For the better part of a decade, I've been gaming. I own a GameCube, an Xbox, a PS2, and a GBA, and every Nintendo console dating back to the NES, with the exception of the Virtual Boy. As such, I profess that I'm a huge geek. So much so that I highly respect Gunpei Yokoi, Shigeru Miyamoto, Denis Dyack, and Peter Molyneaux (though, most likely, not enough respect to spell the latter's name correctly). The fact that I follow the game industry enough to even know who these people are should be testament to the fact that I'm a geek.
However, perhaps more importantly, I'm enough of a geek to have an unrelenting, and sometimes irrational passion for all things Nintendo. At the core of my inner geek, I am undoubtedly a Nintendo fanboy. Most of my favorite games were made by Nintendo in one facet or another: the Super Mario titles, the Zelda franchise, the Metroid series, etc. No other games, in my opinion, came anywhere near rivaling the quality of Ocarina of Time or Super Mario 64. To me, Nintendo has been historically unmatched in terms of quality. I wasn't the least bit phased when the PS1 was released and slowly removed Nintendo's industry-dominating crown–I was too busy playing Nintendo's N64 games to notice. Hell, I was oblivious to Sony.
But, over time, my standpoint has changed.
Chalk it up to me coming to my senses, my taste in games changing, or Nintendo's failings, but the big N has had its fair share of problems. For starters, their third-party support is abysmal. I may not have cared during the N64 days, where the quality was such that I had barely any regard for quantity, but I care now. Why? Because Nintendo's game quality has slipped from the near-perfection of systems gone by. I don't doubt that they are still fantastic at what they do; rather I think they simply haven't been putting forth the effort they used to into game production.
Super Mario 64 was a work of genius, effectively taking Super Mario into 3D, without sacrificing any of the series' trademarks. The first time I played SM64, I immediately felt that I was playing one of the best games ever. The platforming was so perfectly executed, the graphics so unmatched, and the sense of freedom and exploration so unique that I thought no game could topple it. Now, technology has evolved greatly. The ability to make a much better game than SM64 exists. But what we got with Super Mario Sunshine was less–a cookie-cutter sequel sporting better graphics, smoother controls, larger levels, and not much else, aside from the distinctly non-Mario atmosphere. Granted, it was awesome, but it didn't quite have that innovative, instant classic quality so many Nintendo games before it did. It felt like a lazy follow-up, even if it was still really good.
The same was true of Wind Waker. Ocarina of Time exuded brilliance in the same way Super Mario 64 did before it. Nintendo brought the series into 3D in a big way, and the result was stunning. Wind Waker, however, felt lazy. With a difficulty curve that virtually guaranteed a Zelda vet wouldn't have to worry about ever dying, a scope that didn't even try to match the epic scale of Ocarina of Time, and a sloppily-implemented sailing system that never fully materialized, and got repetitive and old after about an hour, to boot, playing the game left me with the feeling that Nintendo didn't care like they used to. In my opinion, it didn't have the same luster of its predecessor. With better hardware came a game that failed to meet the expectations set by Ocarina of Time, at least for me.
Now, the same is not necessarily true of Metroid Prime and Metroid Prime 2, F-Zero GX, or even the upcoming Advance Wars: Under Fire, Star Fox 2, or Donkey Konga. But what do these games have in common? They weren't developed by Nintendo! It seemed, last-gen, that Nintendo's franchises were sacred. Simply doling out their franchises to obscure/up-and-coming developers may work, but not only is it a gamble (i.e. Kuju) it demonstrates the thread that connects Wind Waker, Super Mario Sunshine, and all of these games: laziness.
With this generation, Nintendo hasn't exhibited the drive to quality we witnessed in previous generations. Innovation maybe, but better and greater games, not really. It's not that Nintendo is worse at making games, it's that their mindset may be incorrect.
Nintendo does have the capability of developing quality products, but they do it on their terms; it's as if they have an arrogance that lingers in every decision they make. "We'll make the games we want to make, and damnation if we do otherwise." When I see Nintendo stubbornly refusing to admit the viability of online gaming, and turning their heads at the population segment that plays most games (15 to 34 year-olds), I see a company that is arrogant. They don't seem give a damn about what games would appeal to our segment, what genres we favor, or generally what games we want.
Instead, they continue doing their own thing. I used to think that this was a good trait. Being innovative and unique is better than giving in to popular demand, right? That is true, but the flaw in that line of reasoning is this: they aren't mutually exclusive possibilities. It is entirely reasonable both to innovate and be creative, while at the same time appealing to a mainstream audience. Nintendo could have actively pursued getting better third-party support and more third-party exclusives, they could have developed more adult-oriented games (or at least had second-parties to do it for them), and they could have encouraged developers to create online games for their system.
