Topic: People Need To Stop Bitching

[Kairon]

Nope. It still uses the pointer with the GamePad, which is pretty hard to use properly.

@_@ Don't know if want...

[Adrock]

But, anyway, I already knew about it and it wasn't enough...

That's about right.

Still pleasing both could be doable if Nintendo really saw them as seperate entities and did not try to make crossover titles that appeal to both.  They also need to essentially double their size to provide twice the output so that both groups get a healthy amount of releases aimed at them.

No, they don't. Nintendo makes fewer casual games. They probably don't take nearly as long to develop as core games either.

Let's say Nintendo routine makes ten games a year.  Prior to the Wii that was ten games for core gamers each year.  Now they have two groups to cater to, but release the same amount of games.  So that's now three casual games and seven core games.  So now core gamers only get seven games a year?  We used to get ten!

Let me ask you something: how many Nintendo games do you realistically buy a year? I know you were just throwing out estimates but if you're not going to buy every single one of those 1st party core games, it's silly to say that Nintendo didn't release enough games. "Ugh, only 7 games, but I'm only going to buy 3, maybe just 2." I can't be the only one who thinks that's ridiculous. "There should be more things!" Why? So you can not buy them too?

And the ironic part about this is that you always harken back to the good old days of the SNES... except Nintendo was smaller then and had fewer teams. You get more core games now then you ever did 20 years ago. It's pretty unfair to complain about what you're presently getting is you ask me. You aren...

it wasn't enough...

Oh, right. That.

[NWR_insanolord]

Nope. It still uses the pointer with the GamePad, which is pretty hard to use properly.

@_@ Don't know if want...

Just use the remote/nunchuk controls, they work great.

[Ian Sane]

Let me ask you something: how many Nintendo games do you realistically buy a year? I know you were just throwing out estimates but if you're not going to buy every single one of those 1st party core games, it's silly to say that Nintendo didn't release enough games. "Ugh, only 7 games, but I'm only going to buy 3, maybe just 2." I can't be the only one who thinks that's ridiculous. "There should be more things!" Why? So you can not buy them too?

I was just using 10 and 7 as an example and I have no idea off the top of my head what Nintendo's typical numbers are.  It's not about how many games I buy because people have different tastes.  It's about how many games are available to choose from.  Any time someone complains about a lack of games, someone posts the LIST of everything available.  But the assumption of that is "if you buy every game here, you're more than satisfied."  But not everyone likes every game.  That's why you have variety.  That's why the infamous "list everything you can think of" routine does not happen with consoles with good third party support.  Those systems have enough variety that even someone with the most niche tastes can find something they like.
 
Nintendo's weak third party support has made it so that the first party releases really matter.  When a Nintendo game drops, it might be the only thing remotely decent being released for months.  That was annoying on the N64 and Gamecube but at least if I wasn't interested in a game it was just a matter of personal preference.  The game was still designed for videogame fans and was almost certainly a well made game.  So maybe the average gamer will dig 50% of those titles.  With the casual games eating up a chunk of Nintendo's output there is now less to choose from.  But odds are the average gamer will still only dig 50% of those.  The size of selection has decreased so the amount of games you truly like also decreases.
 
The Wii Music thing was a huge PR disaster because they slotted the casual game in the Christmas "spot".  So for core gamers it was like they had no game at all.  The two groups are not treated as mutually exclusive by Nintendo as they don't make an effort to space the releases that way.
 
If your favourite show dictated some segment every episode to something that was of no interest to most of the original fanbase, it would mean LESS SHOW FOR YOU, unless they added extra time to each episode.  I should be able to completely ignore all casual content on a Nintendo system and feel like their output is no less than it was in previous generations (and that was not the case, the Wii had tons of droughts).  "Well they still give us plenty."  Doesn't matter.  They're still asking their fans to put up with LESS than we had before.  Why?  Why should we be expected to accomodate this particularly when Nintendo consoles have had weak third party support for so long and thus a healthy first party release schedule is of the utmost importance?
 
