IGN Article by Matt Casamassina - Nintendo is the laziest company

nintendo not churning out their great games often is a good thing because it gives other devs chances. But the other devs also has failed the wii. It is not that the wii has failed gamers but it is devs that has failed the wii.lordlors

I think much of that is Nintendo's fault.

Yeah I realized a long time ago that there are companies that will put way more $$$/production values/graphics into their games (*cough*Sony*cough*), and now I favor them over Nintendo. But I don't really consider Nintendo "lazy" or have some sort of ill will towards them...I think they realized they could target a market that doesn't care about those things and make big profits. I'm totally fine with it since I have plenty of alternatives.

Nintendo would have to be struggling for them to make a better effort, because it would help them realize the old ways are not going to cut it.

When you're on top, you don't have to do anything.

When you're racing for the top, you do everything you can to make the consumer happy..

[QUOTE="lordlors"]nintendo not churning out their great games often is a good thing because it gives other devs chances. But the other devs also has failed the wii. It is not that the wii has failed gamers but it is devs that has failed the wii.BladesOfAthena

I think much of that is Nintendo's fault.

[QUOTE="Senor_Kami"][QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"]nothing is free and everything costs time and resources. "nothing is coming at the expense of anything" is just never the case.LoG-Sacrament

Everything comes at a cost but I think your statement is flat out false. We're on the 3rd mario platformer, the second metroid game, the second Zelda game, we've have a Wii Smash Brother, Wii Mario Kart. To say that they've ignored classic franchises and new IPs just to make New Wii Play control games doesn't seem to be based off of any reality.

for new IPs, they've been using their name as a publisher, instead of inventing their own original software. they're probably tired, and don't have any new ideas. when they have a new idea they put it into a zelda or mario game.

cold mountain, the conduit, scribblenauts, boy and his blob, world of goo... just some off the top of my head. maybe they're flat-out admitting that they don't like/want to make brand new characters and stories so they commission others to do it/publish original stuff on their platform.

[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"][QUOTE="Senor_Kami"][QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"]nothing is free and everything costs time and resources. "nothing is coming at the expense of anything" is just never the case.just_nonplussed

Everything comes at a cost but I think your statement is flat out false. We're on the 3rd mario platformer, the second metroid game, the second Zelda game, we've have a Wii Smash Brother, Wii Mario Kart. To say that they've ignored classic franchises and new IPs just to make New Wii Play control games doesn't seem to be based off of any reality.

for new IPs, they've been using their name as a publisher, instead of inventing their own original software. they're probably tired, and don't have any new ideas. when they have a new idea they put it into a zelda or mario game.

cold mountain, the conduit, scribblenauts, boy and his blob, world of goo... just some off the top of my head. maybe they're flat-out admitting that they don't like/want to make brand new characters and stories so they commission others to do it/publish original stuff on their platform.

I have a hard time labeling stuff like Smash Brothers, Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, etc as "flat-out lazy, second-rate game design." Nintendo doesn't bat 1000, but I do think think being less than perfect is the same as "flat-out lazy" or "second rate".

Senor_Kami

What's interesting however is that most of the games you mention, with the obvious exception of SMG, are actually being made by third party developers instead of Nintendo developing them internally. Even games like Punch Out! and the recent Excitebike remake were made by outside developers.

Nintendo isn't doing nearly as much internal development as they used to and much of what is coming directly out of their company, like WiiMusic, isn't all that fantastic. The quality control isn't there with theirfranchises like it used to be; they're just lucky enough to have hired developers who respected these IP's and made decent installments.

I've had this assessment of Nintendo for a while now (basically since I got a Wii and realized that is wasn't this "revolutionary" thing I was expecting it to be). Ever since the Wii took off, their risk-taking has become non-existent. They don't seem wiling to try anything "new" anymore, all they seem to make now is what "works."

I am glad that Nintendo has tried to go outside the box with the next Metroid... but given the lack of Retro's involvement (and that Gunpei Yokoi is dead), Team Ninja's past performance (being not so great) and the last Metroid game released by Nintendo (Prime Hunters) leaves me incredibly sceptical about Other M's possible quality.

