gaming Is Nintendo irrelevant?

[Bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb 167]

 

 

the Wii is basically a toy

well aren't all consoles "toys" when you think about it toys are made for fun you have fun with video games that makes them toys

[TubeSock2018 325]

well aren't all consoles "toys" when you think about it toys are made for fun you have fun with video games that makes them toys

Well...yeah...kinda.

I feel like the first system to break away from that "toy" mentality was the Dreamcast, although the 3DO claimed to be one of the first to not be a toy.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tkqWvuM41-0

 

But the reason I consider the dreamcast to be the first "not a toy" console was because of the extra feature it had. Dial-up Internet capabilities to check email. Music player and...well that's about all I can think of, but it was the first solid attempt at being a multi media home entertainment system.

I know that the Wii could do internet, but it sucked. It was obviously not the focus. It's focus was games.

PS3 and 360 followed the trail the dreamcast set and did the home entertainment thing instead of focusing solely on games.

The Wii U still feels like the toy console, which I'm totally for. I own only a Wii U and I love it for the games.

 

But I would have to disagree with calling all consoles toys because PS4 and Xbox One aren't just trying to be a play thing for games and to me, that's what distinguishes a toy from a multi-media home entertainment system.

 

And besides, it's all subjective. A new tv could be considered a toy. It entertains and distracts. So I'm not saying ps4 isn't a toy. I just don't consider it one like I do the wii u.

[VitalSpark 1,830]

Is the company which produced the two best-selling games consoles of this century (DS, Wii) irrelevant?

[BrilliantVenture 334]

I hate to say it...but I kind of agree with you. I grew up playing the NES, SNES, and N64...the absolute PRIME of Nintendo...it's sad to see what was once a beautiful legendary company become such a money grubbing sell out. Don't get me wrong, there are still a few good titles floating around these days...and Nintendo's always been a bit gimmicky...(I.E. The Powerglove, the Rollin' Rocker, the Virtual Boy etc. etc.) but at least in the old days right after they'd screw up, they'd release something epic! Now?...we're all waiting for the next big thing...what nintendo really needs to do imo...is be innovative in the right direction. Get together a team of writers, designers, etc. Get a reaaaaally good game series started, and put it on a console that's backwards compatible and a proper "game console"...y'know, back when "couch gaming" was the thing to do...

 

I'd be glad to give nintendo my money again, but only for a product that "captures the spirit of gaming" like it used to...if they don't? they'll fail miserably..much as they're currently doing.

 

Edit: And also, one of the biggest things...strip it down to what it used to be...controllers connected to a console that plays games...not browses the internet, not "app downloadable", not with all this extra computer stuff thrown in...it's like a Cell phone...let's get a device that CALLS PEOPLE and does just that! I mean, instead of wasting so much time trying to turn the console into an iphone, why not spend it on creating good games, on a platform that's accepting of 3rd party developers, and bring it to life in the way they used to do it? /endrant.

Edited February 13, 2015 by BrilliantVenture

[TailsIsNotAlone 3,694]

Nintendo is really hard to figure out.  Two decades ago they seemed to be in the perfect position with the SNES, with both excellent 1st party games and excellent 3rd party support.  You could play classics like both Link to the Past and Final Fantasy 6 on the SNES along with a whole range of other generally solid games and the system essentially dominated the market.  For reasons I still can't understand, they largely abandoned third party support and started fussing with a bunch of hardware peripherals nobody asked for.  The third party support is now so horrible that if you are not highly invested in the next Zelda, Mario, Metriod of Pokemon there is little to no reason to obtain their consoles.  And giving how heavily recycled their current IP is, it is hard to maintain any such investment.  They still seem to do well financially, which is amazing because their long term strategy seems down right suicidal.

Although I disapprove of Nintendo's current strategy, I think I know why they ultimately changed course.

 

Early 90s

The SNES was not as dominant as many gamers remember. It faced extremely stiff competition from Sega's Genesis for its entire run, and the Genesis 3 (a smaller version of the Genesis) actually outsold the mini-SNES at the end of that battle. Despite the competition and the Japanese recession, Nintendo still were successful with the SNES. They didn't just make games, they made memories. There will never be a console war like there was between Nintendo and Sega in the early to mid-90s. The systems had different audiences, different pros and cons, and they practically split the third parties. When a game was released on both systems, gamers cared. They rushed to compare the two versions. As the Internet really got going, so did the debates over which machine was better. It was perfect timing. 

