Current Events > Nintendo is not a top tier game developer. Not by a long shot...

(+) Yeah! (+)

Literally over 30 years and ppl are still buying into Sega marketing gimmicks about graphics basically
---

LockeMonster posted...

Dark_twisted posted...

Yeah I don't get how not including a $2 equates to not making good games.

That's not what I'm saying at all...

That's the only answer you've provided to his question tho
---

Mr_Biscuit posted...

SwayM posted...

Imagine the XBONE 2 gets released 2020

No party chat

Bare bones as as it comes

Download an app on your phone if you want to talk to your friends fuckers

We're Microsoft

We've been in the game for years bitch

You'll buy our shit regardless.

a) Does it come at a reasonable price point with a bunch of good games and a unique purpose? Might overlook the flaws

b) This topic was about games, I thought? As a console developer I have different criticisms of them. Its almost like you just wanted to bash Nintendo and switched subjects when the games angle didnt take

A reasonably priced piece of shit is still a piece of shit. But a piece of shit is better than nothing, thats the defence?

The only point anyone in this topic has brought against the criticisms of Nintendo resting on their laurels is games are fun and you literally cannot defend their absymal online infrastructure in 2018.

I thought you were going to criticize them for something we have a terrible defence for. If youre going to point out something we cant defend thats just unfair.

Online play is so ingrained in video game culture now you literally cant ignore it. Its absolutely relevant to the conversation about game quality. Having bad online = worse games. Common sense fam.
---

Games and the console's OS are completely different arguments.

Imagine making this topic about first party Sony games and then criticizing crossplay and lack of BC.
---

Imagine being able to challenge an argument with actual points.

You just keep drawing lines in the sand about what my topic is about fam.
---

people like TC make me think that they'd be much happier if all game developers would just merge into one company, since "they don't all do things exactly the same" = bad
---

Dont challenge my precious Nintendo to be better
---

SwayM posted...

Dont challenge my precious Nintendo to be better

Again, games don't need huge budgets or scripts to be better.

I'm not gonna deny they need to improve their hardware design though.
---

SwayM posted...

Dont challenge my precious Nintendo to be better

Last year Nintendo had two goty contenders, I'd say they're doing pretty good.
---

CM_Ponch posted...

That's the only answer you've provided to his question tho

Then perhaps you should reread what I'm saying because I explained things pretty well.
---

PanzerElite posted...

This is the problem with most games these days. They have amazing production values but just aren't very fun to play.

All flash, no substance

No, that's not a problem with most games. Most games, by count, are indie games that can't pay for production values and have to sell the game on either gameplay or just getting idiots to buy it based on the trailer. But people dismiss all these good games because they would rather lump games like Ori and the Blind Forest, Dead Cells, Factorio, Cuphead, and Mark of the Ninja in with cheap cash-in asset flips despite them clearly being on a different tier the moment they stop covering their eyes and ears long enough to watch the gameplay for two minutes. Either that or until Microsoft licenses them, anyway, and suddenly everyone loves Cuphead and Ori.

Overinvesting in production values is certainly a problem with mainstream AAA gaming, yeah, although I think you're overstating how many are not fun to play. The issue is more that someone who plays a lot of games will have seen too much of the same patterns before.
---

CM_Ponch posted...

LockeMonster posted...

Dark_twisted posted...

Yeah I don't get how not including a $2 equates to not making good games.

That's not what I'm saying at all...

That's the only answer you've provided to his question tho

Its because he doesnt have any real answers to my question
---

Scottydoesntno posted...

Its because he doesnt have any real answers to my question

Again, I explained things perfectly fine. I'm sorry comprehension is hard for you.
---

LockeMonster posted...

Scottydoesntno posted...

Its because he doesnt have any real answers to my question

Again, I explained things perfectly fine. I'm sorry comprehension is hard for you.

But you can't give any specific examples which is what was asked of you hours ago.

I don't really think making AAA games with a lower budget is a bad thing.

BOTW only needed to sell like 2 million copies to make a profit. Meanwhile games like Tomb Raider somehow need to sell more than double that to make a profit.