I used to be a pretty big Nintendo fan back during the SNES/N64 generations, and still love playing NES-GC games... but something about Wii games just doesn't appeal to me. I'm interested in seeing where the next Zelda goes, but aside from that, I really am almost uninterested in what Nintendo is offering on their own console. I just wish they would take advantage of all those profits and make some brand new games that are truly unique. They definitely are "lazy," but they do have the potential to do much more with the resources (talent and funding) they have, and it is disappointing to see them not taking advantage of them.

Those studios are owned by Nintendo, therefore they are Nintendo. They aren't third party devs. The guys that made Punch-Out, were though. But Retro, Intellegent Systems, HAL are all part of Nintendo. dvader654

[QUOTE="just_nonplussed"]

[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"] i never said they ignored classic franchises (nintendo is noted for retaining its franchises). i said they ignored quality new ip's. none of those games youve just listed are new ips. the ip's we've got this generation from nintendo for wii have mostly just been the wii "blank" line which are pretty dull.LoG-Sacrament

for new IPs, they've been using their name as a publisher, instead of inventing their own original software. they're probably tired, and don't have any new ideas. when they have a new idea they put it into a zelda or mario game.

cold mountain, the conduit, scribblenauts, boy and his blob, world of goo... just some off the top of my head. maybe they're flat-out admitting that they don't like/want to make brand new characters and stories so they commission others to do it/publish original stuff on their platform.

really? oh.. i thought nintendo published that stuff. oh well. you're right then i suppose. *shrugs*

I've had this assessment of Nintendo for a while now (basically since I got a Wii and realized that is wasn't this "revolutionary" thing I was expecting it to be). Ever since the Wii took off, their risk-taking has become non-existent. They don't seem wiling to try anything "new" anymore, all they seem to make now is what "works."

I am glad that Nintendo has tried to go outside the box with the next Metroid... but given the lack of Retro's involvement (and that Gunpei Yokoi is dead), Team Ninja's past performance (being not so great) and the last Metroid game released by Nintendo (Prime Hunters) leaves me incredibly sceptical about Other M's possible quality.

I used to be a pretty big Nintendo fan back during the SNES/N64 generations, and still love playing NES-GC games... but something about Wii games just doesn't appeal to me. I'm interested in seeing where the next Zelda goes, but aside from that, I really am almost uninterested in what Nintendo is offering on their own console. I just wish they would take advantage of all those profits and make some brand new games that are truly unique. They definitely are "lazy," but they do have the potential to do much more with the resources (talent and funding) they have, and it is disappointing to see them not taking advantage of them.

foxhound_fox

it's really too early to comment on the next metroid game. the video shown seemed like really early work.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

[QUOTE="dvader654"]Those studios are owned by Nintendo, therefore they are Nintendo. They aren't third party devs. The guys that made Punch-Out, were though. But Retro, Intellegent Systems, HAL are all part of Nintendo. dvader654

Fair enough because the vernacular isn't even the point; the point remains that Nintendo lacks theability and motivation to make most of their own games and without these talented companies, regardless of their official status within the company, Nintendo wouldn'thave muchto put out on the Wii from their own publishing house.

So while I agree that third party isn't the most accurate term (I regret using it, even in a liberal sense) I wouldn't really assert that "Retro is Nintendo" anymore than I would have madethe claim that "Bungieis Microsoft" back when that equation would have been relevant. They may be on the payroll but clearly they are different entities.

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
Technically they are "part" of Nintendo, but they still formed before being acquired by Nintendo. Nintendo R&D1 is an "internal" developer. Retro Studios are an acquired developer.

Grammaton-Cleric

Fair enough because the vernacular isn't even the point; the point remains that Nintendo lacks theability and motivation to make most of their own games and without these talented companies, regardless of their official status within the company, Nintendo wouldn'thave muchto put out on the Wii from their own publishing house.

