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."

Comments

Yes

[Mike Mentalist]

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.

Re:Yes

[Snowspinner]

Endless games with Mario in them? For the Gamecube, that would be... let's see... Mario Golf, Mario Party 4, and Super Mario Sunshine? Oh, right, and if you really want to count it, Super Smash Bros Melee. With two more coming - Mario Party 5, and Mario Kart: Double Dash.

Yup. That's the GC library. Except, of course, for Zelda, Metroid, Eternal Darkness, Pikmin, F-Zero, and Nintendo's lock on the Super Monkey Ball, Rogue Squadron, and Resident Evil series.

As you said, Nintendo's games are not much different from what they did before. So perhaps its your idea of fun that's changed, not Nintendo's games.

In a given year, Nintendo will make 2-3 of the best games of the year. Last year they did Eternal Darkness and Metroid Prime. This year, it looks like Zelda and F-Zero, though with Mario Kart, Pikmin 2, and their Metal Gear Solid remake, all still coming out this year, they might easily get another. On top of these instant classics, they line the edges with games that are great and worth owning - Pikmin, Mario Golf, etc.

There is no other game company that comes close to that level of quality, for either consoles or PCs. Blizzard takes 2-3 years to come out with one game as great as Zelda, Metroid, or Eternal Darkness.

Considering that, I can't imagine buying a console other than the Nintendo console. Especially since the alleged highlights of other systems - Final Fantasy X, Grand Theft Auto 3, and Halo, for instance, did nothing for me.

So, do I think Nintendo has lost its edge?

I think Nintendo are the only people left who have an edge.

Re:Yes

[liquidzero4]

I couldn't agree with you more. I own all three systems and have been an avid gamer since the Atari 2600 / Intellivision days.

I bought my GC and XBOX within a month of each other. That was about a year ago. At the time I had no idea that 1 year later I'd own 10 GC games and only three XBOX games.

To be honest with you Nintendo are the only ones doing anyhting different. Sure the characters are the same but the games are inovative and fun.

XBOX and PS2 re-hash the same tired games with the same tired graphics. There all either car games or first person games. XBOX and PS2 are just tired and boreing for the most part.

People really need to give the GC chance and acutally play some of the games before they knock it.

Re:Yes

[Snowspinner]

Out of that list, all but one of the first party games are typical Nintendo franchise games. People were moaning about Lara Croft by the time Tomb Raider III was announced - I am sick to DEATH of Mario as he has been around for probably nearly 20 years.

So in your case "Mario" means "any Nintendo property that has had another game come out in the series"? That's an interesting definition.

I suppose my question would be why reinvent the wheel with new characters? Yes, they could have made Mario Golf with characters who weren't Mario characters... but why? Mario is a perfectly good franchise to use for a cartoony golf game.

Perhaps in your opinion they will, but not others. The only game out of that lot deserving high praise is Eternal Darkness. MP was just Metroid in 3D, and not as good as I had hoped. And how can Metal Gear Solid be so critically acclaimed, when it is just a remake of an older game?

I'd say Eternal Darkness is, on the whole, less inventive than Metroid Prime. Eternal Darkness is a Zelda-esque dungeon hack with some shiny insanity effects. It does a great job on them, and so is still a great game, but Metroid Prime takes the first-person-shooter in a direction it had never been taken before. More to the point, it did things with the first person shooter that people said couldn't be done - platforming sections that didn't suck, exploration based gameplay, etc.

And, I mean, what were you hoping for from Metroid Prime? Something that wasn't Metroid?

But Nintendo only developed Zelda themselves - the other two were done by other development studios.

Second party development studios that, with heavy input and control from Nintendo. I do not consider the fact that Nintendo has begun to expand and take in some other development studios to mean that those games are not Nintendo games.

You yourself said that their games do not change much - so how can they have an 'edge' if that is true?