That's the problem.  They're asking their original customers to put up with their now divided attention when it provides no benefit to those customers.  Ultimately they have to make it not appear like this to core gamers.

[Luigi Dude]

Nintendo's weak third party support has made it so that the first party releases really matter.  When a Nintendo game drops, it might be the only thing remotely decent being released for months.  That was annoying on the N64 and Gamecube but at least if I wasn't interested in a game it was just a matter of personal preference.  The game was still designed for videogame fans and was almost certainly a well made game.  So maybe the average gamer will dig 50% of those titles.  With the casual games eating up a chunk of Nintendo's output there is now less to choose from.  But odds are the average gamer will still only dig 50% of those.  The size of selection has decreased so the amount of games you truly like also decreases.
 
The Wii Music thing was a huge PR disaster because they slotted the casual game in the Christmas "spot".  So for core gamers it was like they had no game at all.  The two groups are not treated as mutually exclusive by Nintendo as they don't make an effort to space the releases that way.

Only that isn't true at all.  The core game for Christmas 2008 was Animal Crossing City Folk for the Wii which by your own definition is a core game.  You have said EVERY single game Nintendo made before Iwata was in charge was a core game aimed 100% at core gamers.

Well lets see here. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Crossing

The first Animal Crossing was released for the N64 in Japan on April 2001.  During this time Yamauchi was the president and by your own words, EVERYTHING Nintendo made was aimed at core gamers.  Well 7 years later we get to holiday 2008 and Nintendo releases one game for the casuals, Wii Music and one game for the core, Animal Crossing: City Folk.  Since this is a Nintendo series made before Iwata was president and the Wii even existed, it's a core series.

So as you can see once again, Nintendo didn't sacrifice anything for the casuals.  They gave the core gamers a new game from what you have said is a core series.  Unless of course you're going to say Animal Crossing isn't a core series anymore, which will then destroy your argument that everything Nintendo did before Iwata was aimed at core gamers.

So please, answer the question.  Is Animal Crossing a core series which means Nintendo did service both groups for Christmas 2008 or Animal Crossing isn't core which means Old Nintendo under Yamauchi made games that weren't 100% aimed at core either?

I'm rather interested in how your going to explain your way out of this.

[Kairon]

They're asking their original customers to put up with their now divided attention when it provides no benefit to those customers.

I can understand if someone's just not interested in Nintendo systems that don't have certain games. But, just speaking as an "original customer" since I got started with Zelda when I was 3, I still see Nintendo's attention focused on the same 2 to 92 demographic they've always claimed their games are for.

[Adrock]

Any time someone complains about a lack of games, someone posts the LIST of everything available.  But the assumption of that is "if you buy every game here, you're more than satisfied."  But not everyone likes every game.  That's why you have variety.  That's why the infamous "list everything you can think of" routine does not happen with consoles with good third party support.  Those systems have enough variety that even someone with the most niche tastes can find something they like.

I didn't post a list. I simply asked you how many Nintendo games you buy a year. "Ugh, it's not enough." Well, what is enough? You can cop-out with the "not everyone likes every game" line but really, it's not about the number of games. It's whether the games resonate with people. More games may provide more variety, but that still doesn't mean you're going to like it. Nintendo supports 2 platforms; there's plenty of variety. If you don't want one or the other, that's too bad. Nintendo has been operating that way for over 20 years.

And, once again, Nintendo makes more core games today than they ever did. Why was X number of games enough 20 years ago, but more than that is not enough today? I don't mind complaints, but yours don't make sense. Nintendo has never had this many internal teams ever. You can keep trying to blame casual games, but that's inherently flawed because as previously stated, Nintendo makes fewer casual games and they also require less resources. Do you really think Nintendo spent as much time, money, and manpower on Wii Play as they did on Super Mario Galaxy? You just want more. And if you got more, you'd want more than that. Attempting to placate you is futile.