 

Mid-90s

So, what changed everything? First, mistakes by both Nintendo and Sega. Second, SONY.

Sega were always better at making fun, creative arcade-style games than designing actual consoles for them or creating a viable business model. They made unnecessary, expensive add-ons to the Genesis that no one wanted, rushed the Saturn which was supposed to be their next big thing (and no one wanted to develop for it when it came out...long story), parted ways with EA and essentially took themselves out of the race.

Nintendo's arrogance from the NES and SNES days backfired. They basically held a monopoly and imposed harsh terms on their 3rd party developers: "if you want to develop for us, you have to do this and this and this, and you can only release this many games in this period of time." As a result, many of those developers got sick of Nintendo, and those who didn't jump to Sega's Genesis jumped to Sony a few years later.

 

Sony was another company P.O.'d by Nintendo. Years earlier, they wanted to partner with Nintendo to develop a CD-ROM for the SNES and even revealed a prototype of it to the public. The very next day, Nintendo announced they were going with Phillips instead. Sony was furious. They saw the potential profit in entering the gaming business as far back as the late 80s and this was all the motivation they needed to strike out on their own. They did their homework, learned from all of Sega and Nintendo's mistakes along the way, and released the PlayStation in 1995.

 

The PlayStation changed everything. It had a strong first-party lineup, it had a lot of 3rd-party developers on its side, it was easy to develop for, and it had games on CD-ROM. When Nintendo finally got out the 64 a year later, with its odd controller and big cartridges, it looked dated and uncool. (It was a great system with better and more playable 3D games than the PS1, but most gamers didn't realize or care at the time.) Then Microsoft came out with the Xbox. It didn't have as much to offer, but it was still new competition with a lot of buzz around it.

 

2000s-present

Things kind of snowballed from there. Nintendo lost so many developers and so much of the North American market to Sony and Microsoft that, after a final disappointment with the GameCube that called their financial security into question, Nintendo changed their whole direction. They needed a new, eye-opening gimmick that would trump anything Sony and Microsoft had, and get back the mass audience they had gradually lost.So with that in mind, they came out with the Wii. It allowed them to remain profitable in hardware, but along the way they turned off some fans who had stuck with them since the 80s or 90s--people who didn't care so much about gimmicks or the next big thing and just wanted to play good games. There were other downsides too: this still didn't bring the 3rd parties back and, at risk of sounding sentimental or illogical, they lost what BrilliantVenture called "the spirit of gaming."

 

Again, not to dump on Nintendo alone--looking around, I don't see any console that captures that spirit. Sony and Microsoft? Please. Sony just wanted another feather in its cap and Microsoft doesn't understand anything without a "$" sign in it. The last systems that felt like real game machines might have been the Dreamcast and the GameCube, 14 years ago. Now it's all about, "let's be entertainment systems and make our consoles like low-end PCs!" That's where they lost me.

[Panne 1,342]

They completely the abandoned the hardcore gamers 

Question, what's a hardcore gamer by your definition.

[TheJLeeTeam 914]

As far as serious, real consoles go; yes, they're dead and irrelevant. They're totally dominating the portable market, but their console stuff is dead. They're really starting to degrade on the rehashes. Rehash after rehash after rehash. Pokemon, the same darn thing every year that people still buy because it appeals to their nostalgia. Metroid is dead. Star Fox is dead. Mario is still running around somewhere. They completely the abandoned the hardcore gamers and their sales pretty much ride on nostalgia men, children, and housewives wanting to do exercise at home. They're gonna go the way of Sega quite soon, I imagine.

Just wait until Splatoon and Star Fox Wii U comes out. As for rehashes if it ain't broke don't fix it besides some series like Mario and Pokémon have spin off games with completely different gameplay.

 

Oh and I forgot Monster Hunter 4, a third party game exclusive to 3DS.

Edited February 13, 2015 by TheJLeeTeam

[Mutemutt 772]

Is the company which produced the two best-selling games consoles of this century (DS, Wii) irrelevant?

 

You win this round...  :okiedokielokie:

But despite releasing at the end of the 20th century, the ps2 did spend the majority of it's lifespan in the 21st century. Still, "best selling console of all time" is not too shabby a title.

 

By the way,@@TailsIsNotAlone and @@BrilliantVenture, what is this "spirit of gaming". I'm afraid I don't really understand what it means for you two. 