So while I agree that third party isn't the most accurate term (I regret using it, even in a liberal sense) I wouldn't really assert that "Retro is Nintendo" anymore than I would have madethe claim that "Bungieis Microsoft" back when that equation would have been relevant. They may be on the payroll but clearly they are different entities.

Well, I wouldn't say they lack the ability, but you're definitely right about their lack of motivation.

I think they've become indifferent or complacent. But once in awhile they do bring out something great and shows that they still can make great games, like Super Mario Galaxy, Zelda Spirit Tracks, and the New Super Mario Bros. games. I just wish they did this more of this instead of making all that casual stuff they've been doing while handing out the core duties to other 2nd or 3rd party developers. They can do it but they just choose not to which bothers me a bit.

But it's been working out okay for the most part, like Punch-Out. One of my favorite games this gen.

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
Technically they are "part" of Nintendo, but they still formed before being acquired by Nintendo. Nintendo R&D1 is an "internal" developer. Retro Studios are an acquired developer.

Grammaton-Cleric

Fair enough because the vernacular isn't even the point; the point remains that Nintendo lacks theability and motivation to make most of their own games and without these talented companies, regardless of their official status within the company, Nintendo wouldn'thave muchto put out on the Wii from their own publishing house.

So while I agree that third party isn't the most accurate term (I regret using it, even in a liberal sense) I wouldn't really assert that "Retro is Nintendo" anymore than I would have madethe claim that "Bungieis Microsoft" back when that equation would have been relevant. They may be on the payroll but clearly they are different entities.

Bungie isn't a 100% owned subsidiary of MS anymore, but Retro is still awholly owned subsidiary of Nintendo. Bungie was essentially MS when they were owned, they had MS management until Bungie people didn't want to put up with MS management, now obviously the same thing can happen with Retro, but it hasn't, it could be due to the studio losing most of their leads, they're basically workers now.

Semantics aside, Nintendo is basically off to attract a decidedly different crowd because they KNOW they don't have to put jack into their hardcore games in terms of production values and still Nintendo fans in drones will stilleat up the next Mario or Smash Brothers game, even Zeldafans will likely put up with a Zelda without a significant graphical and presentation upgrade from Twilight Princess, it's not like they can ever win on visuals even if they try, the wii hardware simply isn't capable of most of the graphical and physicseffects made possible by the PS3/360, at least not in the same level of quality or density. The best-looking game on the wii is probably the new Silent Hill wii game right now and even that won't fool anyone into thinking it'sa gameonone of theHD consoles.

[QUOTE="EvilTaru"]

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

Fair enough because the vernacular isn't even the point; the point remains that Nintendo lacks theability and motivation to make most of their own games and without these talented companies, regardless of their official status within the company, Nintendo wouldn'thave muchto put out on the Wii from their own publishing house.

So while I agree that third party isn't the most accurate term (I regret using it, even in a liberal sense) I wouldn't really assert that "Retro is Nintendo" anymore than I would have madethe claim that "Bungieis Microsoft" back when that equation would have been relevant. They may be on the payroll but clearly they are different entities.

dvader654

Bungie isn't a 100% owned subsidiary of MS anymore, but Retro is still awholly owned subsidiary of Nintendo. Bungie was essentially MS when they were owned, they had MS management until Bungie people didn't want toput up withMS management, now obviously the same thing can happen with Retro, but it hasn't, it could be due to the studio losing most of their leads, they're basically workers now.

Semantics aside, Nintendo is basically off to attract a decidedly different crowd because they KNOW they don't have to put jack into their hardcore games in terms of production values and still Nintendo fans in drones will stilleat up the next Mario or Smash Brothers game, even Zeldafans will likely put up with a Zelda without a significant graphical and presentation upgrade from Twilight Princess, it's not like they can ever win on visuals even if they try, the wii hardware simply isn't capable of most of the graphical and physicseffects made possible by the PS3/360, at least not in the same level of quality or density. The best-looking game on the wii is probably the new Silent Hill wii game right now and even that won't full anyone into thinking it's one of the games on a HD console.