[tendoboy1984]

So please, answer the question.  Is Animal Crossing a core series which means Nintendo did service both groups for Christmas 2008 or Animal Crossing isn't core which means Old Nintendo under Yamauchi made games that weren't 100% aimed at core either?

I'm rather interested in how your going to explain your way out of this.

I hate how people think this casual gaming fad is somehow new. It didn't start with Nintendo, it didn't start with smartphones, it didn't start with the rise of web gaming.

Casual games have been around since the beginning of the gaming industry. In fact, the entire arcade industry was built on the success of casual games like Pac-Man, Galaga, Space Invaders, Dig-Dug, Joust, Donkey Kong, Centipede, etc.

In those early days (before the 1990's), casual games thrived in arcades, while "core" games were more prevalent on PC's ("core" games in those days were mainly RPG's). And Nintendo has been making casual games since Donkey Kong (Arcade).

The entirety of the video game industry was built on the success of casual gaming. Games used to be all about "pick up and play" experiences. It had mass appeal, and everyone was able to enjoy gaming, regardless of their skill level.

All of these things caused gamers to form a somewhat elitist attitude. They wanted more enriching experiences that arcades couldn't provide. Gaming began to evolve towards more complex play styles. The mass market appeal of gaming was losing it's effect on the mainstream public, and soon after the gaming industry began to appeal solely to gamers.

In the mid 1990's, the push for 3D graphics further accentuated this rapid change in demographics. 2D gaming was out, 3D gaming was in, and with that came the need for more powerful consoles and more complex controllers. The more complex something is, the less appeal it has for the mainstream public.

And now, this whole push for more "cinematic gaming" is leading us even further away from the industry's roots.

This situation is precisely the reason why Nintendo wanted to bring gaming back to it's roots with the Wii. They wanted gaming to be accessible for everyone, not just "hardcore" players. And the huge boom of smartphone and web gaming has also helped this.

Here's the point: Casual gaming has always been around, it's just that core games have overshadowed it these past 2 decades.

[UncleBob]

Not everyone likes every kind of game.

Therefore, Nintendo should only make games for me.

[Ian Sane]

Animal Crossing City Folk is a glorified PORT of the Gamecube game.  That's why I don't count it and that's why core gamers **** all over it at E3.  Animal Crossing ain't a series it's one FUCKING GAME that Nintendo adds one or two new features to and re-releases again and again.  It's like if each Mario Kart added one new track and called itself a sequel.  If Animal Crossing City Folk is a new game than Super Mario 64 DS is a new game.

I'm sure you'll **** all over that but I had the same opinion of it back in 2008 so it isn't like I flip-flopped.  I consider Animal Crossing a core game but Nintendo can't really say they're targetting core gamers on a game where most of the content is recycled from a game that most core gamers would have already played on either the Cube or DS.  Or maybe instead of saying core gamers got no game in that time period they got PART of a game, which isn't really much better.  Due to the amount of recycled content it seems that Nintendo's plan with Animal Crossing City Folk was to sell it to Nintendo newcomers that had not already played it on another system (ie: casuals new to Nintendo).  It's appeal is similar to the NPC titles, where they hoped to sell some old games to Wii owners who missed out on the Cube.  It wasn't for existing Nintendo fans who had played Animal Crossing already.  Read any review and it'll say "great game... if you haven't already played another version of it".

They didn't make the core gamers a new game, they added one or two features of an old core game.  City Folk is essentially a complete rip-off for anyone who owned the DS version.

[tendoboy1984]

Animal Crossing City Folk is a glorified PORT of the Gamecube game.  That's why I don't count it and that's why core gamers **** all over it at E3.  Animal Crossing ain't a series it's one FUCKING GAME that Nintendo adds one or two new features to and re-releases again and again.  It's like if each Mario Kart added one new track and called itself a sequel.  If Animal Crossing City Folk is a new game than Super Mario 64 DS is a new game.

