Slashdot Mirror
Nintendo Running Itself into the Ground?
ZephyrXero writes "That is the question asked by N-Sider.com in their article "Playing it safe". The article talks of how Nintendo's reliance on tried and true franchises may contribute to their lack of innovation and low sales numbers. Although most have already seen this problem brewing within Nintendo for quite some time, it is also becoming a problem for many other game developers throughout the industry." A nice counter-point to Sticking up for Nintendo from earlier this month.
In other news, DC Comics has realized that it should stop publishing Superman and Batman titles in favor of new characters that nobody has any investment in.
Microsoft has realized that it should discontinue the Office brand in favor of new software that will be more "innovative" than simple word processing.
And McDonalds has decided to discontinue all of its hamburgers, fearing that they haven't created any innovative cuisine in the last 20 years, instead becoming a steakhouse.
Philip Sandifer's academic website
Whine about the resaons why Nintendo isn't the dominant player in the industry gets old. Listen, just because the big N isn't number one in console sales, doesn't mean that they are not a successful company, or that they are on the brink of failure. BMW isn't the number one auto company, but hey seem to be doing all right. Apple might not even hold a candle to the other PC manufacturers, but they service a niche. I love Nintendo, and it doesn't matter if they dominate the market. They meet a particular market need, and they get by just fine. They will proabably never again rule the console roost, but they will continue to be a profitable, successful game company.
Nintendo is one of the few companies out there to consistently pump out quality games across all their platforms. Sure, there is Mario Tennis, Mario Party, Mario Golf, Super Mario DS, etc, but every single one of those games is solid. The same goes with the Metroid and Zelda series. Nintendo doesn't use its franchises as a way to sell bad games. They are instead constantly reinforcing how good the games are that come from their franchises.
This guy brings up some interesting ideas but it's not about innovation and gameplay style that is killing them. I got a DS for Christmas and I challenge anybody to say that thing is not innovative. The problem with Nintendo is for every Eternal Darkness game they make they have 10 Pokemon/Harvest Moon/Talking animal games. Teenagers and adults have the money and the market share for videogames. They are the ones that will save up and plop down 50 bucks for Halo 2, GTA, etc.. Buying a cutesy nintendo game means that 5 year old needs to pester his or her parent for the game. Better said then done. Most parents I talk to are apprehensive to shell out money for their child's game habit. Innovation is not the problem. Disney style games are. /my two cents.
-Dipster
For every decent point, the author trots out the same Mario-bashing that has following Nintendo since the SNES. The author shows a complete misunderstanding of how businesses maintain corporate identity and branding when he launches into such brilliant ideas as suggesting Donkey Konga would have been better served with brand new characters instead of recycling Donkey Kong. Because we all know how the PS2's Taiko Drum Master is burning up the charts (another drum peripheral game, nearly identical to Konga, also developed by Namco) because people are just begging for new drum games featuring all new IP. Come on. Half of those dreaded Mario spin-off games are concepts that nobody knew would become huge, and Nintendo figured that attaching Mario to them was the surest way to help their success. Risk = lousy games would diminish the brand, Reward = good games that strengthen the brand. Was there a huge appetite for cart racers before Mario Kart? For party games before Mario Party? For silly golf games before Mario Golf? Nintendo ventured out (Donkey Konga is a risk... new bulky hardware for a genre that mostly runs off one game, DDR), made some sharp games, people lapped them up... so Nintendo realized they hit gold and made more. And then everybody started doing them, and whaddaya know, they mostly paled in comparison.
You can write the same article about PlayStation, switching in Metal Gear, Crash Bandicoot, Ratchet & Clank, Jak & Daxter, Tomb Raider and Grand Theft Auto. The major differences are A) that Nintendo has been around longer - and thus has been doing the branding game longer. And B) that Nintendo's core franchises are family-friendly and thus open to constant ridicule by those who don't like them.
The problem is that the GameCube as a whole wound up becoming the Dreamcast of this generation.
Um, maybe it's just me, but wasn't the Dreamcast the "Dreamcast of this generation"?
You probably shouldn't click this.
It goes like this. Video games are just like every other medium of entertainment. Just like movies, music and TV. There are shows, films, games and songs to cover every genre across the board. What's happened to the video game industry mostly mirrors the film industry. There are shitty blockbuster movies which everyone sees that make a lot of money. But the people who know quality most often stick to art house theatres. There they get quality, but the people who make it get less money due to less marketing.
/. love to attack and infer broad sweeping generalisations like that. What I am saying is that overall Nintendo is concentrating on creating an innovative and new gaming experience that can be enjoyed by all people. As long as they profit, they're happy. All the other companies are mostly concerned with making a quick buck. So they release three GTA games that are all really the same with slightly changed themes. And they release a shitty FPS named Halo, twice, which is pretty much a modernized goldeneye plus vehicles and aliens. It makes them loads of cash the same way a blockbuster film does. But you can't honestly say that their games are high quality works of art. But if you play some Zelda or some Metroid its hard not to.