Nintendo continues to do what it's always done - perfect styles of games, and invent new styles of games. Even their new styles of games, though, have a certain... Nintendoness to them. They display elegance of control, and are typically very easy to pick up and play, but not nearly so easy to beat, and harder still to "fully" beat (i.e. unlock everything, get 100% completion, etc).

Regardless, in every genre and style Nintendo has attempted, they are reliably among the best at it.

That seems an edge to me.

Re:Yes

[PyroMosh]

NONE of the super mario games have had the same game play. Ever. With the exception of SMB2 Japan (Lost Levels here in the U.S.).

SMB 1 was the classic, shitty control formula that was ground breaking at the time but doesn't hold up so well.

SMB 2J (LL) was more of the same with diffrent levels. Oh, and Luigi had slightly diffrent control in that one.

SMB 2 was a side scroller, but you didn't kill bad guys by jumping on them, the emphesis ws on throwing things and bad guys.

SMB 3 was slightly like SMB 1, but there were so many game play and control changes as to make it a new game.

SMB World was also, again, similar to 1 and 3. But there was enough of a diffrence to make it unique.

SMB World 2 was NOTHING like any of the others. Mario was barley in it. It was just "Baby Mario" riding on Yoshi's back. Basicly you played Yoshi. Totally diffrent game.

Mario 64 was unique again still. But I though it was bland and uninteresting. They moved to 3D too soon.

Mario Sunshine has something going for it. The water pack makes for fun, diffrent gameplay, and things like the multiple jumps make for lots of crazy manuevering within levels. Maybe if I'd played Mario 64 further through, Id have encountered cool stuff like this, but it just didn't hold my attention.

Zelda I started that series.

Zelda II was a side scroller, and people hated it because it was too diffrent (I think it may have been the best in the series).

Zelda III reminded me of Zelda I a bit. But the first was so simple, and III so complex, that it's hard to compare the two.

Ocarina of Time was like none of the others. It made Hyrule feel like a vast place. Unlike I and III. II did the same. I guess this is why these two are my favorites.

I never played Majora's Mask, but it used OoT's engine. I can understand the two being very similar.

I've hardly played Wind Waker at all, but it seems very OoT like as well, graphics not withstanding.

Pokemon, I can't comment on at all. I've never played any of them.

From my point of view, the biggest thing is that there's no new franchises. Oh wait. Eternal Darkness. Pikmin. Animal Crossing. Damn.

The point is that Critisizing Mario games for being jumping platformers is like critisizing Warcraft for being RTS. Or Half-Life for being FPS. That's just the meat of the series.

Re:Yes

[Anonvmous Coward]

" I am getting tired of endless games with Mario in them."

Mario's simply a character to Nintendo, not a game formula. It's kind of like saying you're sick of movies that have Edward Norton in them. Could be worse, Mario could be like Jean Claude Van Damme.

GC 2

[bartok]

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.

poor nintendo

[Phoenix Dreamscape]

Poor Nintendo... a mere $572 million in profits. How can they ever survive? Seems hopeless, eh?

With such pathetically unoriginal titles like Pikmin, Warioware, and Metroid Prime, it seems like the Gamecube is little more than trash that they through out because they refuse to let well-enough alone.

What Nintendo really needs is to start pumping out some derivative First-Person shooter titles with laggy internet support so I can get my ass kicked by cocky assholes with bad grammar.

Re:poor nintendo

[(trb001)]

methinks some moderators misinterpreted your sarcasm for "+1: Insightful"...

WTF?

[octover]

Why is everything good in the world constantly dying? I just switched over to the dying Apple OS, Mac OS X. It has been the best OS I have ever run. (Not to say it doesn't have its deficiencies, but overall I have enjoyed the experience a lot more than anything else) I own a PS2 and a Gamecube, I have an X Box in the house. The PS2 is in my brothers room, I don't play it that much. The X Box hardly gets turned on by anyone. The Gamecube is in my room so I can readily play it. I used to buy all the games, but I am slowly becoming everything I ever hated, and don't have the time for all of the good games. So I can only play the cream of the crop, which I have found tends to be my Gamecube. I find that my Gamecube is the best of all the systems. I find that I wouldn't trade my Mario Golf, F Zero GX, Super Mario Sunshine, Mario Party 4, Super Smash Brothers Melee, for anything. I've even found the games that are available on other platforms are better on my Gamecube (i.e. Soul Caliber 2).