I'm sure you'll **** all over that but I had the same opinion of it back in 2008 so it isn't like I flip-flopped.  I consider Animal Crossing a core game but Nintendo can't really say they're targetting core gamers on a game where most of the content is recycled from a game that most core gamers would have already played on either the Cube or DS.  Or maybe instead of saying core gamers got no game in that time period they got PART of a game, which isn't really much better.  Due to the amount of recycled content it seems that Nintendo's plan with Animal Crossing City Folk was to sell it to Nintendo newcomers that had not already played it on another system (ie: casuals new to Nintendo).  It's appeal is similar to the NPC titles, where they hoped to sell some old games to Wii owners who missed out on the Cube.  It wasn't for existing Nintendo fans who had played Animal Crossing already.  Read any review and it'll say "great game... if you haven't already played another version of it".

They didn't make the core gamers a new game, they added one or two features of an old core game.  City Folk is essentially a complete rip-off for anyone who owned the DS version.

Read my post above. I think it explains the situation clearly and concisely.

[Adrock]

Not everyone likes every kind of game.

Therefore, Nintendo should only make games for me.

+1

[Kairon]

Not everyone likes every kind of game.

Therefore, Nintendo should only make games for me.

I support any stance that leads to Wii Music 2!

[NWR_insanolord]

Not everyone likes every kind of game.

Therefore, Nintendo should only make games for me.

I support any stance that leads to Wii Music 2!

Pikmin 3 4!

[Chozo Ghost]

And the ironic part about this is that you always harken back to the good old days of the SNES... except Nintendo was smaller then and had fewer teams. You get more core games now then you ever did 20 years ago. It's pretty unfair to complain about what you're presently getting is you ask me.

Regardless of what Nintendo's output was 20 years ago, the market has grown dramatically since then. The problem is Nintendo's output hasn't been able to keep pace with the growing market. Sony and Microsoft on the other hand have been able to do that on their systems. I don't know if Sony/Microsoft 1st party output exceeds that of Nintendo's 1st party output, but I do know that 3rd party output absolutely certainly does. There's the problem.

Maybe Nintendo's 1st party output isn't any worse than it was 20 years ago, or maybe like you said its even better than that... but 3rd party support has declined dramatically on Nintendo hardware starting on the N64 onwards, and any growth in output from Nintendo's 1st and 2nd parties (if any) has not been able to offset the loss of third party support.

Back in the SNES era if Nintendo didn't keep a healthy games lineup going it wasn't a big deal because there was ALWAYS 3rd party titles coming out. You never felt deprived. That's my point. And for me the reason why E3 was such a disappointment is because 3rd party support wasn't there. The only company that seems to be fully on board is Ubisoft, and I applaud them for that, but unfortunately they were the only ones.... everyone else is offering token support at best. EA for example is one of the largest 3rd parties, yet all they had to offer was Mass Effect 3? That's it?

This is the reason for the disappointment in the Wii U. Its not a case of moving goalposts. The goalpost has always been about the games. This is what matters most about a console... things like confirmation of two gamepads and things like that were nice, but nothing matters more than games. Where were those? That was the goalpost and no one except Ubisoft came through.

[NWR_insanolord]

The vibe I get is EA's got more up their sleeve than they talked about at E3. Expect more announcements from them in the next couple months.

[Adrock]

Regardless of what Nintendo's output was 20 years ago, the market has grown dramatically since then. The problem is Nintendo's output hasn't been able to keep pace with the growing market.

Would you kindly back that claim with some evidence? I don't even really know what that means.

As for the rest of your post, not surprisingly, I disagree with you. I think about the strides Nintendo has made and I'm satisfied with their progress so far. I don't think they should stop there and I don't think they will. I criticize them when I feel it's appropriate, but I try to be fair. Of course, I want better 3rd party support but Nintendo can't force them to do anything and that's precisely how Nintendo burned those bridges all those years ago. These days, they've gone on record to say that they requested feedback from 3rd parties and there are reports that Nintendo actually listened (was it Gearbox who said that?). The analog sticks on the Gamepad is probably one of those things. On top of that, it's June. Anything can happen before launch.

