Slashdot Mirror
Has Nintendo Lost Its Edge?
Thanks to GameSpy for their 'Spy/CounterSpy' editorial discussing whether Nintendo has lost its way in the increasingly competitive gaming world. On the one hand, an editor argues: "One of the few concrete things [Nintendo have] said is that the successor to GameCube is coming out sooner, rather than later, but what's the point if it's as lacking in software as its two predecessors? Or if the software is as samey as the current stuff?" But on the other, there's counterpoint and optimism: "In fact, it's the companies with lots of resources who are falling behind in the race who typically come up with the biggest and riskiest innovations. Given Nintendo's ability to create good hardware and its strategic position in the handheld space, that could mean some VERY cool things in the future."
Personally, I think they have lost it.
Whilst their games used to be new and exciting, it is all the 'same old same old' these days. I am getting tired of endless games with Mario in them.
I do not find their games to be 'fun' anymore, as they are not much different to what they did before. I can enjoy 'fun' games still, and I can also enjoy more complex games like Civilisation and PC RPG's. Nintendos games do not fulfill either category for me anymore.
I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'
The only way I can see Nintendo taking the lead over Microsoft with it's next generation console is if the GameCube 2 can play GBA games without a GBA pluged-in. (By having a carthroge slot on the side and the regular CD player for GC & GC2 games) The GBA game library is so huge that all of a sudden, your console could play them all from the day of it's release AND have access to regular CG games.
It's so obvious that this is a wining strategy IMHO.
Nintendo itself is still putting out quality games.. now those are the games put out by nintendo... games like Zelda, F-zero, Animal Crossing, Mario Golf..
Mario Sunshine was ok.. but it just didn't seem like Mario.. as well they have been trying to have the gameboy advance be apart of alot of new games.. (Metroid Fusion/Prime, Animal Crossing, Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicals) as well they still have the stigma of being the "family system" despite there attemps to draw in the older audiences.
After they snubbed RPG fans with the N64 most went to sony who had RPGs a plenty. They neglected a big market of gamers (especially in Japan) that was stupid.
IMO they where stupid when they didn't embrace the online market like mircosoft and to a lesser extent sony.
They have done some stupid things as of late but overall I think they haven't lost there edge.. but it could use a bit of sharpening.
"I am a kernel in the linux army"
Nintendo is doing more innovation with its system than either X-Box or Sony.
First, look at the controller. Sony decided to copy its last system almost whole-sale. X-Box is absolutely abysmal.
Round two. Software. I don't know who's been saying Nintendo hasn't been making innovative games. Two words: Metroid Prime. It's won game of the year practically every major gaming site and is the only game to really combine the FPS and an adventure game in such a tight package. The newest Zelda game has some of the most revolutionary graphics I've seen in a while. Lastly, is there any multiplayer game more fun and unique than Smash Brothers (or the sequel)? If anyone can find what game they've decided to copy with that, I'd be really curious.
On the flipside, the X-Box's main draw is yet-another-first-person-shooter. Sony's best are available for other consoles (Madden on everything, GTA on PC).
While Nintendo's games tend to star familiar characters, that doesn't mean the gameplay involved cannot be truly innovative, which is really the same its always been.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Before I sold my consoles (I moved out of the U.S. and haven't gotten around to buying local versions yet), I had a Gamecube and a PS deux (yes, I'm in France now). The Gamecube, which has much less software than the PS2, I used to play Zelda, Metroid, Pikmin, Mario, Luigi's Mansion, Super Smash Bros., and Super Monkey Ball. This basically breaks down into two categories, platformers and party games. On the PS2, I played Ico, Dance Dance Revolution, and Squaresoft games. I looked at the Xbox, and sort of envied the Xbox Live thing...
Anyway, what it all comes down to is that each console serves a certain area the best. If you want platform games, you get a Gamecube. If you want DDR, Square, or edgy games, you get a PS2, and if you want online play, you get an Xbox...
I'm not too happy with Nintendo's decision to cater to a younger crowd... or rather, to make their games "family friendly" - but I think that's just what they're doing.
Every business has a business plan, or mission statement, or something along those lines - and I think Nintendo's underlying philosophy is summarized in the name of their original system in Japan "Famicon" (short for "Family Console").
Nintendo isn't trying to put out games FOR kids, rather, they're trying to put out games that everyone can enjoy, but that are also acceptable for children to play. Basically, games the whole family can enjoy (without the child being confused, or the parents being upset).
Is this a good business decision? Probably not. I can't say that Nintendo won't allow third parties to publish Nintendo games with adult content, though I'd imagine those type of games get far less N-Press than your "Pikmin", "Zelda", or "Animal Crossing". Even if it were made for the system, you wouldn't find GTA in the pages of Nintendo Power which predominantly caters to ages 8 to 14, whether Nintendo wants it to or not.
My main gripe is that WE were the original Nintendo fans, not the next generation of gamers. Nintendo tries to sate us with updated versions of old games where we need games that have evolved and have new ideas and characters. I understand their desire to be a system that supports a family friendly gaming environment (at the expense of business and third party developers) but don't forget your old fans (who arguably keep your system afloat) for your new.