Production values aren't the end all/be all for video games. For games like Uncharted then yeah sure. That game won't hold up as well if it didn't have insane production values. But not every game needs them. BOTW doesn't need Nolan North and Mario Odyssey doesn't need a 1,000 page game script to be fantastic. They certainly don't feel like they're cheap or lacking because of those creative decisions.
---

Unknown5uspect posted...

But you can't give any specific examples which is what was asked of you hours ago.

I asked you to respond in detail rebuting my argument and you ignored me. I asked you several questions for further clarification so I can respond.

I'm not saying these games are of poor quality or cheap like that Hoth alt keeps insisting and trolling over.

I'm saying they can definitely be so much more, but the company philosophy does not allow them to go too much further with it. So they stick to what's safe and familiar. Me, TC and many others would like more even if what we get right now is satisfactory.

That one of TC's point. And the examples I listed of them being cheap as a company are there to provide evidence to the eventual question of "how do you figure Nintendo is a cheap company?"

Because they do these things that even the competitions do not and are always lagging behind with everything, yet they are worth as much as Sony, who has a way more on their plate.

The rebuttals I'm getting are the same ones from the 90s. Basically that gameplay > everything, which is such an outdated argument.
---

lol ridic
---

SwayM posted...

Naughty Dog

Lol no low tier at best
---

LockeMonster posted...

Because they do these things that even the competitions do not and are always lagging behind with everything, yet they are worth as much as Sony, who has a way more on their plate.

lol but that's why Sony (and Microsoft) are overall more willing to throw in a lot of money. Because they have other things to fall back on until they can regain their profits. Remember how long the PlayStation and Xbox divisions were in the red at times?

Having more money doesn't mean the game is better anyway. Some of the most disappointing and lame games have had extremely high budgets.

Also I do find it interesting that your point here is that they're a cheap company because they don't make handhelds. Microsoft never even bothered making handhelds and Sony cut the cord years ago because neither of them consider that area profitable at all.
---

LockeMonster posted...

Unknown5uspect posted...

But you can't give any specific examples which is what was asked of you hours ago.

I asked you to respond in detail rebuting my argument and you ignored me. I asked you several questions for further clarification so I can respond.

I'm not saying these games are of poor quality or cheap like that Hoth alt keeps insisting and trolling over.

I'm saying they can definitely be so much more, but the company philosophy does not allow them to go too much further with it. So they stick to what's safe and familiar. Me, TC and many others would like more even if what we get right now is satisfactory.

That one of TC's point. And the examples I listed of them being cheap as a company are there to provide evidence to the eventual question of "how do you figure Nintendo is a cheap company?"

Because they do these things that even the competitions do not and are always lagging behind with everything, yet they are worth as much as Sony, who has a way more on their plate.

The rebuttals I'm getting are the same ones from the 90s. Basically that gameplay > everything, which is such an outdated argument.

But Nintendo charging for a charger has nothing to do with the quality of their games. And how is gameplay not the most important aspect of a game?
---

Darmik posted...

lol but that's why Sony (and Microsoft) are overall more willing to throw in a lot of money. Because they have other things to fall back on until they can regain their profits. Remember how long the PlayStation and Xbox divisions were in the red at times?

Hence why I'm saying they're a conservative company.

Darmik posted...

Having more money doesn't mean the game is better anyway. Some of the most disappointing and lame games have had extremely high budgets.

Nonetheless the things that been mentioned already do require more money.

Darmik posted...

Also I do find it interesting that your point here is that they're a cheap company because they don't make handhelds. Microsoft never even bothered making handhelds and Sony cut the cord years ago because neither of them consider that area profitable at all.

Because Sony and Microsoft have expenditures in other things that cost way more than Nintendo's handheld division.

CM_Ponch posted...

But Nintendo charging for a charger has nothing to do with the quality of their games.

Then go back and re-read everything slower.

CM_Ponch posted...

And how is gameplay not the most important aspect of a game?

It's important, but nothing says it has to be sacrificed in lieu of other things.
---

LockeMonster posted...

Hence why I'm saying they're a conservative company.

Only in certain ways.

For an individual game having a huge ass budget? Nah they're probably not gonna do that.