Although I agree with you to most extents that gameplay will always triumph over graphics, I personally feel that Nintendo will never surpass Ocarina of Time with last-gen graphics and technology.

Ocarina of Time was amazing because it was made on the most powerfully advanced console at the time. How can the next console Zelda wow us anymore with Wii graphics? I don't see it happening. It's not just graphics that go into it but other things come from the latest technology. So that's why I think that Nintendo needs to make the next Zelda with the current 360/PS3 technology or maybe even the next-gen's technology to make that ultimate modern-day Zelda game we all are dying and dreaming to play.

It's different from Super Mario because SMG is a platformer. For a series like Zelda, it needs something more than just gameplay. I think it needs that modern technology and graphics to truly capture Nintendo's ultimate vision for Zelda.

I don't care how much Nintendo pours their efforts into the next console Zelda, it won't surpass Ocarina nor will it be the ultimate Zelda game because games like Uncharted 2 are out there and Nintendo needs that type of power to wow us again.

[QUOTE="BladesOfAthena"]

[QUOTE="lordlors"]nintendo not churning out their great games often is a good thing because it gives other devs chances. But the other devs also has failed the wii. It is not that the wii has failed gamers but it is devs that has failed the wii.lordlors

I think much of that is Nintendo's fault.

It's not like they can do anything about it, third-party developers just can'tmake games like GTAIV or Red Dead Redemption on the wii hardware even if they want to, and worse yet, Nintendo's own stable of developers will have a lot of catching up to do in terms of learning the technology.

[QUOTE="lordlors"][QUOTE="BladesOfAthena"]

I think much of that is Nintendo's fault.

EvilTaru

It's not like they can do anything about it, third-party developers just can'tmake games like GTAIV or Red Dead Redemption on the wii hardware even if they want to, and worse yet, Nintendo's own stable of developers will have a lot of catching up to do in terms of learning the technology.

Like I mentioned in the above post, that's why I think Nintendo will never make the ultimate Zelda game that can surpass Ocarina of Time with last-gen technology. Motion controls is not enough.

It's like James Cameron couldn't make Avatar back in the day so he waited 13 years to finally have the technology to capture his vision.

I'm not saying that graphics make a game. I firmly believe gameplay always triumphs at the end but I feel it's just common logic that the best Zelda game can't be done on Wii's technology.

After reading all of these posts, I'm actually concerned, since Nintendo is the only real game company out of the Big Three.

[QUOTE="ASK_Story"]

[QUOTE="dvader654"] As long as the games are of the highest quality it does not matter what the graphics are like. The reason Galaxy and Twilight Princess were winnging tons of awards is cause they are phenomenal games. The next Mario and Zelda probably will be too, the limitations of the hardware is not what matters, what you do with it that matters.dvader654

Although I agree with you to most extents that gameplay will always triumph over graphics, I personally feel that Nintendo will never surpass Ocarina of Time with last-gen graphics and technology.

Ocarina of Time was amazing because it was made on the most powerfully advanced console at the time. How can the next console Zelda wow us anymore with Wii graphics? I don't see it happening. It's not just graphics that go into it but other things come from the latest technology. So that's why I think that Nintendo needs to make the next Zelda with the current 360/PS3 technology or maybe even the next-gen's technology to make that ultimate modern-day Zelda game we all are dying and dreaming to play.

It's different from Super Mario because SMG is a platformer. For a series like Zelda, it needs something more than just gameplay. I think it needs that modern technology and graphics to truly capture Nintendo's ultimate vision for Zelda.

I don't care how much Nintendo pours their efforts into the next console Zelda, it won't surpass Ocarina nor will it be the ultimate Zelda game because games like Uncharted 2 are out there and Nintendo needs that type of power to wow us again.

[QUOTE="EvilTaru"]

Bungie isn't a 100% owned subsidiary of MS anymore, but Retro is still awholly owned subsidiary of Nintendo. Bungie was essentially MS when they were owned, they had MS management until Bungie people didn't want toput up withMS management, now obviously the same thing can happen with Retro, but it hasn't, it could be due to the studio losing most of their leads, they're basically workers now.

