Topic: What is "nintendo-like" quality?

[IceCold]

Everyone's talking about delaying games and quality control and the rest, but sometimes, as Ian said, it comes down to talent. Nintendo simply has some of the most creative and talented staff in the videogame industry, and no amount of development cycle time can overcome that.

Also, I agree with nearly every single word Ian has written in this thread, except for not liking nongames.

[Nick DiMola]

Quote
Originally posted by: Chozo Ghost
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.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying these crappy games are even worth the plastic they are stamped on, I'm just saying that your average company doesn't care about their legacy they care about profit. Typically more games = more profit. Look at EA, they release a CRAPTON of games a year and they make a CRAPTON of money.

My whole argument in as few words as possible. Making Nintendo quality games is not ideal for 3rd parties. Making crap is. Just because a few companies got burned "conning" people, doesn't mean all companies who do the same thing also get burned. Sometimes I think everyone forgets this is a business. In the real world, being the best doesn't always translate into making the most money. I'm sure it helps, but it is definitely no guarantee.

To bring it full circle, Ubisoft is probably making enough money right now selling average to crappy games that they want to explore the more artistic side of things and would like to emulate Nintendo's tried and true formulas. Nintendo makes games that are simply of a higher caliber, and they are the ones making the timeless classics, there is no disputing that, but make no mistake, they do it because they have a vested interest in their platform and the better they make their games the more likely they will sell more units of their console. Third parties are not tethered to a single console and do not have the image of a console to maintain. This allows them to make crappy games and have it still be a viable business plan.

[Chozo Ghost]

You're right. Companies are by their very nature most concerned with making money, and much less concerned with legacy. But I think legacy is also important to making money to a large extent, especially over the long term. I believe Nintendo was actually founded in the 1870s or so. That's a LONG time ago. Back then they made trading cards and the like, but I'm sure they applied the same principles to that as they do to their video games today... otherwise they wouldn't have lasted as long as they did.

Atari used to be the videogame king and everyone probably thought they were invincible back then, but now they don't even exist anymore except as a name which other companies want to buy and use for themselves. Why is that? It may have something to do with horrendously crappy games they made. I mean, consider the game E.T. Many people rank it as the worst game EVER made. Nintendo has never made anything anywhere close to as awful as this, and that is why Nintendo is still around and now the market leader again.

So quality IS better than quantity in the long run. If you go with quantity you may make a lot of money really fast, but chances are your company won't exist 10 years from now. If you go with quality, you might make less money in the short term, but your company may still be in existence in 100 years.

I guess you could say it is just like the parable of the tortoise and the hare. Nintendo is the tortoise, slowly plodding along and being mocked all the way. Other companies are the hare and doing the mocking, but we all know who wins at the end...

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

People will buy crap.  3rd parties simply cater to that fundamental demand.

[Crimm]

Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
People will buy crap.  3rd parties simply cater to that fundamental demand.

Indeed.  I mean, somehow Midway made it this far.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

I was a bit harsh.

1st parties also cater to that fundamental demand.

[Plugabugz]

I still think about 90% of this comes down to management. Developers need to state the time required to fully flesh out a game. Management need to state to developers a budget to adhere to and to then spread their releases evenly through the year.

But as someone else said in another thread, a November splurge is easier to rake in the money. Galaxy or not.

[Kairon]

Well, Nintendo DOES have the benefit of a somewhat stable development group, I believe, being a traditional Japanese company that tends to hold onto employees, and having such conservative hiring practices that they are unlikely to need to lay off people. Additionally, financial stability helps Nintendo to avoid even more developer turnover, creating a stable developer pool that can be depended upon, developed, and provide consistent quality without fear of reprisal...

But maybe that's all just conjecture.

[Shift Key]

Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
1st parties also cater to that fundamental demand.

I'm pretty sure this a joke about Mario is Missing

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Well, Nintendo DOES have the benefit of a somewhat stable development group, I believe, being a traditional Japanese company that tends to hold onto employees, and having such conservative hiring practices that they are unlikely to need to lay off people. Additionally, financial stability helps Nintendo to avoid even more developer turnover, creating a stable developer pool that can be depended upon, developed, and provide consistent quality without fear of reprisal...

But maybe that's all just conjecture.

Maybe they have that financial stability because they have been making great games and systems? Hmmm, amazing how that works!

[Chozo Ghost]

Another way great games pay off in the long run is they can be milked further in the form of a VC download one day.

Nintendo has a vast library of hits for its VC. Sony and MS don't have so much.

[couchmonkey]

So first we have the question of how to achieve Nintendo quality, and I really liked Kairon's answer on that: everything revolves around gameplay and design.  Don't sacrifice load times and framerates for awesome graphics.  Put the extra time in to squash all the bugs and fix weak points in the controls or level designs.  Voice actors and storyline aren't too important, as long as the writing is high quality.

Second we have the debate over whether it's even worth it to have Nintendo quality from a business perspective.  That's a very interesting question, and we can find companies like THQ that have basically survived by making clever use of liscences over the past 15 years.  Liscenced games are often of the worst quality because they usually have a 9-12 month development period, but they'll sell because kids and casual gamers don't know what they're getting.

There is something to be said about achieving Nintendo quality, business-wise, though.  Because of Nintendo's push for quality, it has about 20 liscences that have similar selling power to movies or TV shows, and Nintendo doesn't pay a cent for them.  Because of Nintendo's push for quality, the company is a household name.