Oh, and "Star Fox Adventures" really sucked.
Hmph, one day we get an article on how Gamecube making a comeback, and then the next day, we get an article on how Nintendo is losing it's competitive edge!
To stay on topic:
the Standard Anti-Nintendo Rhetoric:
1) Nintendo games are too childish.
2) Nintendo games aren't original, games are rehashes of Mario, Zelda, Kirby, etc.
My answers:
1) Nintendo is marketing globally, and will pretty much stay that way. To market globally, you market a 'family' game. I doubt Nintendo will ever change that. Perhaps it won't get such a large market audience in North America or Europe because of how americans like their entertainment (violence and sex), but it allows Nintendo to have their product appeal to the world. I think Nintendo is concerned with a Japanese audience foremost, followed by a secondary North American market. What it seems like they're doing is letting the third party develop for the North America market.
2) Mario, Zelda, Kirby all have longevity spanning back to the Famicom. How many other videogame characters have done that and have sold that many games? How many Sonic Karts, Sonic Golfs, Sonic Tennis games are there to compare it to? Oh, how about Halo Golf? It's about franchise longevity and how wisely you use the franchise.
Then ask yourself from where does that taint originate? Nintendo DOES have issues. If their product was pure quality (and for what they're worth, they're pretty damn good) there shouldn't be a lot of problem. One of the quality issues however is that they don't have games that appeal to every gamer.
Nintendo's biggest issues right now are:
1. They don't appeal to a more mature audience
2. They keep losing third party developers
3. They have a very weak home-console standing (their most popular product is the GameBoy)
4. The games they promote most furiously are rehashes of old games and characters (and "The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker", for all it's goodness, simply is not as rich an experience as previous Zelda titles)
5. They pay more attention to their target age group, and neglect the people who USED to be in that age group but still want to play games
6. Their promotions are not "cool" - that is to say, PS2 and XBoX will promote to older teens' and adults' sensibilities, whereas Nintendo promotes to a younger crowd's.
So the problems are there. They're still making great money, but they are reaching the end of their rope at least in terms of the console market. There was a time I could comfortably say "Playstation is selling twice as many consoles as Nintendo... but at least we're still tied with XBoX" but that's becoming less true every quarter.
Also, just from a gamers' standpoint, if I want to buy a new game for a particular system at any given time, the odds of finding a game for the GameCube that I'll enjoy are far more slim than they are for either PC, XBoX, or Playstation.
This is not true with the GameBoy Advance, which offers delicious 16bit/32bit goodness akin to the SNES (which was arguably one of the best Nintendo systems to date).
I'm a Nintendo loyalist, but even I'm not so bold as to claim that the buzz surrounding Nintendo's shortfalls and problems are anybody's fault but their own.
1. Games: In this area, I believe that even though they posess the most valuable set of game characters, many of the old gamers perceive that recent games have been updates to newer technologies (3D, etc), but the esence is the same. Since these fans have grown and their interest have changed, that enforces the 'kiddie-game' perception. Maybe Nintendo should have anticipated that their client base grew older and had other needs. Another problem is that current technology demand for longer development times and it's becoming very hard to keep a constant flow of successful games coming down the pipe. On the positive end, newer franchises are being established (Pikmin, Animal Crossing, etc); to expand Nintendo has been investing in indie studios through the Yamauchi foundation and is working with second parties (Silicon Knights) and 3rd parties as Capcom, Namco (ending the long feud) and Sega to bring more games based on their franchised.
Nintendo's stance against certain types of games (GTA and derivatives come to mind) is hurting the company's image. Personally I think that a Nintendo system is better off without GTA, but If I had Nintendo stock, I'd rather have it.
Bottomline: Keep the old franchises going, to capture the new gamers, create new franchises for grown-up gamers.
2. Innovation: I think this is the Big N's biggest asset, the R&D departments and Miyamoto leading the pack are yet to be responsible of many technical innovations. Gameplay innovations will keep coming, however, how 'risky' this innovations are, it will be questionable.
Bottomline: Gory, soft-porn titles with great game play ain't coming from Nintendo.
3. Hardware Strategy: The hardware strategy depends on the Nintendo's overall objective - Do they want to be number one, or do they want to simply be profitable. To be number one, it seems that you must combine DVD/DVR capabilities and online play (to cover most bases), but this implies not being strong in any category.
Bottomline: The next console should play DVDs, keep the mini-DVD format to keep piracy at bay.
4. Online Play: Doing this or not depends on the lessons learned from this generation. Getting in later means developing competencies outside the core area.
5. Culture: A few years ago it was a fact that Japanese companies made better games than US companies, but that's changing, US companies are making great games and they understand American pop culture, that leads to games that are a better 'fit' to american audiences. Many of the things that we see in japanese games might be percieved as childish too. That influences US sales and market penetration.
In general, Nintendo has many challenges ahead, but they must decide if they want to be number one. If not, I can see them staying as a very successful company in Japan, with limited success in the US in a very particular market segment.
Any Ideas?