Semantics aside, Nintendo is basically off to attract a decidedly different crowd because they KNOW they don't have to put jack into their hardcore games in terms of production values and still Nintendo fans in drones will stilleat up the next Mario or Smash Brothers game, even Zeldafans will likely put up with a Zelda without a significant graphical and presentation upgrade from Twilight Princess, it's not like they can ever win on visuals even if they try, the wii hardware simply isn't capable of most of the graphical and physicseffects made possible by the PS3/360, at least not in the same level of quality or density. The best-looking game on the wii is probably the new Silent Hill wii game right now and even that won't full anyone into thinking it's one of the games on a HD console.

dvader654

But they're not all of the highest quality though.I don't care for Mario gamesbut I'm playing Twilight Princess as we speak andI wouldn't even putTwilight Princessin my top ten this generation, it's agood game but I didn't find it to be THAT greatanymore.

[QUOTE="ASK_Story"]

[QUOTE="dvader654"] As long as the games are of the highest quality it does not matter what the graphics are like. The reason Galaxy and Twilight Princess were winnging tons of awards is cause they are phenomenal games. The next Mario and Zelda probably will be too, the limitations of the hardware is not what matters, what you do with it that matters.dvader654

Although I agree with you to most extents that gameplay will always triumph over graphics, I personally feel that Nintendo will never surpass Ocarina of Time with last-gen graphics and technology.

Ocarina of Time was amazing because it was made on the most powerfully advanced console at the time. How can the next console Zelda wow us anymore with Wii graphics? I don't see it happening. It's not just graphics that go into it but other things come from the latest technology. So that's why I think that Nintendo needs to make the next Zelda with the current 360/PS3 technology or maybe even the next-gen's technology to make that ultimate modern-day Zelda game we all are dying and dreaming to play.

It's different from Super Mario because SMG is a platformer. For a series like Zelda, it needs something more than just gameplay. I think it needs that modern technology and graphics to truly capture Nintendo's ultimate vision for Zelda.

I don't care how much Nintendo pours their efforts into the next console Zelda, it won't surpass Ocarina nor will it be the ultimate Zelda game because games like Uncharted 2 are out there and Nintendo needs that type of power to wow us again.

It's not just the graphics that wii games lack, it's the animations, it's the physics, it's the controls, it's how detailed the world can be, how the world reacts to you, it's the density of those little details, the wii hardware simply can't handle all of this and Zelda suffers as a result.

It's always back to the OOT argument but OOT hasn't aged well either, and comparing TP to OOT just highlights how dated some of the mechanics are, especially the controls.

it's really too early to comment on the next metroid game. the video shown seemed like really early work.just_nonplussed

To the guy who said Nintendo's franchises don't have variety to them, they have like one or 2 franchises for just about every genre...only one they are missing is FPS really.

Mario: Platforming

Mario Sports:....Sports

Punch-Out: Sports

Mario Kart: Racing

Zelda & Metroid: Action/Adventure

SSB: Fighting

Fire Emblem: Strategy RPG

plus a bunch of others that I can't even think of off the top of my head.

That doesn't even include franchises that they haven't used in a while, I mean it would be awesome to see a new Earthbound or StarTropics one day.

I understand that but most of that still falls under how the game looks. Link moves around just fine, him having more animations won't change that, it will just make the act of moving around look better. The detail in the world can be improved through better graphics but none of that will matter unless they do something gameplay wise with that detail. The controls can be fixed on the wii as it offers more control options than the other consoles. A zelda games strength will always come from its dungeon design, it's puzzles, it's pacing, the exploration factor, the boss fights, etc. That is why I love Zelda, no other games give me that experience, there are no Zelda like games out there. It's based on preference, everything we play is, I feel Twilight Princess rivals most of the very best Zelda games and absolutly rivals most games cause those games don't give me the game experience that a Zelda title does. Most action adventure games can't even cross the 10 hour barrier and Zelda can provide 40+ hours of excellence like nothing. If you feel the formula is stale, that is fine. I agree it needs changes, but graphics isn't at the top of the list that needs changes. Most of the changes can be made on the wii's hardware. Now given the choice which console would provide the best tools to make the best Zelda game, absolutely it would be the PS3 or 360. But that is not happening. If you feel that this series needs a graphical overhaul to be revitalized that is fine. I feel it needs a gameplay overhaul first and I think that can be done on the wii just fine, I feel they can still craft one of the finest games using that tech, it just wont look as nice.dvader654