But they'll fund a wide variety of stuff to make up for it. Would any other company have saved Bayonetta 2? No. That's not a conservative action.

LockeMonster posted...

Because Sony and Microsoft have expenditures in other things that cost way more than Nintendo's handheld division.

Yeah because they're all conservative in different ways and use different tactics to make a profit.
---

LockeMonster posted...

It's important, but nothing says it has to be sacrificed in lieu of other things.

Why does a Mario platformer need a moviebait story? Turning Mario into The Sopranos doesn't make Mario a better game.
---

Darmik posted...

Only in certain ways.

For an individual game having a huge ass budget? Nah they're probably not gonna do that.

But they'll fund a wide variety of stuff to make up for it. Would any other company have saved Bayonetta 2? No. That's not a conservative action.

Most of their actions overall are conservative. Otherwise they'd have competent online by now. Just because here and there they'll throw in a little more doesn't mean anything. Lol, that's not how it works.

Darmik posted...

Yeah because they're all conservative in different ways and use different tactics to make a profit.

Sony almost went into bankruptcy over how unconservative they were with their finances. Microsoft is one of the top investors on the planet. These are not considered conservative.

Nintendo is traditionally known as a conservative company. There's not much more beyond that.
---

LockeMonster posted...

Most of their actions overall are conservative. Otherwise they'd have competent online by now. Just because here and there they'll throw in a little more doesn't mean anything. Lol, that's not how it works.

The Wii, DS, Wii U and Switch were most certainly not conservative.

Games like Splatoon, Bayonetta and ARMS are certainly not conservative.

LockeMonster posted...

Sony almost went into bankruptcy over how unconservative they were with their finances. Microsoft is one of the top investors on the planet. These are not considered conservative.

That's not how it works. You don't just go bankrupt because you're not conservative.

Sony nearly went bankrupt because nearly all of their divisions weren't making money.

Microsoft most certainly were conservative with the Xbox platform for quite a while until like last year. Which is why we weren't seeing many first party games from them.

It's way more complicated than you're making it seem.

Nintendo are conservative in certain areas and not conservative in others. Like every other company.
---

Idk why this topic is still going

Nintendo had two GotY contenders last year and won a massive chunk of them between the two. TC can scream into the void about how they suck all he wants.
---

Darmik posted...

The Wii, DS, Wii U and Switch were most certainly not conservative.

Games like Splatoon, Bayonetta and ARMS are certainly not conservative.

Financially conservative genius.

Darmik posted...

That's not how it works. You don't just go bankrupt because you're not conservative.

Sony nearly went bankrupt because nearly all of their divisions weren't making money.

Along with their debts getting out of control because they had spent too much money on saving the PS3. They lost $5 billion on that and that was one of the reasons they stayed in the red till everything else started failing around them.

Darmik posted...

Microsoft most certainly were conservative with the Xbox platform until like last year.

I'm talking about the entire company. Microsoft is far from a conservative company.

Darmik posted...

It's way more complicated than you're making it seem

No, you're just not very smart and trying to nitpick.

Darmik posted...

Nintendo are conservative in certain areas and not conservative in others. Like every other company.

Again, Nintendo is a traditionally conservative company and this has been this was for decades. Sony and Microsoft are not. There's nothing more beyond that and you're grasping at straws like usual.
---

SwayM posted...

you literally cannot defend their absymal online infrastructure in 2018.

You keep bringing this up for some reason

Why would we defend something irrelevant? Games don't need online, and I prefer Nintendo not wasting money on it to Microsoft and Sony wasting money on it.

Consoles should never have been able to connect to the internet, it's all been downhill since then

Yeah they're fiscally conservative in order to offset a lot of the risks in the products they sell. That's about it/

That doesn't mean they're not top tier developers. The most critically acclaimed movies and albums don't need massive budgets. Video games are the same.

It's not like Mario, Splatoon and Zelda games are low budget anyway. Their production values are great. They spend money where it matters.
---

SwayM posted...

Designing a game that is "fun" is by no means challenging

The fucking stupid shit people say...
---

Darmik posted...

