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

[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.

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.

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?!

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.

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.

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.

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.