How is Nintendo successful?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



VG_Addict
How is Nintendo successful when they're consistently behind the times, from not using CDs to having bad online?

cdtm
Because they're like the mafia.


They swooped in after the video game crash and used their position to strong arm retailers into price fixing schemes. Competition was kept off the shelf on threat of being cut off from Nintendo supply chains.

They got caught twice, once in the 80's and once in the early 2000's.


That, and an army of fanboys willing to pay "evergreen" prices, exacerbated by artificial scarcity.


I suspect there's some insider shenanigans behind the scalpers getting product at triple or more price hikes. Either they have deals set up with retailers, or are retailers themselves posing as third parties.

Smasandian
Easy...they're IP is probably the best in the biz in terms of instant sales.
Even if some of the games are lazy and uninspired.

It even allows them to get away with things that other companies cant...like Animal Crossing and the inability to have multiple islands per game....hell..multiple islands per console.

Nemesis X
Originally posted by VG_Addict
How is Nintendo successful when they're consistently behind the times, from not using CDs to having bad online?

They give you a complete games on arrival for one thing.

VG_Addict
Is Nintendo bad at making consoles?

StyleTime
Regarding the OP, I guess it depends on how in-depth an answer you want.

Simply put, people buy their stuff.

Jmanghan
Depends.

People hated the Wii U.

Ridley_Prime
The Wii U wasn't really hated so much as it was just not marketed at all.

Japan was the slowest to embracing online gaming (they're more social locally than a lot of us Westerners), and Nintendo's the most Japanese of the big game companies which is why they've been behind the times with online compared to everyone else. Even their home nation is finally getting impatient with them now far as that though, so I don't think it can be as bad as it has forever. Like a lot of things with them though, it'll be baby step improvements. I like what Nintendo puts out here and there, but they're run by out of touch draconian old men.

Smasandian
It wasn't hated but it was just a really bad idea.

BackFire
They have some of the most popular and important franchises in video game history. They succeed because of their IP's, and because sometimes they innovate in the hardware sector with a good idea that catches on, lik the Wii or the Switch.

cdtm
Originally posted by BackFire
They have some of the most popular and important franchises in video game history. They succeed because of their IP's, and because sometimes they innovate in the hardware sector with a good idea that catches on, lik the Wii or the Switch.


Popular, yes. But only because they had the capital to bring their IP front and center first after the Atari 2600 crash.. Any other IP would have been so revered, like if Sonic came first.


You'd he surprised just how dirty Nintendo is:


https://www.cbr.com/nintendo-japanese-yakuza-history/



They took their dirty Yakuza money and strong arm tactics and won initiative, and kept it by equally dirty tactics.

ares834
Originally posted by cdtm
Popular, yes. But only because they had the capital to bring their IP front and center first after the Atari 2600 crash.. Any other IP would have been so revered, like if Sonic came first.

This is utter bull shit. They're popular because they are good. The NES Mario games blow the original Sonic games away. Metroid and Zelda were also some very high quality games for the time and both franchises would be improved dramatically on the SNES.

cdtm
Originally posted by ares834
This is utter bull shit. They're popular because they are good. The NES Mario games blow the original Sonic games away. Metroid and Zelda were also some very high quality games for the time and both franchises would be improved dramatically on the SNES.

I still play my Nintendo from time to time. The original Super Mario Brothers and Zelda was not better than many alternatives. Especially on home computers, but there was plenty of comparable experiences.


Nintendo hasn't innovated from their initial formula much at all. Even Metroid Prime, Mario 64, and OOT rehash the same formula from a different perspective.


But with nostalgia goggles, they don't need to.

Smasandian
I would somewhat agree that their big titles usually follow tied and true formula....which doesn't necessarily mean a bad thing....but just makes things a bit tired.

Occasionally, they come out with something unique like Breath of the Wild but I find the Mario titles very samey...and needing a huge makover.