Yeah they're fiscally conservative in order to offset a lot of the risks in the products they sell. That's about it/

Aside from that, their entire philosophy is conservative, hence traditionally a conservative company, though after Iwata things seem to be opening socially speaking.

https://www.polygon.com/2015/1/21/7867965/conservative-stuffy-old-nintendo-and-its-weird-habit-of-wild

https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/gaming/724058/Nintendo-Switch-vs-Xbox-One-PS4

Darmik posted...

That doesn't mean they're not top tier developers. The most critically acclaimed movies and albums don't need massive budgets. Video games are the same.

I wasn't saying they're not top tier, and at the same time, some of the best things out there have had a lot of money put in. So it's not really a good argument against it.
---

LockeMonster posted...

I wasn't saying they're not top tier, and at the same time, some of the best things out there have had a lot of money put in. So it's not really a good argument against it.

And some of the best things out there have been made by 1-2 people.
---

Darmik posted...

And some of the best things out there have been made by 1-2 people

Yes... You just made that point and that post was my response.
---

dave_is_slick posted...

SwayM posted...

Designing a game that is "fun" is by no means challenging

The fucking stupid shit people say...

It's why I didn't respond to it. He clearly has no idea how challenging making a fun and functional game actually is.
Just look at the sheer amount of terrible creations and levels that come out of these level creators as an example.
---

"Hey, this is a bunch of bullshit!" - Scott Steiner, WWE RAW 8/11/2003
---

So have they provided any examples of Nintendo being cheap in games or are they still trying to say thay "not including a charger with the 3ds" "rubs off on all other aspects of nintendo including their games and makes their games cheap and bad"
---

Banjo2553 posted...

dave_is_slick posted...

SwayM posted...

Designing a game that is "fun" is by no means challenging

The fucking stupid shit people say...

It's why I didn't respond to it. He clearly has no idea how challenging making a fun and functional game actually is.
Just look at the sheer amount of terrible creations and levels that come out of these level creators as an example.

Right. Thats why you didnt respond.

Not that you cant come up with an argument against what I said. Let me recap it for you since youre having trouble.

All games have to be fun. That is their sole purpose. How many games have you played in your life that you didnt find fun? Im struggling to come up with one example myself. Anything I say would just be an example of a genre that doesnt tickle my fancy. But I could easily see how others would enjoy it. maybe some game back in the NES days before there was any sort of standard but no name is jumping to mind.

The amount of indie games out there, its not hard to create a fun game.

You have developers out there creating complex, intricate gaming experiences and at every stage of development it has to remain fun. I dont think you can really comprehend how difficult that actually is when you have projects that dwarf anything Nintendo ever attempted.

Please continue to sit here on the sidelines, quote one sentence and react to it. Its rrally working for you guys.
---

Only if your main criteria is "how well they blend film-making techniques into their games." But most aspects of game design are easily covered by Nintendo.

ITT we pretend it's still Wii U days and levy complaints that make no sense since the Switch released.
---

SwayM posted...

Banjo2553 posted...

dave_is_slick posted...

SwayM posted...

Designing a game that is "fun" is by no means challenging

The fucking stupid shit people say...

It's why I didn't respond to it. He clearly has no idea how challenging making a fun and functional game actually is.
Just look at the sheer amount of terrible creations and levels that come out of these level creators as an example.

Right. Thats why you didnt respond.

Not that you cant come up with an argument against what I said. Let me recap it for you since youre having trouble.

All games have to be fun. That is their sole purpose. How many games have you played in your life that you didnt find fun? Im struggling to come up with one example myself. Anything I say would just be an example of a genre that doesnt tickle my fancy. But I could easily see how others would enjoy it. maybe some game back in the NES days before there was any sort of standard but no name is jumping to mind.

The amount of indie games out there, its not hard to create a fun game.

You have developers out there creating complex, intricate gaming experiences and at every stage of development it has to remain fun. I dont think you can really comprehend how difficult that actually is when you have projects that dwarf anything Nintendo ever attempted.

Please continue to sit here on the sidelines, quote one sentence and react to it. Its rrally working for you guys.

Shut the fuck up
---

SwayM posted...

Banjo2553 posted...

dave_is_slick posted...

SwayM posted...