But they've done none of these things. The reason seems to be readily apparent: Nintendo is arrogant. By getting rid of essentially all of their second-parties (which I think were crucial, as Rare and Silicon Knights developed titles that could strike a chord with more mainstream gamers, which is something Nintendo isn't very skilled at doing), not regularly paying for good third-party exclusives, and not giving other developers much justification to create games for their system, Nintendo is displaying arrogance. An arrogance that suggests gamers will continue to play Nintendo systems simply for Nintendo games.
And I don't see this as being true as it was 10 years ago. Gamers aren't clamoring for Nintendo games like they used to–when Vice City, Halo, and the Metal Gear series is more successful than Mario, perhaps it says something about the games most gamers want to play. Maybe Nintendo should adjust to the times and admit that they aren't the al-powerful, infallible leviathan they once were. Nintendo seems to pay so little attention to the gamers that it looks like they behave the same way they did when the used to be the most popular company in games. And this is very dangerous, especially when popularity among western gamers is at an all-time low. Nintendo is in last-place in the US, and they need to think about getting their foot more firmly in the door come next-generation. They need to start appealing to western audiences and mainstream gamers, they need to make their systems conducive to third-parties, and most importantly, they need to be competitive. Right now, they aren't really following through with these steps, and it may very well come back to haunt them when the Revolution ships.
Nintendo does have a dedicated fanbase, but as it stands, those people can't give Nintendo the success they need if they hope to be a force in this industry, especially when Nintendo alienates even them by giving franchises to no-name developers, and being lazy with the franchises they do develop. If they don't start getting more active in changing, they may be on a downhill slope. And acting like they still own the industry isn't helping. At this point, I wonder whether they will still be in the home console business after the Revolution.
Now, all these points I've made could suggest that Nitnendo isn't being arrogant, so much as they simply aren't going for the mainstream audience. They may be content with niche marketing. And they will always have a niche of consumers to keep them at that level if it's the path they've chosen. But in the end, I just wish they could change with the times, and try to make games that have wider appeal–they are such a great developer that I hate to see them concentrate that skill on making lazy, oddball, or niche games instead of deep, complex titles that cater to people like me.
And that's that. What are your thoughts on the subject? Do you think Nintendo is in a good or bad place? Do you think their business strategy is working, or do you think they need to shift it to have a more certain future in the industry? Send your comments to Aristotlekh@gmail.com.
However, perhaps more importantly, I'm enough of a geek to have an unrelenting, and sometimes irrational passion for all things Nintendo. At the core of my inner geek, I am undoubtedly a Nintendo fanboy. Most of my favorite games were made by Nintendo in one facet or another: the Super Mario titles, the Zelda franchise, the Metroid series, etc. No other games, in my opinion, came anywhere near rivaling the quality of Ocarina of Time or Super Mario 64. To me, Nintendo has been historically unmatched in terms of quality. I wasn't the least bit phased when the PS1 was released and slowly removed Nintendo's industry-dominating crown–I was too busy playing Nintendo's N64 games to notice. Hell, I was oblivious to Sony.
But, over time, my standpoint has changed.
Chalk it up to me coming to my senses, my taste in games changing, or Nintendo's failings, but the big N has had its fair share of problems. For starters, their third-party support is abysmal. I may not have cared during the N64 days, where the quality was such that I had barely any regard for quantity, but I care now. Why? Because Nintendo's game quality has slipped from the near-perfection of systems gone by. I don't doubt that they are still fantastic at what they do; rather I think they simply haven't been putting forth the effort they used to into game production.
Super Mario 64 was a work of genius, effectively taking Super Mario into 3D, without sacrificing any of the series' trademarks. The first time I played SM64, I immediately felt that I was playing one of the best games ever. The platforming was so perfectly executed, the graphics so unmatched, and the sense of freedom and exploration so unique that I thought no game could topple it. Now, technology has evolved greatly. The ability to make a much better game than SM64 exists. But what we got with Super Mario Sunshine was less–a cookie-cutter sequel sporting better graphics, smoother controls, larger levels, and not much else, aside from the distinctly non-Mario atmosphere. Granted, it was awesome, but it didn't quite have that innovative, instant classic quality so many Nintendo games before it did. It felt like a lazy follow-up, even if it was still really good.
The same was true of Wind Waker. Ocarina of Time exuded brilliance in the same way Super Mario 64 did before it. Nintendo brought the series into 3D in a big way, and the result was stunning. Wind Waker, however, felt lazy. With a difficulty curve that virtually guaranteed a Zelda vet wouldn't have to worry about ever dying, a scope that didn't even try to match the epic scale of Ocarina of Time, and a sloppily-implemented sailing system that never fully materialized, and got repetitive and old after about an hour, to boot, playing the game left me with the feeling that Nintendo didn't care like they used to. In my opinion, it didn't have the same luster of its predecessor. With better hardware came a game that failed to meet the expectations set by Ocarina of Time, at least for me.
