5 ms·

> rehashing the same game titles over and over again (the Switch is getting a Zelda title and a Mario title? What a shocker!) You say that like this is a bad t

by eridius 10y ago

> rehashing the same game titles over and over again (the Switch is getting a Zelda title and a Mario title? What a shocker!) You say that like this is a bad thing. Nintendo isn't just making the same games over and over again. Every new Mario game, and every new Zelda game, brings something new to the genre. For example, Super Mario Galaxy was a very innovative and award-winning game that had a very unique and well-thought-out core mechanic. And this new Super Mario Odyssey game they announced looks like it has a ton of stuff that hasn't been done in a Mario game before. And ultimately, the first-party games Nintendo puts out, your Marios and Zeldas and whatnot, are always very polished, excellently-designed, and downright fun games. Typically the best games on the whole platform. So it's no surprise that they keep coming back to the same franchises, since they've demonstrated that they can execute extremely well with this IP and that fans absolutely love it. It's not unreasonable to say that Mario and Zelda by themselves sell a large portion of Nintendo's consoles.

__david__ 10y ago
The innovations they've been doing lately have mostly had diminishing returns. Super Mario Galaxy, for example, was an alright game, but it was nowhere near as innovative as Super Mario 64 was. I don't even remember if I finished it or not, but I remember that SM64 Bowser boss fight to this day. I don't know if anyone ever argues that Nintento's first party games aren't the best games on their consoles. It just for many, myself included, the 5 or 6 excellent games that come out don't really justify the price of the console and the HDMI slot it occupies. I know I've never been able to justify a WII U (though Bayonetta 2 came close). I hope they do better with the Switch—I'd love to justify the purchase :-). But I'm certainly not getting one at launch.
- abdulmuhaimin 10y ago
  this one certainly doesnt need to occupy your HDMI slot.
  - __david__ 10y ago
    To play it on my nice TV it does.
throwaway1892 10y ago
> Typically the best games on the whole platform. Also perhaps the only worthwhiles games on Nintendo's consoles.
- TillE 10y ago
  The 3DS has some excellent third party exclusive games, mainly RPGs. I really can't think of anything comparable on the Wii or Wii U that I feel I'm missing out on, except for the first party titles.
  - eridius 10y ago
    A lot of people consider Bayonetta 2 to be a console-seller (though personally, I've only tried it for a few minutes and the intro to that game is super confusing). There's also some other great games that, while aren't exclusive, do have unique features on Wii U (e.g. leveraging the gamepad), such as Rayman Legends. As for RPGs, there's Xenoblade Chronicles X.
- jaegerpicker 10y ago
  The Fire Emblem and Bravely Default series on 3ds are both as good as any series on other platforms. Wii and Wii U are difficult cases but the DS line has in general been an incredibly good console platform. I actually think it was the best of the last generation. Maybe the switch can carry that on but I'm not sure.
  - throwaway1892 10y ago
    Fair enough. My comment was mostly valid for the Wii and Wii U lineup, I agree that it's better for the DS.
blakeyrat 10y ago
> You say that like this is a bad thing. Probably because I believe it is a bad thing. > Nintendo isn't just making the same games over and over again. Let's say I haven't owned a Nintendo console in a long time (which is true-- the last one I bought was a GameCube, which was a piece of crap so I sold it to my step-sister), how would I be able to tell that 2017's Mario is any different than 2014's Mario is any different than 2011's Mario? If Nintendo genuinely has new game play ideas, maybe they should actually put those ideas in new games. They're not incapable of this-- for example, Splatoon looks genuinely innovative-- but they're more interested in keeping the nostalgia factor than marketing new game concepts. There's one Splatoon for every 10 Mario X or Zelda X or Metroid X. > And ultimately, the first-party games Nintendo puts out, your Marios and Zeldas and whatnot, are always very polished, excellently-designed, and downright fun games. Possibly; that doesn't make me interested in buying them. The 1998 Psycho color remake was very polished, excellently designed, etc. But it was just an identical remake of a movie that'd already been made, and if you've seen the original there's no point to seeing the remake. > Typically the best games on the whole platform. Because Nintendo's great at games, or because they can't convince anybody else to develop games for their wonky-ass platforms? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Just to drop a note here from the Xbox universe, the Xbox perennial first-party title is Halo. Halo 4 and Halo 5 kind of suck. Kind of suck a lot, really. But the strength of Xbox is that if Halo sucks, you can play Titanfall or Evolve or Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare or Battlefield 4 or... you get the point. And that's just in that one genre. Unlike Nintendo, Microsoft (and Sony) isn't crippled by bad first-party games. If they were they'd probably put a heck of a lot more effort into ensuring their first-party games didn't kind of suck. So it's kind of an apples-to-orange comparison. Nintendo first-party titles are good because Nintendo has far more incentive to make them good. > It's not unreasonable to say that Mario and Zelda by themselves sell a large portion of Nintendo's consoles. Of course not; that's exactly what I've been saying. The company relies almost exclusively on nostalgia to sell its products. Mario and Zelda are nostalgic titles.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- eridius 10y ago
  They're not remakes. There's a difference between using the same characters in brand new games, and remaking old games. Your entire comment reads as though you consider them to be literal remakes, and that's completely wrong. People aren't also just buying them for nostalgia. After all, they're new games, it's hard to be nostalgic about new stuff. People are buying them because they're really really fun. And you'll note that kids, who definitely don't have nostalgia for the old games, also consider them to be really really fun, so it's really not just because people liked the previous games.