It isn't all about how it looks, I actually put my copy of Twilight Princess into my GC and play it just to see,and Link does not move fluidly, the horse controls is evenclunkiernow than when I first played it. The problem is without a right stick for a third-person action-adventure game where you have to go everywhere and look at everything, the camera control becomes unwieldy, I can't imagine how the wii can handle a game like inFamous or GTAIV with the player having to look around with the right stick. The wii hardware can't handle all the little nuances, all the little NPC interactions. It doesn't just need a graphical overhaul, it needs a gameplay overhaul in terms of character and camera controls, as well as how the world lives and breathes around the player, how the character himself reacts to things happening around him,I have my doubts whether the wii can pull of those kind of details. Zelda is a great franchise, it deserves better.

I have always rather have a game that controls the camera itself than one that requires you to move it constantly with the right stick. Zelda has always had a great auto camera, TP was no different, I never really had any camera issues. The nuances in NPCs, how would graphics help that. Hell I feel that Majora's Mask still has some the best NPCs of any game, that was done on N64 hardware. Its about how they look it is what you do with them. Yes Zelda needs some gameplay overhaul but I think the wii can handle it just fine. I don't think Zelda needs to become Fable, I honestly wouldn't care that the towns people go about their lives and interact with each other if the rest of the gameplay isn't there. It would be a nice addition but the series needs to address the core issues first, mainly that it does use old control mechanics and that it is getting very predictable. I do agree with you that the best case scenario would absolutely be a Zelda game made with the power of the HD consoles. I do get angry that Nintendo chose this path, I think it was a cheap move just to save money. I won't go as far to say that it's laziness in their game design, I think they are still making as good games as they ever have, they just made a crappy tech move that is paying off for them now but might bite them in the ass later.dvader654

Just because you can't control the camera it doesn't mean the camera work is well-done, and just because you CAN control the camera it doesn't mean the game doesn't doa good jobfor you, what the right stick camera does is it lets you look at what you want to look at at anytime while you're moving in the environment instead of fiddling around with L1 trying to get the right angle.

Personally I find Wind Waker's camera better than TP's camera, heck Wind Waker had better controls, but then I also find Wind Waker had far more charm than TP.

Zelda doesn't have to be like Fable, on the other hand looking at something like Red Dead Redemption where you see the protagonist riding on a horse in the woodsand a deer comes into the scene, it's just all the little details that make a game world come alive, I want that for a Zelda game.

I don't think it's a matter of laziness in terms of game design, it's a matter of deliberately choosing cheaper hardware so everything from manufacturing to software development would be cheaper, and as a result your best development team simply don't have the hardware totake the franchise to the next level, it's a deliberate act of screwing over hardcore fans, not sure why fans would defend that sort of thing.

[QUOTE="just_nonplussed"]it's really too early to comment on the next metroid game. the video shown seemed like really early work.foxhound_fox

yeah because ninja gaiden totally sucked ass.Shinobishyguy

[QUOTE="dvader654"][QUOTE="nhh18"]Nah. The budget for new super mario bros was most likely on par with those games. It had 4 times as many levels as littlebigplanet designed. Probably had 3 or 4 game designers who designed each level compared to 1 per level by media molecule. Had to create a brand new engine in terms of lighting physics, and create all the art and assets. Also had to pay money to tons of old nintendo royalty game designers that had nothing to do with this game (miyamoto, kondo among other names). The game budget is going to rack up to 60 million dollars most likely in terms of budget before even released. Not laziness either.

nhh18

Damn, 300 people and 2 years of work for that thing? Nintendo really are lazy.