Doesn't mean they are not made well...

hayama
Nintendo is super popular among gamers among the whole world. I played nintendo in past a lot but latest time I got interest in e sport games like LOl, dota, csgo and overwatch. Yesterday checked lol live https://tips.gg/lol/matches/ and supported the games of favourite teams.

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by ares834
This is utter bull shit. They're popular because they are good. The NES Mario games blow the original Sonic games away. Metroid and Zelda were also some very high quality games for the time and both franchises would be improved dramatically on the SNES.

Nintendo used to be very good. But as someone who was brought up on their content in the 80s, I find their newer stuff to be utterly lacking in taste. For one, the gameplay hasn't gotten better than competitors, the appearance of their games has remained cartoony and childish (or in the case of LoZ, strayed into that territory and never returned), and their gimmicky consoles and controllers were more offputting than even Xbox's Duke. If I can say anything positive it's that Nintendo almost never puts out an un-optimized game, so their titles tend to have really high standards and polish and that I really appreciate.

When I hit my teens, the 64 was still cool, but the Playstation was better. It had a larger library because they didn't throttle third party developers, more mature content, and a reasonable controller. Nintendo's also stupid about keeping their game prices high all the time, which makes people with limited funds reconsider their games in lieu of something that'll actually be marked down for a sale at some point. When I started working jobs in high school and wanting to buy more games, it was easier to buy cheap used PS games than 64 ones. I bought a Gamecube, but mostly for Resident Evil exclusives and Smash Bros. and little else. By the time the Wii came around, I was done with Nintendo until the 3DS came out.

As for Mario being better than Sonic, I guess? I mean, that's not comparing like with like. Sonic came out for the Genesis, which came out well into the NES/Famicom's reign and after the Master System, and definitely had a hardware bump over NES Mario trilogy. But considering the NES Marios were just old school ratchet scrolling platformers, they hadn't aged well when Sonic really hit its stride. And to be frank, all of the Mario games post-64 were just garbage for kids.

Zelda, in my opinion, hit its peak with SNES, and then reinvented itself with Ocarina of Time. OoT was a good game, and I enjoyed it, but it felt a bit cartoony compared to Link's Awakening of Adventure of Link. By the time Majora's Mask dropped, I was losing interest, and didn't pick one up again until Breath of the Wild. Which, while a much better game, still didn't make me want to play it for more than a few sessions at most. And this is because it just retreads gameplay mechanics which were cool years beforehand.

Lastly, Super Metroid was amazeballs, but Metroid Zero was not.

cdtm
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Nintendo used to be very good. But as someone who was brought up on their content in the 80s, I find their newer stuff to be utterly lacking in taste. For one, the gameplay hasn't gotten better than competitors, the appearance of their games has remained cartoony and childish (or in the case of LoZ, strayed into that territory and never returned), and their gimmicky consoles and controllers were more offputting than even Xbox's Duke. If I can say anything positive it's that Nintendo almost never puts out an un-optimized game, so their titles tend to have really high standards and polish and that I really appreciate.

When I hit my teens, the 64 was still cool, but the Playstation was better. It had a larger library because they didn't throttle third party developers, more mature content, and a reasonable controller. Nintendo's also stupid about keeping their game prices high all the time, which makes people with limited funds reconsider their games in lieu of something that'll actually be marked down for a sale at some point. When I started working jobs in high school and wanting to buy more games, it was easier to buy cheap used PS games than 64 ones. I bought a Gamecube, but mostly for Resident Evil exclusives and Smash Bros. and little else. By the time the Wii came around, I was done with Nintendo until the 3DS came out.

As for Mario being better than Sonic, I guess? I mean, that's not comparing like with like. Sonic came out for the Genesis, which came out well into the NES/Famicom's reign and after the Master System, and definitely had a hardware bump over NES Mario trilogy. But considering the NES Marios were just old school ratchet scrolling platformers, they hadn't aged well when Sonic really hit its stride. And to be frank, all of the Mario games post-64 were just garbage for kids.