If this is what dying things are like, I hope that more things that I currently enjoy go into a perpetual state of dying.

Nintendo - the Apple of game systems

[yetanothertechie]

I'm beginning to see parallels between Apple and Nintendo, particularly in predictions about their demise. How many articles have their been since gamecube came out saying that Nintendo was going down the tubes?

The fact is, the gamecube is an excellent platform and there are a huge number of great games available, (not as many as PS2, but plenty). They also have a dedicated fan base that's not likely to embrace either of the other platforms any time soon. For those who complain that they have too many "kids" games, there will always be lots of kids playing games, so it's not like they'll have a declining market. For that matter, so many of their games are great for any age: windwaker, animal crossing, soul caliber 2, various sports games...how are these for kids only?

Why does Nintendo get bashed so much? What, you'd rather support Microsoft or Sony?!

Kinda?

[darkmayo]

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.

Re:Kinda?

[Incoherent07]

I agree with you that losing Square was a mistake, but that was a mistake made 5 or 6 years ago and a mistake they're finally trying to correct.

I am going to take issue with you saying they still have the stigma of being the "family system". Why is that a stigma? Are kids, or for that matter adults, too "cool" for platformers, or what amounts to an adventure/RPG, or some of the other original games they've put out recently?

Not everything in life is about shooting up the bad guys or watching the bouncing polygonal boobs. Nintendo realizes that, and I for one applaud them for sticking to their guns.

Are you kidding?

[vasqzr]

Worst of all, in my opinion, was the system's mediocre performance. Games generally seemed to have less polygons than similar PlayStation titles and had terribly blurry textures and sub-SNES quality music. The hardware that had looked so hot in 1996 aged incredibly quickly, and many gamers noticed.


Play any title that's on both PSX and N64...tell me which is better. Tony Hawk for instance.

The Playstion is a horrid splash of bouncing, jaggie-filled, sparkling textures, and the N64 version is a smooth, antialiased, 3D world.

Re:Are you kidding?

[ab5tract]

This is actually an argument I've been in numerous times, and each time it ended with both sides winning. How? As everyone knows, Nintendo decided to use cartridges for the N64. I'm not sure what the average numbers for N64 cartridges are, but I can garuntee you they are counted in Mega-bits, just like cartridges for the SNES (remember Chrono Triggger and FF3? "32-Megabit cartridge! Biggest Game Ever!!@!"). So even if they ever managed to squeeze 650 Mb into one cartridge (and I'm rather sure that they never managed this), it would only have one _FOURTH_ of the storage capacity enjoyed by the PSone, with its 650 MB CD-ROM (which could have concievably increased to 700 MB towards the end of the PSone's lifecycle).

What this translated into for the PlayStation was a lot more room for a lot more varied textures, even if those textures weren't 'hi-res' or whatever buzz word Nintendo used to describe the capabilities of their system. So while the N64 had more "raw power" for displaying its worlds, it was hindered by the fact that the textures it had available for doing this were often crappier than those on the PSone simply because the developers had to skimp on the textures in order to save room for other aspects of the game.