Edited February 13, 2015 by Mutemutt

[Envy 6,004]

As far as serious, real consoles go; yes, they're dead and irrelevant. They're totally dominating the portable market, but their console stuff is dead. They're really starting to degrade on the rehashes. Rehash after rehash after rehash. Pokemon, the same darn thing every year that people still buy because it appeals to their nostalgia. Metroid is dead. Star Fox is dead. Mario is still running around somewhere. They completely the abandoned the hardcore gamers and their sales pretty much ride on nostalgia men, children, and housewives wanting to do exercise at home. They're gonna go the way of Sega quite soon, I imagine.

 

Your whole tirade on rehashes seems completely irrelevant to any kind of point you were trying to make. You mention Pokemon, but Pokemon is hardly a force for consoles. So, irrelevant. Rehash this, rehash that. Rehashes are common among all gaming companies, and consoles. This is not at all something that you can take against Nintendo specifically, if you are looking at this without bias. Honestly, if someone likes each Pokemon game (or any other series, like Call of Duty) they release, why go through leaps and bounds to change the formula?

 

Someone hasn't done their homework, by the way. Star Fox can not be considered 'dead', there is a new title in the works.

 

Lol 'hardcore gamers'. Like I ever want to be associated with people that would call them something as silly as that. Whatever the reason people have to play video games is fine. You have no place to decide if one way is superior. Your way of gaming exists and so does their's. Why do gamers always gotta be all about tearing each other down? Seriously. *shakes head* One reason I will never even think of labeling myself as a 'gamer', even if someday I become obsessed with games again.

[Panne 1,342]

Lol 'hardcore gamers'. Like I ever want to be associated with people that would call them something as silly as that. Whatever the reason people have to play video games is fine. You have no place to decide if one way is superior. Your way of gaming exists and so does their's. Why do gamers always gotta be all about tearing each other down? Seriously. *shakes head* One reason I will never even think of labeling myself as a 'gamer', even if someday I become obsessed with games again.

I feel this comic summarized this argument.

[TailsIsNotAlone 3,694]

You win this round...  :okiedokielokie:

But despite releasing at the end of the 20th century, the ps2 did spend the majority of it's lifespan in the 21st century. Still, "best selling console of all time" is not too shabby a title.

 

By the way,@@TailsIsNotAlone and @@BrilliantVenture, what is this "spirit of gaming". I'm afraid I don't really understand what it means for you two. 

Well, that's just it. We can talk all day about facts but it's hard to explain an intangible. It's a subjective term that the gaming community will never agree on the meaning of, kind of like "hardcore/casual gamer." Do those things really exist outside of personal opinion? 

 

I don't know, but I do know video games were much more relevant to me when they felt fresh and original and the systems weren't being bundled with a lot of extra features I didn't need. 

[VitalSpark 1,830]

I don't know, but I do know video games were much more relevant to me when they felt fresh and original and the systems weren't being bundled with a lot of extra features I didn't need.

Another way to look at it is: video games were much more relevant to you when you weren't pushing thirty.

[Mutemutt 772]

As for the whole, hardcore vs casual, real gamer topic going on... I have to say, and this probably isn't  a popular opinion, that I completely understand why gamers would separate themselves like that. Humankind just likes to breaks the world down into categories and there will be those they identify with and those they don't. The "Us" and "Them". It is a natural thing that everyone does throughout their lives. These days, games run across many different genres and many differing appeals to them. It's not hard to see that if person B only likes mobile games and person C hates mobile games but loves all other games, they may not have all that much in common. Simply playing games is no longer enough. The group "gamer" has just become too broad to accomplish it's main task, and so they created some subgroups.

 

There's no need for one group to be so snobby towards the other, but I completely understand why they've separated themselves from each other.

 

Well, that's just it. We can talk all day about facts but it's hard to explain an intangible. It's a subjective term that the gaming community will never agree on the meaning of, kind of like "hardcore/casual gamer." Do those things really exist outside of personal opinion? 

 

I don't know, but I do know video games were much more relevant to me when they felt fresh and original and the systems weren't being bundled with a lot of extra features I didn't need. 

 

I get that not everyone will agree on the term. I just wanted to know what it meant for you, just so I could understand what you meant when you used it. It didn't hold any particular meaning for me so I was a little lost when I saw "the spirit of gaming".