Zelda, in my opinion, hit its peak with SNES, and then reinvented itself with Ocarina of Time. OoT was a good game, and I enjoyed it, but it felt a bit cartoony compared to Link's Awakening of Adventure of Link. By the time Majora's Mask dropped, I was losing interest, and didn't pick one up again until Breath of the Wild. Which, while a much better game, still didn't make me want to play it for more than a few sessions at most. And this is because it just retreads gameplay mechanics which were cool years beforehand.

Lastly, Super Metroid was amazeballs, but Metroid Zero was not.


Metal Gear Solid >>>>>>>>>> Mario 64 and Zelda combined.

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by cdtm
Metal Gear Solid >>>>>>>>>> Mario 64 and Zelda combined.

MGS was really good stuff. I aced that and VR Missions when it came out.

StyleTime
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
If I can say anything positive it's that Nintendo almost never puts out an un-optimized game, so their titles tend to have really high standards and polish and that I really appreciate.
thumb up

The only time I've ever ran into a bug in a Nintendo game was Metroid Prime. I guess I jumped on a crate the wrong way, and Samus got caught in a loop where she'd fall through the crate and come out the ceiling over and over again.

Console-wise, I've never had a problem. I actually abused some of my Nintendo consoles pretty hard, and they worked fine years later. My Sony and Microsoft consoles had issues despite me taking very good care of them though.

There are some statistics around that show Nintendo consoles fail significantly less than the competition too, albeit nothing comprehensive.
https://www.squaretrade.com/htm/pdf/SquareTrade_Xbox360_PS3_Wii_Reliability_0809.pdf

In a way, Nintendo are craftspeople rather than necessarily artists.

cdtm
Originally posted by StyleTime
thumb up

The only time I've ever ran into a bug in a Nintendo game was Metroid Prime. I guess I jumped on a crate the wrong way, and Samus got caught in a loop where she'd fall through the crate and come out the ceiling over and over again.

Console-wise, I've never had a problem. I actually abused some of my Nintendo consoles pretty hard, and they worked fine years later. My Sony and Microsoft consoles had issues despite me taking very good care of them though.

There are some statistics around that show Nintendo consoles fail significantly less than the competition too, albeit nothing comprehensive.
https://www.squaretrade.com/htm/pdf/SquareTrade_Xbox360_PS3_Wii_Reliability_0809.pdf

In a way, Nintendo are craftspeople rather than necessarily artists.


The original Nintendo and Gameboy are well documented as cheaply made. Being "sturdy" does not equate to being more sophisticated, your clunky old brick cell phone could survive a drop out the window onto concrete while your modern phone cracks sitting in your pocket.

Ridley_Prime
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
And to be frank, all of the Mario games post-64 were just garbage for kids.
Definitely disagree. Super Mario Galaxy was great, Odyssey was solid too. SM64 was great for its time, but pretty aged compared to what came after. There was Sunshine also, but it was highly overrated imo. Outside of Mario Kart, never really cared for the spinoffs, but even that's gotten stale or sterile now.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Lastly, Super Metroid was amazeballs, but Metroid Zero was not.
Metroid Prime though? Apart from one unwanted mistimed spinoff on the 3DS, Metroid in general was never cartoony at least, which always helped it stand out for me amongst the other IP's.

I was otherwise similarly done with Nintendo for awhile around the Wii era, but yeah.

Originally posted by cdtm
Metal Gear Solid >>>>>>>>>> Mario 64 and Zelda combined.
I like me some Metal Gear too, but can't really compare a stealth action to a platformer like Mario. They're different beasts.

StyleTime
Originally posted by cdtm
The original Nintendo and Gameboy are well documented as cheaply made. Being "sturdy" does not equate to being more sophisticated, your clunky old brick cell phone could survive a drop out the window onto concrete while your modern phone cracks sitting in your pocket.
Right. Which is what I said.