Now, the same is not necessarily true of Metroid Prime and Metroid Prime 2, F-Zero GX, or even the upcoming Advance Wars: Under Fire, Star Fox 2, or Donkey Konga. But what do these games have in common? They weren't developed by Nintendo! It seemed, last-gen, that Nintendo's franchises were sacred. Simply doling out their franchises to obscure/up-and-coming developers may work, but not only is it a gamble (i.e. Kuju) it demonstrates the thread that connects Wind Waker, Super Mario Sunshine, and all of these games: laziness.
With this generation, Nintendo hasn't exhibited the drive to quality we witnessed in previous generations. Innovation maybe, but better and greater games, not really. It's not that Nintendo is worse at making games, it's that their mindset may be incorrect.
Nintendo does have the capability of developing quality products, but they do it on their terms; it's as if they have an arrogance that lingers in every decision they make. "We'll make the games we want to make, and damnation if we do otherwise." When I see Nintendo stubbornly refusing to admit the viability of online gaming, and turning their heads at the population segment that plays most games (15 to 34 year-olds), I see a company that is arrogant. They don't seem give a damn about what games would appeal to our segment, what genres we favor, or generally what games we want.
Instead, they continue doing their own thing. I used to think that this was a good trait. Being innovative and unique is better than giving in to popular demand, right? That is true, but the flaw in that line of reasoning is this: they aren't mutually exclusive possibilities. It is entirely reasonable both to innovate and be creative, while at the same time appealing to a mainstream audience. Nintendo could have actively pursued getting better third-party support and more third-party exclusives, they could have developed more adult-oriented games (or at least had second-parties to do it for them), and they could have encouraged developers to create online games for their system.
But they've done none of these things. The reason seems to be readily apparent: Nintendo is arrogant. By getting rid of essentially all of their second-parties (which I think were crucial, as Rare and Silicon Knights developed titles that could strike a chord with more mainstream gamers, which is something Nintendo isn't very skilled at doing), not regularly paying for good third-party exclusives, and not giving other developers much justification to create games for their system, Nintendo is displaying arrogance. An arrogance that suggests gamers will continue to play Nintendo systems simply for Nintendo games.
And I don't see this as being true as it was 10 years ago. Gamers aren't clamoring for Nintendo games like they used to–when Vice City, Halo, and the Metal Gear series is more successful than Mario, perhaps it says something about the games most gamers want to play. Maybe Nintendo should adjust to the times and admit that they aren't the al-powerful, infallible leviathan they once were. Nintendo seems to pay so little attention to the gamers that it looks like they behave the same way they did when the used to be the most popular company in games. And this is very dangerous, especially when popularity among western gamers is at an all-time low. Nintendo is in last-place in the US, and they need to think about getting their foot more firmly in the door come next-generation. They need to start appealing to western audiences and mainstream gamers, they need to make their systems conducive to third-parties, and most importantly, they need to be competitive. Right now, they aren't really following through with these steps, and it may very well come back to haunt them when the Revolution ships.
Nintendo does have a dedicated fanbase, but as it stands, those people can't give Nintendo the success they need if they hope to be a force in this industry, especially when Nintendo alienates even them by giving franchises to no-name developers, and being lazy with the franchises they do develop. If they don't start getting more active in changing, they may be on a downhill slope. And acting like they still own the industry isn't helping. At this point, I wonder whether they will still be in the home console business after the Revolution.
Now, all these points I've made could suggest that Nitnendo isn't being arrogant, so much as they simply aren't going for the mainstream audience. They may be content with niche marketing. And they will always have a niche of consumers to keep them at that level if it's the path they've chosen. But in the end, I just wish they could change with the times, and try to make games that have wider appeal–they are such a great developer that I hate to see them concentrate that skill on making lazy, oddball, or niche games instead of deep, complex titles that cater to people like me.
And that's that. What are your thoughts on the subject? Do you think Nintendo is in a good or bad place? Do you think their business strategy is working, or do you think they need to shift it to have a more certain future in the industry? Send your comments to Aristotlekh@gmail.com.
Recent Features
- Exclusive Interview: Deca Sports Wii (Nintendo Wii Interview) » NintendoSpin talks with Hudson about its upcoming casual sports game. Find out why they think you'll have more fun figure skating than you'll want to admit to your friends. Exclusive screenshots inside as well.
- The Five DS games that you should get this Christmas (Nintendo DS Editorial) » Three off-the-shelf titles and two imports that you just shouldn't skip.
A special article by Mykas A. - NintendoSpin Recommends Multiplayer DS Games (Nintendo DS Editorial) » Tired of playing your DS alone? NintendoSpin gives you our top multiplayer DS game recommendations.
- Left Hand, Right Hand (Miscellaneous Editorial) » No, they're not the same.
- Interesting DS titles released in October (Nintendo DS Editorial) » Monthly article by Mykas A.
What Nintendo DS games released in October should you look for? - Interesting DS titles released in September (Nintendo DS Editorial) » Monthly article by Mykas A.
What Nintendo DS games released in September should you look for? - Interesting DS titles released in August (Nintendo DS Editorial) » Monthly article by Mykas A.
What Nintendo DS games released in the past month should you look for?