Well considering Nintendo has been in the console race for longer than any other company, they must be doing something right. Maybe lazy is right :)

Personally, and with all due respect to Vader, I really can't understand how anybody could play Zelda: TP and think it holds its own with current gen games. It came off as such a clunky, archaic and uninspired experience that after a while I couldn't stomach it. The issue isn't merely about the visuals but rather how poorly the visuals were implemented in that game. When you compare it to something like Galaxy, which looks amazing despite the technical limitations of the Wii, I find Z:TP to be unforgivable. Then again, it was nothing more than a port of a Cube game so perhaps that's the core of the problem.

As to the technical limitations of the Wii, they are becoming more apparent and more of a hindrance as we progress into this generation. As Taru mentioned, the power of the HD consoles doesn't merely make games look better but it also allows them to play better too. Frame rates, physics, collision detection, and many other elements can and do directly affect the games we play and when you consider some of the very best titles of this generation many of them benefited from the technology offered by the PS3/XB360.

For supposedly being "lazy" they sure are successful as a company. It'll be interesting to see what Nintendo does when the Wii enters the late maturity stage of it's product life cycle.

For supposedly being "lazy" they sure are successful as a company.

killeer2007

Microsoft's applications run on something like 80-90% of all PC's yet every iteration of Windows is usually a bug-filled mess upon release precisely because they are in the lead.

Being successful often leads to apathy and laziness within a company. This isn't the first time Nintendo has sat back and let the cash flow while doing very little to propel themedium forward and it won't be the last.

[QUOTE="killeer2007"]

For supposedly being "lazy" they sure are successful as a company.

Grammaton-Cleric

Microsoft's applications run on something like 80-90% of all PC's yet every iteration of Windows is usually a bug-filled mess upon release precisely because they are in the lead.

Being successful often leads to apathy and laziness within a company. This isn't the first time Nintendo has sat back and let the cash flow while doing very little to propel themedium forward and it won't be the last.

I dunno man... I think you aren't giving late 80s/early 90s Nintendo enough credit. They had some real terrible business practices, but as far as games were concerned, they still put out AWESOME stuff. Super Mario 3 andWorld were put out when they were used to controlling way more of the video game market than they do now.

But yeah, you are right. I'm just nitpicking.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="killeer2007"]

For supposedly being "lazy" they sure are successful as a company.

AtomicTangerine

Microsoft's applications run on something like 80-90% of all PC's yet every iteration of Windows is usually a bug-filled mess upon release precisely because they are in the lead.

Being successful often leads to apathy and laziness within a company. This isn't the first time Nintendo has sat back and let the cash flow while doing very little to propel themedium forward and it won't be the last.

I dunno man... I think you aren't giving late 80s/early 90s Nintendo enough credit. They had some real terrible business practices, but as far as games were concerned, they still put out AWESOME stuff. Super Mario 3 andWorld were put out when they were used to controlling way more of the video game market than they do now.

But yeah, you are right. I'm just nitpicking.

Nintendo has done some awesome things and their legacy with the NES and SNESis untouchable and that's actually my point: when you compare them back in the 80's and 90's versus what theyare today,you see thevast difference in what they were then versus what they have become. Nintendo used to set thebar high with their software but more recently they can barely even see the bar that is being set and surpassed by superior software companies.

I grew up as a kid thinking Nintendo was the sun, the moon and the stars but every since the N64 they have lost so much of what made them great. Every once in a while, a bit of that spark bleeds through in games like New Mario Bros and Galaxy but from my own perspective Nintendo cares less about quality and innovation than whatever their current mission statement is. It's not even a casual thing for me; I just think most of their offerings, like Wii Fit, WiiMusic, etc., are insipid, vapid experiences.

That said, I still think 2009 was a great year for Wii software.

[QUOTE="ASK_Story"]

Anyway, that's how I feel about NSMBWii. I'm not disagreeing with anyone who thinks NSMBWii maybe lazy, but this time around, I see the good outweighing the bad because I love the game. And yeah, one thing I do agree with Casamassina is that I wish the fourth playable wasn't Toad. If not Peach, why not Wario?