We were talking about how polished the finished products are, not how sophisticated it is. Nintendo games aren't generally the ones needing to be bugfixed constantly after release.

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
Definitely disagree. Super Mario Galaxy was great, Odyssey was solid too. SM64 was great for its time, but pretty aged compared to what came after. There was Sunshine also, but it was highly overrated imo. Outside of Mario Kart, never really cared for the spinoffs, but even that's gotten stale or sterile now.

I didn't care much for Galaxy or Odyssey. Part of the problem is that Mario himself hasn't aged well and if the gameplay isn't really fun and innovative, why bother? I remember being so excited to play Mario 3 I convinced my mother to call me in sick for the day. Now, you could give me a copy of Galaxy and Odyssey or whatever new Mario game is coming out and I probably wouldn't waste my time installing it. There's just too much competition now and Mario was fun when I was a kid. I'm a grown up now.

As for spin offs, the Mario Kart games have done well enough up until 7, but the Mario Party games and other spinoffs have taken steps back. The Switch Mario Party actually has fewer maps and modes than MP1.

Now keep in mind I got tons of mileage out of the older Mario games, including the All Stars Remakes, Japanese Mario 2, etc. But I was also a lot younger back than and my expectations were lower on what I thought was a fun and acceptable game. You couldn't sell me any new Mario games at this point and for the full price sticker regardless of its age, Nintendo assures that I won't even touch the older stuff a few years after their release.



True, but they changed the formula up a few times and not always for the better. I think Super Metroid was probably my all time favorite.




True, but MGS games aged better and can be remade. I had a discussion with a friend of mine about how I can't stand most of the retro pixel art games coming out on Steam anymore, and I realized it's because I expect game design to move forward and innovate. Going backwards sucks, unless you can really ride the nostalgia. Which is something I just can't do anymore.

Originally posted by cdtm
The original Nintendo and Gameboy are well documented as cheaply made. Being "sturdy" does not equate to being more sophisticated, your clunky old brick cell phone could survive a drop out the window onto concrete while your modern phone cracks sitting in your pocket.

In all fairness, my original SNES got a ginger ale upended into it by a vengeful mother, and a cartridge ripped in half down the seam, and both still work over 20 years since both incidents happen. They might be cheaply made, but for another time.

NemeBro
There is only a single video game I can think of that might exceed Odyssey in terms of gameplay versatility (Metal Gear Solid V btw). The amount of ways you can use Cappy to traverse the various levels and game worlds through capturing or as a jumping platform gives skilled players a depth of choice that exceeds any Mario game and possibly any platformer, at least that I can recall, for I haven't played many platformers of late so there could be a lower profile title I don't know of.

Ridley_Prime
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I didn't care much for Galaxy or Odyssey. Part of the problem is that Mario himself hasn't aged well and if the gameplay isn't really fun and innovative, why bother? I remember being so excited to play Mario 3 I convinced my mother to call me in sick for the day. Now, you could give me a copy of Galaxy and Odyssey or whatever new Mario game is coming out and I probably wouldn't waste my time installing it. There's just too much competition now and Mario was fun when I was a kid. I'm a grown up now.

As for spin offs, the Mario Kart games have done well enough up until 7, but the Mario Party games and other spinoffs have taken steps back. The Switch Mario Party actually has fewer maps and modes than MP1.

Now keep in mind I got tons of mileage out of the older Mario games, including the All Stars Remakes, Japanese Mario 2, etc. But I was also a lot younger back than and my expectations were lower on what I thought was a fun and acceptable game. You couldn't sell me any new Mario games at this point and for the full price sticker regardless of its age, Nintendo assures that I won't even touch the older stuff a few years after their release.

True, but they changed the formula up a few times and not always for the better. I think Super Metroid was probably my all time favorite.