It is possible to do it without quality, it's even possible to become a big player without quality - Electronic Arts certainly doesn't offer "Nintendo-like" quality (but it's better than most hardcore gamers give it credit for).  

[Ian Sane]

"Indeed. I mean, somehow Midway made it this far."

Hey, Midway's arcade games were awesome.  Make fun of Acclaim instead.  Their best games were home ports of Midway's excellent arcade games.

Maybe Ubisoft doesn't need to have Nintendo-like quality but would do better from something like Capcom-like quality.  Capcom is a strong brand name.  Gamers will typically show at least a token interest in any game Capcom announces.  They're not Nintendo-like but they're good enough that gamers trust them to make good games.  They have a good reputation.  Just having that would help Ubisoft a lot.

Or maybe it's really just about having an identity.  I find American publishers in general struggle with having an identity.  You know a Square Enix game or a Konami game practically by sight without being prompted.  They have a style and a feel.  Nintendo obviously has that to.  Ubisoft would benefit from having a Ubisoft style that people like.

Or maybe Ubisoft wants to achieve Nintendo-like quality so as to better compete on the Wii.  The Wii fanbase obviously likes Nintendo games so maybe Ubisoft just wants to cater to them.  After all, Ubi has benefited from being an early Wii supporter but obviously has to remain competitve as more developers come on board.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Indeed. I mean, somehow Midway made it this far."

Hey, Midway's arcade games were awesome.  Make fun of Acclaim instead.  Their best games were home ports of Midway's excellent arcade games.

Maybe Ubisoft doesn't need to have Nintendo-like quality but would do better from something like Capcom-like quality.  Capcom is a strong brand name.  Gamers will typically show at least a token interest in any game Capcom announces.  They're not Nintendo-like but they're good enough that gamers trust them to make good games.  They have a good reputation.  Just having that would help Ubisoft a lot.

Or maybe it's really just about having an identity.  I find American publishers in general struggle with having an identity.  You know a Square Enix game or a Konami game practically by sight without being prompted.  They have a style and a feel.  Nintendo obviously has that to.  Ubisoft would benefit from having a Ubisoft style that people like.

Or maybe Ubisoft wants to achieve Nintendo-like quality so as to better compete on the Wii.  The Wii fanbase obviously likes Nintendo games so maybe Ubisoft just wants to cater to them.  After all, Ubi has benefited from being an early Wii supporter but obviously has to remain competitve as more developers come on board.

That is an interesting point Ian, I never thought of the western 3rd Parties having no identity. Heck the only one I can think of that has any resemblance to an identity is Rockstar.

[Smash_Brother]

Ubisoft has some incredible talent but it only bubbles to the surface on occasion. Ansel is awesome, not just for Rayman but especially for BG&E. The game has a message about revolution the likes of which I don't think I've seen in a game before or since.

Also, for as much flak as Nintendo receives about development delays, they know that shipping a game late is better than shipping it early and having it suck. A lot of devs don't see it this way and typically say "It's going to ship on THIS date" and never waver from that, despite how much a game would benefit from a delay.

If more of them did that, I think we'd be seeing a lot more "Nintendo-like quality".

[Plugabugz]

Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix

That is an interesting point Ian, I never thought of the western 3rd Parties having no identity. Heck the only one I can think of that has any resemblance to an identity is Rockstar.

Sex, violence and controversy sells.

[wandering]

The makers of Beyond Good and Evil are hoping to become as good as the makers of Super Mario Sunshine?

[couchmonkey]

I'd say Rare has a bit of an identity, but it's a good point.  Ubisoft's identity is...Tom Clancy?

Actually, I would agree that Ancel's games give Ubisoft a bit of an identity, but the clash between his games and the Tom Clancy games and everything else Ubisoft does leaves them wanting...I think having an identity, to some degree, means avoiding liscences.  Liscenced games are like fan-art: they can be great, but you're not likely to become known for them.

I'm a huge fan-artist, so I'm not bagging on them here...I'm just saying, that to create your own identity, you need to be working on your own projects.  Ancel games do have a certain flavour, and even something as simple as throwing King Kong into the mix dillutes that flavour.

 

[Kairon]

Nintendo is able to maintain their stand on quality because they maintain their stand on profitability. I don't care if that means less powerful technology, or less shiney marketing, or less market penetration, or less bragging rights. If you can remain profitable, you can justify a continued commitment to quality and innovation. Just cut out the other expensive risks and make maintaining your company's independence priority number 1.

A profitable company has a far greater chance of surviving market pressures to develop a "Nintendo-like" reputation. A company that approves games simply because they're "next-gen," "hardcore," cool and marketable undertakes extraneous risks that can sabotage their attempts at financial stability, and thus the very foundation that "nintendo-like" quality is built upon.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

To have Nintendo-like quality and be profitable with a commitment to games with high return and no risk is to be...................................

Square-Enix.

CHURN-OUT DEM FMV MENU GAMES

[Kairon]

Square Enix wastes too much money on cinematics and graphics to be Nintendo. Just look at what happened when their FF:TSW movie failed: Sony bought 20% of them.

[Plugabugz]

EAD Tokyo made Mario Galaxy right? Well it stands to reason that if this is their second game and bill's favourite developer and its churned out such stellar reviews then Nintendo would, in theory, be able to get something even better out of both the RE4 team and Square Enix.