Designing a game that is "fun" is by no means challenging

The fucking stupid shit people say...

It's why I didn't respond to it. He clearly has no idea how challenging making a fun and functional game actually is.
Just look at the sheer amount of terrible creations and levels that come out of these level creators as an example.

Right. Thats why you didnt respond.

Not that you cant come up with an argument against what I said. Let me recap it for you since youre having trouble.

All games have to be fun. That is their sole purpose. How many games have you played in your life that you didnt find fun? Im struggling to come up with one example myself. Anything I say would just be an example of a genre that doesnt tickle my fancy. But I could easily see how others would enjoy it. maybe some game back in the NES days before there was any sort of standard but no name is jumping to mind.

The amount of indie games out there, its not hard to create a fun game.

You have developers out there creating complex, intricate gaming experiences and at every stage of development it has to remain fun. I dont think you can really comprehend how difficult that actually is when you have projects that dwarf anything Nintendo ever attempted.

Please continue to sit here on the sidelines, quote one sentence and react to it. Its rrally working for you guys.

There are lots of games that aren't fun. But most people stop playing them as soon as they realize it's boring. If people can't come up with the name of those games, it's probably simply because they forgot of it. Most people forget the games that they barely played. It would pretty much be impossible for most gamers who have played a lot of games to name all the games they played. Also, a lot of games that aren't fun get taken down or stop selling pretty quick sometimes. That being said, if you're are instead talking about a game that's not fun for anybody at all, that's different. But having 1 out of a million say a game is fun(for example) doesn't really mean much. So, yes, there are games that aren't fun.
---

ModLogic posted...

Scottydoesntno posted...

They put in effort to make fun games.

they ruin games by putting in shitty ass gimmicks. sunshine, galaxy, odyssey. literally parallel to sonic team.

Nonsense. Galaxy is an all-time GOAT.

Darmik posted...

I don't really think making AAA games with a lower budget is a bad thing.

BOTW only needed to sell like 2 million copies to make a profit. Meanwhile games like Tomb Raider somehow need to sell more than double that to make a profit.

Production values aren't the end all/be all for video games. For games like Uncharted then yeah sure. That game won't hold up as well if it didn't have insane production values. But not every game needs them. BOTW doesn't need Nolan North and Mario Odyssey doesn't need a 1,000 page game script to be fantastic. They certainly don't feel like they're cheap or lacking because of those creative decisions.

This is the first decent argument Ive seen in this thread.

I completely agree the hyper inflated game budgets can be a huge liability. Not all games need to be these blockbuster games. Theres a place in the market for games of all caliber from Indie to AAA.

A lot of developers make these AAA games that are too big to fail and what do they end up doing? Safe, yearly sequels.

Nintendo plays it safe just as much as any other developer. They take huge risks in the console market and then play it super safe with their franchises.

My argument is this. There is a wealth of space Nintendo needs to occupy and expand into to be considered a truly great developer. Hey they make fun games that people enjoy. Thats fantastic. They can continue doing that forever, with no urgency to improve. But if you want to consider them comparable to developers who go that extra mile every time. They have a lot of room for improvements.
---

What exactly do you want Nintendo to do? And I mean specifically. Not like a vague "go the extra mile."
---

ITT we pretend it's still Wii U days and levy complaints that haven't made sense since the Switch released
---

CAPCOM is back to taking huge risks again, one of the few trying at least.
---

SwayM posted...

There is a wealth of space Nintendo needs to occupy and expand into to be considered a truly great developer.

by who? you? what standard are you using? is it recognized by anyone except yourself?
the industry already considers nintendo an all time great developer. they single handedly saved the gaming industry and held it up alone for generations. they still push out GOTY contenders every year and even win a lot of years. in what way are they not truly great? because you don't like that they dont focus on the story? stop trolling please.
---

SwayM posted...

play it super safe with their franchises.

Elaborate on this
---

CM_Ponch posted...

SwayM posted...

play it super safe with their franchises.

Elaborate on this

Kirby, Odyssey, Mario Kart, etc. All safe sequels/games.

FlameBlade_X posted...

Kirby, Odyssey, Mario Kart, etc. All safe sequels/games.

In what way?
---