Grammaton-Cleric

Hey, I bought it too and it's a great game. My point is that somebody claimed they spent around 60 million on its development which of course isn't true.

The real question is how long can Nintendo get away with type of strategy before consumers once again look to Sony and MS for relief? I think they've got this generation locked but I'm not so certain they'll stay on top for the kind of duration they enjoyed with the NES and SNES.

In the case of Nintendo's flagrant, insulting laziness, it's even worse since the ardent fans think it's GOOD that they're being shortchanged - the "expanded audience," or "the casuals," don't care one way or another, so that's not an issue. I think it'll be a VERY long time before Nintendo takes a meaningful hit, at this rate, and that's assuming it ever happens at all.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="ASK_Story"]

Anyway, that's how I feel about NSMBWii. I'm not disagreeing with anyone who thinks NSMBWii maybe lazy, but this time around, I see the good outweighing the bad because I love the game. And yeah, one thing I do agree with Casamassina is that I wish the fourth playable wasn't Toad. If not Peach, why not Wario?

ShenlongBo

Hey, I bought it too and it's a great game. My point is that somebody claimed they spent around 60 million on its development which of course isn't true.

The real question is how long can Nintendo get away with type of strategy before consumers once again look to Sony and MS for relief? I think they've got this generation locked but I'm not so certain they'll stay on top for the kind of duration they enjoyed with the NES and SNES.

In the case of Nintendo's flagrant, insulting laziness, it's even worse since the ardent fans think it's GOOD that they're being shortchanged - the "expanded audience," or "the casuals," don't care one way or another, so that's not an issue. I think it'll be a VERY long time before Nintendo takes a meaningful hit, at this rate, and that's assuming it ever happens at all.

You might be right. I originally thought the Wii would fail miserably at retail so who knows? They might ride this wave for a very long time.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

Personally, and with all due respect to Vader, I really can't understand how anybody could play Zelda: TP and think it holds its own with current gen games. It came off as such a clunky, archaic and uninspired experience that after a while I couldn't stomach it. The issue isn't merely about the visuals but rather how poorly the visuals were implemented in that game. When you compare it to something like Galaxy, which looks amazing despite the technical limitations of the Wii, I find Z:TP to be unforgivable. Then again, it was nothing more than a port of a Cube game so perhaps that's the core of the problem.

dvader654

With all due respect to you I don't understand how anyone can play TP and not see how brillaintly designed a game it is. It possibly has the best pacing of any Zelda game, its main quest is filled with gameplay scenarios that are outside the normal find dunegon, play dunegon, move on to next dungeon gameplay. It has the best selection of items, some of the best boss fights in the series. I would say it is the best collections of dungeon of any Zelda game. And GC graphics or not it is a beautiful game, standing over Lake Hyrule when the sunrises is a breathtaking visual. And again another 40+ hours experience with no downtime, with excellent variety.

What other games offer this, there are no action adventure games that offer this mix of puzzle solving, action and exploration. Okami which came out the same year couldn't hold a candle next to the level design of Twilight Princess, it was an excellent game but the dungeons were a joke, the puzzle solving just wasn't there, neither was the gameplay variety. There are no games like Zelda. If you dont care for the formula anymore then that is fine. Zelda games have everything I am looking for in games so until other games start to match what Zelda accomplishes in tems of that mix of action, puzzle solving, exploration, variety in items, game length, boss fights, mini games, etc, it will always hold its own against current games cause it offers something no other games do.

The main critique I found with TP was that it was too much like other Zelda games, which is a valid complaint. But that does not mean it was an uninspired experience, especially when it offers a game experience that nearly all developers don't even attempt to match.

You know Vader, in all sincerity, this just isn't an argument I want to have with you again. I appreciate your love for this franchise and in all honesty all I really want is a new Zelda on the Wii that manages to do something a bit fresher than what we've seen previously. A Link to the Past still occupies a top spot on my favorite games of all times listso I'm content at this point to sit back and see what Nintendo does with this upcoming Wii iteration.