Nintendo has made the error of making high quality games. People don't realize that the game itself and the theme of a game are two seperate things. For example, look at Star Trek and any daytime soap opera. Both are soap operas, the substance of the shows are identical, but the themes are different. One has an outer space theme and one has a theme of eviltown USA. But the actual substance of the thing is mostly the same.
Nintendo makes high quality games. In fact, most of their games are the highest quality you can get. Just about anything that says Metroid, Mario or Zelda on it is top notch. But the theme, other than Metroid, is not one that appeals to punk teenage kids. They are too manly to buy a mario game even though they know it is better and more fun than GTA whatever. Always worried about graphics and self image instead of their actual gaming experience. So games like BMX XXX exist. These types of games are all the same crappy thing. They come in two genres, run around a shoot things and run around and beat things up, sometimes both. But like blockbuster movies with no substance they sell well.
I'm not saying all Nintendo's games are flawless masterpieces. Nor am I saying that all games for other systems are crap. People on
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
As opposed to... what? Who's pushing the boundaries like Nintendo is at the moment? Sure, the Big N uses familiar franchises pretty often (which is the only gripe I could find the author had). That's to build on established brands, a common marketing strategy.
Despite familiar characters and storylines, Nintendo's in-house games are some of the most original and interesting available today, whereas Sony and Microsoft will play host to the latest multiplayer futuristic shooter or various racing games. Sony practically produces nothing in-house, yet the worldwide PS2 sales are well above GameCube, a distant second place, and Xbox.
The author of the article claims that Nintendo doesn't try new things, and then mentions Super Mario Sunshine. Sunshine tried a new concept, and the fact is that it wasn't well-recieved. EAD tried a new approach to the genre, but it's not their fault people didn't like it.
And that's the thing about innovation. New ideas usually don't start a revolution; they can often backfire, as did the Virtual Boy, or (to a far lesser extent) the graphical style of the new Zelda. For every hit, there are a number of misses. For every DS, there is a Virtual Boy, and an innovator must be prepared for that. Most take the easy, tried-but-true path and use a proven formula to produce a mediocre game, where success of some degree is guaranteed.
The problem with the article is that the author is trying to directly relate innovation with market domination, but if that were the case, Sony wouldn't be in the position they are today.
I was thinking about Nintendo the other day. I trust Sony alot, but Nintendo is the only company I would buy from sight-un-seen. Pretend there is no DS, and Nintendo announces a new system to replace the GBA (the Game Boy Ultra or whatever). No picutres of it anywhere. It's a total myster the specs, the form, the games, everything. You just show up at a store on launch day with your $100 or $150 and buy a system and any games they have. Would you buy that system? I would. I trust Nintendo. They've earned it. I would do the same thing with the successor to the GameCube. I'll almost certanly buy a PS3, and will look hard at a Xbox 2, but I won't hesitate on the Nintendo system.
It may have fewer games, but when the games come out, they are often awesome. Mario, Zelda, Pikmin, Super Smash Brothers, Mario Golf/Tennis, Viewtiful Joe, Donkey Konga, Metroid Prime, and on and on and on. I own more 'cube games than PS2 or X-Box games by far. I just find more games that I really like and are worth more than a 2 day rent on the 'cube.
Analysts can pick at Nintendo all they want. They are no Sega (in that their hardware will stay around). They make great systems, and great games.
Three cheers for Nintendo. Great games and systems since 1984 (that was when the Famicom was released, right)? That's TWO DECADES. Get back to me when Sony and MS have been around making great stuff for TWO DECADES and continue to do it.
PS: I LIKED the virtual boy, I think it died due to mismarketing (shouldn't have been called "virtual boy", that implied portability. It had some fantastic games (Mario Tennis, Mario Crash, the Wario game). You may call it a failure, but I really liked it. They only things they don't deliver on (64DD, SNES-CD, etc.) never got released (at least here in the states) so I can't count them as failures as they were never on the market (again, in the states).
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
"Nintendo's idea of innovation these days is to make a tacky new controller, charge a fortune for it and hope the fanboys buy enough that it breaks even."
At the risk of sounding like a fanboy here (when I actually haven't touched my Cube in a while, my GBA more recently though), I have to say: What?
Nintendo has almost always had some of the cheapest, high quality hardware on the market. I've seen videos of a Gamecube being thrown out of a car and dragged behind by a rope, and still running games after that. How much does it cost? $99. Try that with a $150 PS2 or XBox. I'm scared to death to lug my Xbox around, for fear of upsetting the hard drive with my precious saves on it. My Gamecube is perfectly content to be tossed around.
Even Nintendo's newest handheld is also cheaper ($150) than Sony's offerings ($200), and the features seem to be the same for both (not asking for a feature battle there, I know the differences).