ALL the games.

I mean, sure, Nintendo would LOVE to have that happen. They're definitely going to give it their best effort. But Iwata once said that if all the Wii accomplished was selling more consoles than the GC, it'd be a failure. I think Nintendo would happily settle for second or even third place, if they could continue to successfully explore what Nintendo games, and games in general, can become.

Certainly (I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'd only begrudge them a Wii Music 2 if they showed they didn't learn anything from Wii Music 1), and I don't believe I've been crying "BETRAYAL!"  However, I do think they have a responsibility as a platform-holder and business to ensure or provide experiences to cater to all those that bought their console.  Otherwise, they have not served their customers well, and those customers have every reason to abandon them.

The question then is aren't we talking about an aggregate? That is, Nintendo might not serve certain individuals well, but on the whole they might succeed. Would a console like that deserve to fail? If I'm a fan of on-rails shooters and only on-rails shooters, neither the 360 or PS3 would have satisfied me really until very late in the game, would they have deserved to fail?

I think basically what I don't understand is this "deserve" bit of it. If a console fails, it fails. If a console succeeds it succeeds. I don't begrudge the good fortune of people who can have fun at videogames I don't have a taste for. In fact, I don't care. My responsibility is to find my own fun out there, and everything else will sort itself out.

I don't think it's up to us to judge whether a console is objectively worthy or not. It's only up to us to judge whether we're going to buy it for ourselves. It's up to the console maker to convince us to buy it... but if they can convince 100 million people to buy it, why is it some sort of sin that you or me happen to not be a part of that?

Personally, I thought the every DS iteration between the Phat and DSi deserved to fail... but...*shrug* Millions of people thought otherwise. I am constantly amazed by people's willingness to rebuy hardware that does everything their old hardware already does, and not a whit more.

[Stogi]

I am constantly amazed by people's willingness to rebuy hardware that does everything their old hardware already does, and not a whit more.

*Cough* iphone *cough*

But to be serious, I don't think Nintendo made those iterations so people could buy them again. It's so new people could buy them. For instance, I skipped the phat but got the lite.

[Kairon]

I am constantly amazed by people's willingness to rebuy hardware that does everything their old hardware already does, and not a whit more.

*Cough* iphone *cough*

But to be serious, I don't think Nintendo made those iterations so people could buy them again. It's so new people could buy them. For instance, I skipped the phat but got the lite.

I get your case, but I think that a significant part of Nintendo's handheld hardware strategy is based on getting people to rebuy hardware, usually because of new colors. I guess I'm picking on the poor DSLite, which had its reasons for existing, but I'm just personally a little weirded out by all the hardware iterations in the handheld space... I want to buy my launch hardware and have it stand by me for the next 4-6 years.

Oh, and also the XLs (Both DSi and 3DS). If I used my own personal tastes as a way to judge them, I'd say they deserved to fail (don't fit in your pocket AND price increase?!?!? That's RIDICULOUS!!!1!). But there are people who think otherwise and I wish them joy, not heartbreak.