 

"Hardcore/casual gamer" are just as intangible, it's true, though they do see a lot of use. It's gathered around a few popular meanings now. It's still very much a "gut feeling" kind of term though.

[TailsIsNotAlone 3,694]

Another way to look at it is: video games were much more relevant to you when you weren't pushing thirty.

I think we can do without personal remarks in here, can't we?

[VitalSpark 1,830]

I think we can do without personal remarks in here, can't we?

I didn't mean it like that. (After all, I'm five years older than you.)

 

What I meant is that if you don't enjoy video games as much as you did ten years ago, rather than blaming console manufacturers, isn't it just as likely that your own priorities have changed?

 

I know that me-at-twenty-nine was a very different person from me-at-nineteen.

[Littlepip3000 111]

Just wait until Splatoon and Star Fox Wii U comes out. As for rehashes if it ain't broke don't fix it besides some series like Mario and Pokémon have spin off games with completely different gameplay.

 

Oh and I forgot Monster Hunter 4, a third party game exclusive to 3DS.

"As for rehashes if it ain't broke don't fix it". Would you be so fair and equitable to say the same thing for other games like Call of Duty or Madden? Or are those somehow "different"? Rehashes are rehashes, and their ever-increasing sales numbers are bad for the industry.

 

 

 

Your whole tirade on rehashes seems completely irrelevant to any kind of point you were trying to make. You mention Pokemon, but Pokemon is hardly a force for consoles. So, irrelevant. Rehash this, rehash that. Rehashes are common among all gaming companies, and consoles. This is not at all something that you can take against Nintendo specifically, if you are looking at this without bias. Honestly, if someone likes each Pokemon game (or any other series, like Call of Duty) they release, why go through leaps and bounds to change the formula?

 

Someone hasn't done their homework, by the way. Star Fox can not be considered 'dead', there is a new title in the works.

 

Lol 'hardcore gamers'. Like I ever want to be associated with people that would call them something as silly as that. Whatever the reason people have to play video games is fine. You have no place to decide if one way is superior. Your way of gaming exists and so does their's. Why do gamers always gotta be all about tearing each other down? Seriously. *shakes head* One reason I will never even think of labeling myself as a 'gamer', even if someday I become obsessed with games again.

Believe me; I harp on every company that pumps out rehashes and retreads, but here specifically we're talking about Nintendo. Rehashes set a standard of laziness for the industry; stating to other developers "hey, don't worry about innovation! Because people will buy whatever crap you shove out onto shelves simply because of the title plastered on it!". I'm aware of the new Star Fox, but before that the series was dead. And that's an anecdote, as other once-popular series(like the aforementioned Metroid) are currently dead, despite the Prime trilogy's success(I suspect the stank of Other M is the cause here).

 

And the particular reasons why gamers make such an effort to differentiate between "hardcore" gamers and "casual" gamers is A: there IS a stark difference. And B: for the most part, most developers cater most to the casual types, because there are more of them, and thus more sales opportunities. The catering to these particular groups is why many once-legendary game series experience falls from grace. Why games that present an actual real challenge(like Dark Souls) get poor reviews and are critically panned because the casuals cry out. Realize it or not, like it or not, there are gamers out there who take their stuff VERY seriously, and that's why Nintendo is getting a bad rep these days, and why the Wii U was getting negative press everywhere when it was announced; Nintendo has forsaken the hardcore market, leaving behind the people who loved Ninja Gaiden and other real, hardcore games on NES, and the people who loved Doom 64 and the Wolfenstein ports, and the people who bought a Gamecube for the sole purpose of playing Resident Evil 4, and are sacking their new consoles with sub-par tech. They abandoned all those hardcore players, and now they're left sitting there wondering why their console endeavors are falling behind.

[AmberDust 1,116]

This topic is definitely getting offhand. I think a simple poll would be easier.

 

Also, I don't expect any minds will be changed here, especially with all this hostility, so maybe we should tone down the harsh words.

[Megas 27,103]

I love how people still make arguments about Casual/Hardcore gaming(one of the worst things to come out of the last gen.)

 

No, whatever one's preference on games one has does not put them above others

Edited February 14, 2015 by Megas75

[TheJLeeTeam 914]

"As for rehashes if it ain't broke don't fix it". Would you be so fair and equitable to say the same thing for other games like Call of Duty or Madden? Or are those somehow "different"? Rehashes are rehashes, and their ever-increasing sales numbers are bad for the industry.