Basically, the arguments concluded with "the N64 is better at 'cartoon-ish' style graphics" while "the PlayStation is better at 'realistic, gritty' graphics" (even though the N64 generally trumped the PSone in terms of jagged edges and overall smoothness).

bah

[reptilezero]

i don't understand why people think ninteno is going to die. they own the handheld market and they're making a profit. i bought a gamecube just to play the gba games on the gba player, and it was a much better purchase than my xbox. this is coming from someone who has been dogging nintendo since the n64 debacle. once you give the games a chance, it becomes clear why nintendo isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Gamecube titles

[mr.capaneus]

The Gamecube really does not suffer from a lack of titles. The reason that it isn't selling well in the U.S. is the perception that there is a lack of titles. The console business is all about marketing and image these days. People will buy what their friends have and what they think is cool. I have both a GC and a PS2. While there are more games that I can purchase for the PS2, there are more games I want to play on the GC, by far. I had been planning on buying a Gamecube because I really wanted to play Metroid Prime and Zelda. Unfortunately I decided to "research" my decision on the web and everything I read said that the GC was inferior to the PS2. I hate to say it but I think the inertia of the market is going to continue for a while longer. Nintendo will wane. Xbox will wax. PS2 will continue to dominate.

Completely Untrue

[Prien715]

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.

Re:Completely Untrue

[PainKilleR-CE]

>Nintendo is doing more innovation with its system
>than either X-Box or Sony.

Yes, the whole GC-GBA connectivity is SO much more advanced over online gaming on the Xbox and PS2 (yes, I am being sarcastic).

The only difference between Sony's online offering and Nintendo's is that Sony is putting more support into it. Otherwise, both companies did the same thing: offer an online adapter and let the developers decide how to support it. At the least, Nintendo's working with it in terms of LAN gaming, though they are definitely not doing much to support playing online.

And what exactly is the point in totally redesigning a controller each time? The GC one is far from perfect - the D-Pad is WOEFUL, the sticks are different to each other and the Z button is useless.
The problems with the Xbox pad are exaggerated, and the Controller S is a million times better anyway.

Sony didn't need to redesign their controller, just improve the analog sticks. Of the three, Sony's analog control is the worst, though I must admit I won't touch the Controller S on my XBox, because the original full-sized controller works much better for me and doesn't have the weird placement of some of the buttons that is seen on the S. The analog control on the full-sized XBox controller was what made me realize the Sony controllers were not quite up to it. The Nintendo controller sealed it.

As for particular issues with the Nintendo controller, I agree with the basic premise behind your complaints about the D-pad and Z button, but you're exaggerating those problems at least as much as anyone I've seen talking about problems with the larger XBox controller. I prefer that the sticks be different, as they should have different uses. The D-pad is setup as a secondary (or tertiary) interface, and isn't meant to be used the way the D-pad was used on older systems (and the way I still use the D-pad on my PS2). At least both Nintendo and Microsoft put the analog stick in the primary at-rest position of the left thumb.

And how is MP innovative?!? It is just Metroid in 3D!

Metroid in 3D, in first-person, with a very different control scheme, solid story line. Bleh, Metroid in 3D all alone would be enough for the title to be at the very least different from the pack. What's so rehashed about it that you feel the need to act like Metroid in 3D is explanation enough?


>The newest Zelda game has some of the most
>revolutionary graphics I've seen in a while.

It is far from innovative, as it isn't really much further on from the previous N64 Zelda games.

Having not had an N64, I can't say too much, but having the OoT disc for the GC, I'd have to say that, as far as I can tell, you didn't address the statement in the least. The graphics are completely different. I wouldn't have called them revolutionary, because cel-shading is being used on every 10th game being released today, but saying it's not really much further from the N64 titles is rediculous.


>Lastly, is there any multiplayer game more fun
>and unique than Smash Brothers

SMS is just an annoying beat-em-up type game, and there are far better multiplayer games available.

Examples? Any games like it (to address the unique part)? What's annoying about it?


>On the flipside, the X-Box's main draw is
>yet-another-first-person-shooter.

Whereas all Nintendo can offer is yet another sequel.

Oh no, not another sequel. Oh well, I'll just wait for Halo 2 then. Doh! At least I have KOTOR to play for a while. Star What? Damn, did it again...

Re:Completely Untrue

[lp_bugman]

The inovative point about Metroid Prime is that they succesfully translated a 2D game in to the 3d world mantaining it's roots!
Most games fail at this, it's very difficult to transform 2D platformes in to the 3d world. I for once DON'T like 3d Games. I stay playing my SNES (Super Metroid), Saturn (Radian Silver Gun, Megaman, Dracula X, Metal Slug, Stree fighters, etc.) and DreamCast (Bangai-o, ikaruga, mars matrix).