And by the way, I never felt deprived of games. In fact, I'm backlogged. I own a PS3 and I still bought more Wii games. Just because you're disappointed; doesn't mean everyone is. I'm not disappointed. You can be if you want. That's certainly your prerogative.

[Ian Sane]

For those saying that Nintendo has more core games than ever, how many core games have they release for the Wii this year?  Isn't it only one, and that was a two year old game NOA needed a fan driven campaign and another company helping with the costs, to localize it.  And last year we got what?  Two?  That last few years of the Wii have been incredibly sparse.

Last year when I got Zelda, I popped out the disc sitting in my Wii and it was DKC Returns, which I had got the previous Christmas.  That meant I literally had not played my Wii in almost an entire year.

The Wii U needs a healthy enough lineup that this kind of observation is rare.  Like those that dismiss it as casual or that it's library is full of shovelware are in the minority.  And it isn't just what is reality or what isn't.  The perception is what will determine if the Wii U succeeds with core gamers or not.  On the N64 and Gamecube, I felt that the general opinion of those systems was inaccurately harsh.  But that doesn't matter.  If the Gamecube has poor sales because everyone thinks it's kiddy and has no games, then it doesn't sell.  If people think the Wii U is a casual system, regardless of whether that is warranted, that will be its fate.  It won't sell with core gamers and third parties won't make core games for it.

[Adrock]

For those saying that Nintendo has more core games than ever, how many core games have they release for the Wii this year?  Isn't it only one, and that was a two year old game NOA needed a fan driven campaign and another company helping with the costs, to localize it.  And last year we got what?  Two?  That last few years of the Wii have been incredibly sparse.

You know it's the end of the console life cycle and that every single team within Nintendo is working on next gen stuff.

Nintendo also has 3DS. You hate lists but you're conveniently ignoring what they tell you. Jesus...

If people think the Wii U is a casual system, regardless of whether that is warranted, that will be its fate.  It won't sell with core gamers and third parties won't make core games for it.

The majority of core gamers even interested in Wii U are already Nintendo fans. With few 3rd party exclusives going around, 1st party titles that are the X factor and Nintendo makes plenty of those. 3rd parties are either going to support Wii U or not. You can try to blame casual games but that doesn't tell the whole story. I don't really know what else you want Nintendo to do here. You want them to release even more games but that turns off 3rd parties that already hate going head-to-heard with Nintendo. You want even fewer casual games from Nintendo but those people are helping Nintendo expand because it's not like anyone else is. Someway, somehow Nintendo has to make a profit. Maybe you don't care about that but Nintendo does and they have to do what's best for them. You keep demanding things but it's not as easy as you're making it sound. You claim that "it's not enough" without defining what is. Again, attempting to placate you is futile. All I'm getting from you is that you want Nintendo to cater specifically to you which I get because who wouldn't want that? However, that is wholly unrealistic.

[UncleBob]

Good point Ian.  We've gotten few Wii games this year.

Let's compare to previous Nintendo systems.  Now, I'm going to use Wikipedia, because I'm lazy, but...

Last year of N64's life, we got:
    Dr. Mario 64
    Paper Mario
    Mario Party 3
    PokĂ©mon Stadium 2

For GCN, we got:
    Baten Kaitos Origins
    Chibi-Robo!
    Odama
    The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

For Wii, we're looking at:
        Rhythm Heaven Fever
        PokĂ©Park 2: Wonders Beyond
        Mario Party 9
        Xenoblade Chronicles
        New Play Control! Pikmin 2
        Kirby 20th Anniversary Edition

Four N64, Four GCN and Six Wii titles.  Two additional Wii Titles - though they do happen to be ports.  Comparing to the N64, you got a Mario Party, a PokĂ©mon Spin-off, an RPG (Xenoblade vs. Paper Mario) and I'd pair Rhythm Heaven with Dr. Mario for the addicting game play.