 

 

 

Believe me; I harp on every company that pumps out rehashes and retreads, but here specifically we're talking about Nintendo. Rehashes set a standard of laziness for the industry; stating to other developers "hey, don't worry about innovation! Because people will buy whatever crap you shove out onto shelves simply because of the title plastered on it!". I'm aware of the new Star Fox, but before that the series was dead. And that's an anecdote, as other once-popular series(like the aforementioned Metroid) are currently dead, despite the Prime trilogy's success(I suspect the stank of Other M is the cause here).

 

And the particular reasons why gamers make such an effort to differentiate between "hardcore" gamers and "casual" gamers is A: there IS a stark difference. And B: for the most part, most developers cater most to the casual types, because there are more of them, and thus more sales opportunities. The catering to these particular groups is why many once-legendary game series experience falls from grace. Why games that present an actual real challenge(like Dark Souls) get poor reviews and are critically panned because the casuals cry out. Realize it or not, like it or not, there are gamers out there who take their stuff VERY seriously, and that's why Nintendo is getting a bad rep these days, and why the Wii U was getting negative press everywhere when it was announced; Nintendo has forsaken the hardcore market, leaving behind the people who loved Ninja Gaiden and other real, hardcore games on NES, and the people who loved Doom 64 and the Wolfenstein ports, and the people who bought a Gamecube for the sole purpose of playing Resident Evil 4, and are sacking their new consoles with sub-par tech. They abandoned all those hardcore players, and now they're left sitting there wondering why their console endeavors are falling behind.

Geez if you hate rehashes so much which is common with physical games in stores check out indie games because they are usually more creative and original. But seriously this thread is really going overboard.

[Mutemutt 772]

He may sound a bit harsh, but he does bring up some fair points. And I say this as someone that loves a good sequel: part of me loves the idea of Disgaea continuing on forever. Oh and Danganronpa, and Final Fantasy and the Tales of, and, and... 

 

Still, as long as they get spaced out properly with other new, original titles, I'm pretty happy as a consumer. So I think that there's no problem with Nintendo raising those franchises back from the dead as long as they introduce other newborn titles into the mix, just to break up the monotony. I think the rehashing problem is much bigger in fps market.

[Spikey-Wikey 378]

What's up with everyone nowadays saying anything that isn't too popular is irrelevant?

 

According to fans of popular things, these things are irrelevant:

 

-Non popular singer

-Non popular games or franchises

-Non popular things in general

 

Also if it is irrelevant, good, I like irrelevant things.

[Tom Snyder 4,111]

This whole Casual/Hardcore nonsense is just an excuse to hate others, its as many have said; its a matter of preference. Many ignore that and bash on the casuals and their games, but i don't; i only respect those who know how to behave themselves.

[A Black Circle 1,585]

Honestly, there's Casual, there's Hardcore, and there's about 60 degrees inbetween. I'd say it's on a scale of 1-5, 1 being super casual and 5 being super hardcore. Most people that are accused of being casual are 2.

 

But despite that, it's not about being irrelevant NOW, it's being being irrelevant TOMORROW. Microsoft and Sony's shit isn't going to last into the next generation. But Nintendo? Yeah. It'll last.

[Ziggy + Angel + Rain 11,298]

Fun is irrelevant nowadays.  People will rely upon reviews and sales data and hardware and graphics to decide for them what games they will or won't play.  Gaming should be like, well...  Eating for taste.  If you like the taste of something, eat it.  We don't let others' opinions of how a sandwich tastes - or how popular that sandwich is - decide whether or not we eat the damned thing.  (I like my stupid sandwich gamer analogy; I don't care.)  If you're doing anything that's intended solely for entertainment because of the influence of others (or avoiding anything for the same reason), you've missed the point of entertainment.

 

Nintendo is relevant to me.  Because I'd still rather go and run through stage 1-1 of Super Mario Bros. for the thousandth time than I would run aimlessly through some large Call of Duty dlc map I only just purchased.  If you're talking about home console gaming, Nintendo will always be relevant (no matter how well or poorly their current hardware is received or performing).  Because home console gaming exists because of Nintendo.  Nobody say "Atari!"  Atari just about killed it with their landfill trash.

[LittleMac 3,084]

I personally think Nintendo is relevant. I prefer playing most of their more recent releases over all the copy and paste games that end up being super popular today like COD. If you hate them then whatever, we've all got different opinions when it comes to games.