by eridius 10y ago

__david__ 10y ago

The innovations they've been doing lately have mostly had diminishing returns. Super Mario Galaxy, for example, was an alright game, but it was nowhere near as innovative as Super Mario 64 was. I don't even remember if I finished it or not, but I remember that SM64 Bowser boss fight to this day. I don't know if anyone ever argues that Nintento's first party games aren't the best games on their consoles. It just for many, myself included, the 5 or 6 excellent games that come out don't really justify the price of the console and the HDMI slot it occupies. I know I've never been able to justify a WII U (though Bayonetta 2 came close). I hope they do better with the Switch—I'd love to justify the purchase :-). But I'm certainly not getting one at launch.

abdulmuhaimin 10y ago
this one certainly doesnt need to occupy your HDMI slot.
- __david__ 10y ago
  To play it on my nice TV it does.

throwaway1892 10y ago

> Typically the best games on the whole platform. Also perhaps the only worthwhiles games on Nintendo's consoles.

TillE 10y ago
The 3DS has some excellent third party exclusive games, mainly RPGs. I really can't think of anything comparable on the Wii or Wii U that I feel I'm missing out on, except for the first party titles.
- eridius 10y ago
  A lot of people consider Bayonetta 2 to be a console-seller (though personally, I've only tried it for a few minutes and the intro to that game is super confusing). There's also some other great games that, while aren't exclusive, do have unique features on Wii U (e.g. leveraging the gamepad), such as Rayman Legends. As for RPGs, there's Xenoblade Chronicles X.
jaegerpicker 10y ago
The Fire Emblem and Bravely Default series on 3ds are both as good as any series on other platforms. Wii and Wii U are difficult cases but the DS line has in general been an incredibly good console platform. I actually think it was the best of the last generation. Maybe the switch can carry that on but I'm not sure.
- throwaway1892 10y ago
  Fair enough. My comment was mostly valid for the Wii and Wii U lineup, I agree that it's better for the DS.

blakeyrat 10y ago

> You say that like this is a bad thing. Probably because I believe it is a bad thing. > Nintendo isn't just making the same games over and over again. Let's say I haven't owned a Nintendo console in a long time (which is true-- the last one I bought was a GameCube, which was a piece of crap so I sold it to my step-sister), how would I be able to tell that 2017's Mario is any different than 2014's Mario is any different than 2011's Mario? If Nintendo genuinely has new game play ideas, maybe they should actually put those ideas in new games. They're not incapable of this-- for example, Splatoon looks genuinely innovative-- but they're more interested in keeping the nostalgia factor than marketing new game concepts. There's one Splatoon for every 10 Mario X or Zelda X or Metroid X. > And ultimately, the first-party games Nintendo puts out, your Marios and Zeldas and whatnot, are always very polished, excellently-designed, and downright fun games. Possibly; that doesn't make me interested in buying them. The 1998 Psycho color remake was very polished, excellently designed, etc. But it was just an identical remake of a movie that'd already been made, and if you've seen the original there's no point to seeing the remake. > Typically the best games on the whole platform. Because Nintendo's great at games, or because they can't convince anybody else to develop games for their wonky-ass platforms? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Just to drop a note here from the Xbox universe, the Xbox perennial first-party title is Halo. Halo 4 and Halo 5 kind of suck. Kind of suck a lot, really. But the strength of Xbox is that if Halo sucks, you can play Titanfall or Evolve or Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare or Battlefield 4 or... you get the point. And that's just in that one genre. Unlike Nintendo, Microsoft (and Sony) isn't crippled by bad first-party games. If they were they'd probably put a heck of a lot more effort into ensuring their first-party games didn't kind of suck. So it's kind of an apples-to-orange comparison. Nintendo first-party titles are good because Nintendo has far more incentive to make them good. > It's not unreasonable to say that Mario and Zelda by themselves sell a large portion of Nintendo's consoles. Of course not; that's exactly what I've been saying. The company relies almost exclusively on nostalgia to sell its products. Mario and Zelda are nostalgic titles.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
eridius 10y ago
They're not remakes. There's a difference between using the same characters in brand new games, and remaking old games. Your entire comment reads as though you consider them to be literal remakes, and that's completely wrong. People aren't also just buying them for nostalgia. After all, they're new games, it's hard to be nostalgic about new stuff. People are buying them because they're really really fun. And you'll note that kids, who definitely don't have nostalgia for the old games, also consider them to be really really fun, so it's really not just because people liked the previous games.