For the GameCube, You've got an RPG (Xenoblade vs. Baten Kaitos Origins), the awesome Chibi-Robo that virtually no one bought, the more awesome Odama that virtually no one liked (but me) and a mediocre Zelda game that was far, far overshadowed by the fact it was released about a month earlier on the new system.

So.. basically, we've got the N64's final year with a couple of ports (one of which is awesome and the other probably will be if they ever frickin' announce what's in it.

[Adrock]

Don't forget about The Last Story.

[UncleBob]

I just went with Nintendo published titles released in NA.

It's almost worth mentioning that IF Dragon Quest gets a Wii release in NA, it would be this year and would be published by Nintendo...

[marty]

If Nintendo were doing a good job, releasing games people wanted, then they wouldn't have lost a billion dollars last year.  Maybe this thread should be titled "People Need To Stop Pointing Out How Badly Nintendo Is Fucking Up"


I'm amazed that anyone defending Nintendo actually has the time to, given how much they spend playing their Wii and DS, with the many, many quality titles that Nintendo is selling them.

[UncleBob]

If Nintendo were doing a good job, releasing games people wanted, then they wouldn't have lost a billion dollars last year.  Maybe this thread should be titled "People Need To Stop Pointing Out How Badly Nintendo Is Fucking Up"

Billion?  I think you're confused, sir.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304811304577367243824458530.html

Nintendo Records $531.1 Million Annual Loss

By your logic, Sony really has no idea what they're doing...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2012/05/sony-posts-6-billion-loss-in-2012.html

Sony Corp. posted a record $5.6-billion annual loss Thursday, ending a fiscal year marred by global economic turmoil and the after-effects of last spring's earthquake and tsunami in Japan and last fall's floods in Thailand.

[...]
Much of last year's revenue decline was due to a steep 18.5% drop in the sales of its LCD television sets, digital cameras, personal computers and PlayStation games businesses, which made up close to half of Sony's total revenue.

And Microsoft isn't doing much better...
http://www.lazygamer.net/xbox-360/microsoft-posts-surprising-xbox-360-loss/

Microsoft’s entertainment and devices division -  which includes its Xbox business – made a staggering loss of $229 million in the first three months of this year, during which Xbox 360 sales fell by almost half when compared with last year.

Of course, it’s not really the Xbox itself within the entertainment and devices division that’s bleeding the Redmond giant’s money, and more its re-invigorated foray in to the smartphone market with its Windows 8 series of phones. The division’s revenue dropped  16.5 per cent, to $1.6 billion (that’s 1.6 Instagrams!), with the  Xbox 360 selling just 1.4 million for the three months ending March 31 – a drop of more than 48 per cent from last year, when sales hit 2.8 million. I’d like to blame Kinect for it all, but that sucker’s sold like gangbusters.

Microsoft’s put it down to a “”soft gaming console market,” and though they seem to be doing their best to focus on the positive (It’s still the top selling console, guys!) they could be right. Sales of console hardware and software has dropped on all platforms. the declines in console gaming could have two effects; unwilling to take the huge financial hit of a new console launch, both Sony and Microsoft could delay the next generation for as long as possible. Or they could see the flagging sales as motivation to release new consoles earlier than planned, to recapture the market. We’ll have to wait and see.

[Chozo Ghost]

Saying the N64 and GCN also had software droughts and somehow suggesting that makes it okay that the Wii also does isn't a valid argument because these are also Nintendo consoles. Plus the NES and SNES didn't have droughts at the end of their life span. Both the NES and SNES were supported well after the release of their successors... I don't know what the last SNES game was, but the last NES game was Wario's Woods which came out in 1994... a full three years after the SNES launched.

You are right that the Wii isn't the only Nintendo system to suffer droughts, but I don't think the N64 or GCN should be off the hook for their droughts either. But that was then, and right now we are in the present.