There are a feew 3D games that I do like like Metroid Prime and Wolfestein Enem. Territory on the PC

Differentiation...

[dmayle]

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...

Re:Nintendo's Problem

[mr.capaneus]

some of the funnest games on GC look like the type of thing that most grown Adults would avoid

translation: Some of the funnest games on GC look like the type of thing that most 14 year olds that want to act like adults would avoid.

Re:Nintendo's Problem

[CasulPoster]

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.

Re:They don't realize:

[Artifex]

Tell me, how does the use of mini DVD's hurt anyone?

The fact that it couldn't play DVDs, and the other two consoles could, definitely kept me from seriously considering it.

People who only have enough money for one console, probably look for the one with the most functionality. Especially if they are looking to get it for their kids.

Re:Nintendo's Image

[CasulPoster]

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.

that time again...

[(trb001)]

It's apparently that time of year again (quarterly, right?) when someone decides Nintendo has had it. And it amazes me that it's always for one (or more) of the same reasons...small number of games, lack of originality, lack of FPS games, it isn't the , etc.

Nintendo has a niche. It occupies and fulfils that niche extremely well. Other consoles aren't going to take its niche. Its niche (two, really) is 1) Game Boy, 2) fun, non serious games. There haven't been competitors for it since Sega's handheld that died out (but was arguably better than the Game Boy...little larger, backlit, etc). The backwards compatibility of the GB ensures that people will keep buying it since there are quality games of all genres represented that you can get for CHEAP (read: under $10 on eBay).

Gamecube would have to be my choice, if only because the XBox and PS2 seem to be copying the PC mentality of games, only without the control interface (I like the mouse). Playing the PS2 is fun, but it's fun in the same way Quake was fun. Nintendo opens a completely separate world, one that you can only get (well done, at least) on consoles.

Mostly, that's side scrolling arcade games, what Nintendo did FAMOUSLY back in the 80's/90's. With exception to Commander Keen, I haven't played a lot of side scrolling PC games that I really dug. Mega Man, Castlevania, Mario, Life Force, all these are side scrolling games that were/are Nintendo 's bread and butter. They aren't complicated, don't involve every button and you can play for just a few minutes. There are still lots of people that like them, so Nintendo isn't going away anytime soon.

--trb

So I decided to buy a Game Cube

[Snowmit]

As a dedicated PC gamer, I've been spending a lot of time lately trying to decide which of the three consoles I should buy. I only have a medium sized budget so I can't buy all three or anything.

I'll never understand all of the arguments that you shouldn't get a Game Cube because it doesn't have very many titles. I don't want very many titles, I just want about six great titles a year. My pocket book can't take much more, what with the PC gaming habit and the rent and food and all the other stuff.

On top of that, a big chunk of the best games for Xbox and PS2 will make their way to the PC at some point (GTA, Halo, and so on). Often with a better control scheme. I really don't want to plunk down a bunch of money for redundancy.

Game Cube, here I come.

Nintendo's situation in different levels (opinion)

[Metroid72]

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?

Re:They don't realize:

[edwdig]

The fact that it couldn't play DVDs, and the other two consoles could, definitely kept me from seriously considering it.

cost of GameCube + DVD Player = cost of PS2/Xbox

The PS2 DVD player blows. My roommate had a PS2, and we'd often try using it to play DVDs. But half the time I'd end up taking the disc out and putting it in my computer due to the PS2 having trouble. It just doesn't like certain scenes. You pretty much have to buy the DVD remote for the PS2 as using the controller to play a DVD is completely unintuitive.

I know I'd much rather have a GameCube + DVD player combo. About the same cost as a PS2, but better DVD playback. Haven't heard anything about the Xbox's DVD playback quality, but I doubt it tops a dedicated player.