True, but MGS games aged better and can be remade. I had a discussion with a friend of mine about how I can't stand most of the retro pixel art games coming out on Steam anymore, and I realized it's because I expect game design to move forward and innovate. Going backwards sucks, unless you can really ride the nostalgia. Which is something I just can't do anymore.
I think part of why Mario hasn't aged that well in general is because he's a corporate mascot like Mickey Mouse and thus isn't allowed to have a personality or much story or whathaveyou. I still have fun with the gameplay of his games though, and I play plenty different or more mature things too; doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. I get you though, and can understand having just outgrown a series like that.

With how non-innovative and bloated AAA gaming can also get, I don't blame people for being nostalgic for pixel art/sprite stuff made by Indies, but that's different markets for different people.

Smasandian
I would argue that AAA and indie titles have the same problem. In both categories, there is games that do something cool...and games that just follow the same outline as previous.

For instance, just have a Game Pass account and the amount of indie games that come on it....they all fall in the same type of categories....roguelike, survival, card based....then ....well..roguelike...well....this game is a bullet type rogue like with 16 bit type graphics....

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
I think part of why Mario hasn't aged that well in general is because he's a corporate mascot like Mickey Mouse and thus isn't allowed to have a personality or much story or whathaveyou. I still have fun with the gameplay of his games though, and I play plenty different or more mature things too; doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. I get you though, and can understand having just outgrown a series like that.

With how non-innovative and bloated AAA gaming can also get, I don't blame people for being nostalgic for pixel art/sprite stuff made by Indies, but that's different markets for different people.

That's fair. For my own thoughts, it's not the pixel art itself which I detest, but the lack of creativity when it comes to using them. If a game is pixel graphics but has some kind of awesome story telling element, or solid strategy behind it, etc. I'm fine with it. Actually, the lack of focus on the graphics means the devs can instead work on other important things.

But there's a LOT of mediocre to garbage tier pixel art top down shooters, platformers, and Castlevania SotN clones on Steam and elsewhere, and I'm done with that. Don't reinvent the wheel just to make ten bucks.

Originally posted by Smasandian
I would argue that AAA and indie titles have the same problem. In both categories, there is games that do something cool...and games that just follow the same outline as previous.

For instance, just have a Game Pass account and the amount of indie games that come on it....they all fall in the same type of categories....roguelike, survival, card based....then ....well..roguelike...well....this game is a bullet type rogue like with 16 bit type graphics....

I'm also kind of sick of rogue-like games. I played in the era of original NES hard titles, and beat my fair share of difficult ones like Battletoads, Ninja Gaiden trilogy, all three Castlevanias and Contra 1/2. But back then I was in single digits and had all the time in the world and four games to work on. Now I have a Steam library close to 500 and I just don't give a shit about how 'hard' your game is because I work full time and I want to relax and be a space man or a pirate, not strugglebus just to get the most out of your game.

Like, Darkest Dungeons has an amazing atmosphere, story, and combat mechanic, but the roguelike mechanics are just fake difficulty that detract from it. Same with Bloodborne; absolutely awesome storyline and atmosphere, with interesting combat, ruined by tryhard Dark Souls BS.

Smasandian
Some are OK...I agree with you about roguelike games...but they are built for others that would have time.

Hades did a real good job allowing people who do not have the time to be able to beat it. It introduces a brilliant God Mode feature....where it gives a blanket 20% damage reduction bonus, which increases whenever you die by like 1% or something like that...

And then you can just turn it off at any time....so I was turning it on during boss fights.

StyleTime
I do actually enjoy a challenge in my games, but I am definitely more selective about which games I "git gud" at nowadays. This is especially true for Challenge Modes/Time Trials/Boss Rush/Speedrun features in games.

I'm not running through hyper enhanced versions of all the bosses or swarms of enemies when I could just move on to a brand new game. I get others like it, but that stuff barely registers as real content for me. With rare exceptions.

I've also become much more okay with cheese tactics and abusing A.I. blindspots when need be. Hell, in Catherine, I straight up skipped the actual battles and just played it like a point-and-click adventure game. I'm glad they included that option, because that puzzle battle system requires way more effort than I'm willing to give.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.