Does Nintendo's unwillingness to evolve their gameplay/design upset you?

If you notice, the gameplay and design in their games is the same as when the franchises first made their 2D/3D appearances.

For example, look at Darksiders. The jump from Darksiders 1 to 2, is huge. They have added many more mechanics and increased the world size threefold atleast. Whereas, Skyward Sword actually took a step back. Sure it added motion controls, but that has more to do with hardware design that actualy pure gameplay design.

Is this getting stale for others too?

I am a fan of Nintendo's games, but I just always feel like i've been there done that, too many times. It becomes a chore after a while.

I think Nintendo resists many emerging gaming trends and it is annoying as all hell. DLC, digital games, social media integration, online connected play, and even some new graphics tech are all very behind the curve on the Nintendo platform because they are so inflexible.

I think that in some ways they are well beyond the curve. LoZ: Skyward Sword, for example, has that motion control and the way you approach enemies is different every time because have to attack them at the angle you specifically thought of at that moment.

This thread belongs in System Wars. Let's ignore Nintendo's changes to gameplay. Let's ignore the stylus controls of the DS, the motion controls of the Wii. Let's ignore the planets in Mario Galaxy and a story mode in Smash Bros that resembles a old arcade-style beat-em-up (new for Smash), the creation of first-person Metroid and later giving Samus a personality (good or bad, that's a first in Metroid's history). Let's ignore the fact that every Star Fox since 64 has been RADICALLY different in gameplay from eachother: a dungeon-crawler, a hybrid third-person/rail shooter, and a touch control strategy game. Let's ignore everything new Nintendo has done over the last decade, some of which was direct inspiration for many of today's more "evolved" games.

Nintendo's apparent lack of risk-taking really is a problem as everyone seems to ignore it.

I don't know...if you ask me, Super Mario Galaxy is very different from Super Mario Sunshine or Super Mario 64 (with the exception of Peach getting kidnaped by Bowser). The New/ Mario Bros. games, while being similar, are still very different from each other with things like level design, platforming inovations/ gimmics and what not. Sure the story is pretty much the same in all of them (Peach gets kidnaped, Mario goes saves her) but that is just Mario's thing, it's almost a requirement for any Mario platformer. Imo, the games are very enjoyable so I see no reason why Nintendo's unwillingness to "evolve" should bother or upset me.

With Nintendo's other franchises/ ips, none of them are the "same" as there predicesors (with the exceptions of Mario Parties, and Mario's different sport games). TLoZ changes story, setting, era, basic gameplay in each entry. The only true constants are the Tri-force, Zelda, a great evil (typically some form or another of Ganondorth) and the Master Sword (with the exception of TLoZ: MM as the Master Sword and Ganon was not in that game). I still find this series very enjoyable. Imo. The Kirby ip...you can't seriously look at this franchise and say it hasn't changed, evolved over the years with each entry. Recently pretty much every entry in the series has been almost completly different from it's predicesor with the exception of Kirby being in it. While Kirby tends to be easy, it's still very much a fun ip to play. Then there is the Metriod ip. Metriod the Other M is as different as it possibly can be from Metriod Prime (1, 2, and 3) just like those are vastly different from the Metriods on the SNES and NES. Imo the only problem games in this series is Metriod Other M (the writing is pretty bad) and Metroid Prime 3: Corruption (far too linear for a Metriod Prime game), but with that said, I have yet to play a Metriod game I didn't like. I would go on, but to be honest, this is already a wall of text, so I'll stop.

If you notice, the gameplay and design in their games is the same as when the franchises first made their 2D/3D appearances.

For example, look at Darksiders. The jump from Darksiders 1 to 2, is huge. They have added many more mechanics and increased the world size threefold atleast. Whereas, Skyward Sword actually took a step back. Sure it added motion controls, but that has more to do with hardware design that actualy pure gameplay design.

Is this getting stale for others too?

I am a fan of Nintendo's games, but I just always feel like i've been there done that, too many times. It becomes a chore after a while.

Glutenbob

I had a feeling that this is what you were referring to by the whole "evolve" thing. The notion of simply making games bigger and more complex as evolution isn't exactly a new one or something Nintendo hasn't done in the past. If anything that's almost ALL Nintendo was doing prior to the DS and Wii, minus a few unrealized concepts here and there. As WiiCubeM1 alluded to, Nintendo has in fact done more evolving than anyone that past few years, at least from a conceptional point of view.

Nintendo's innovations are often set aside, however, because they don't cater exclusively to a certain group of people. It's not just about Nintendo creating new hardware, but Nintendo has successful created games around a philosophy that have provided experiences never before seen several times this gen. Unfortunately, most of them are disregard by the industry's most vocal parties because of the so-called "casual" label that the majority of people have embraced and the fact that Nintendo's key games this gen haven't been about simply making games in the vein of the conventional approach, meaning that each title just tries to be bigger and increasingly complicating the experience.

In my opinion, Nintendo has been anything but stale for the most part of the DS/Wii's runs. It's the one-way direction of the HD model that I'm getting tired of seeing for the most part.

I saw a Darksiders 2 vid and I didn't find the game appealing.

If anything, I'd like to see Ninty go "back to the roots", i.e. pure gameplay-based games without any "cinematic", "casual" and "realistic" traits.

Seriously... Seems like people on these forums won't be happy until Mario & Luigi are turned into testosterone junkies running around the Mushroom Kingdom with Shotguns shooting the c**p outta everything in an attempt to kill Bowser and f***ing every Princess they meet along the way. Hell most would probably change Mushroom Kingdom with New York, Bowser with some generic Russian and the Princess's with Whores, hell while we're at it lets change Mario & Luigi's names, Gary and Steve sounds better right?

I think with most of their games, the actualdesign and gameplay are advanced. They are always keeping it fresh. Look at every Mario sequel, you often see people on system wars say "look another Mario game, spamming Mario" but every Mario bring platforming that is beyond varied. I do think some of their franchises have gotten the "Madden sequel" treatment. For example, Animal Crossing: City Folk does very little in even differentiaiting itself from its console predecessor. The same could be said for certain Pokemon games. For the most part Nintendo does an amazing job of keeping their franchises fresh and utilizing the specific hardware/controllers to bring new experiences.

However features normally surrounding games like online or leaderboards they are fumbling. Its pathetic really. I do not know if its Miyamoto's resistance or they simply just are oblivious of their competition's advancements.

I wouldn't really say the Wii 'worked'. For Nintendo, yeh, it worked. For fans, nope. It was a huge disappointment.

I wouldn't really say the Wii 'worked'. For Nintendo, yeh, it worked. For fans, nope. It was a huge disappointment.

Glutenbob

I find that Nintendo is one of the few that evolve their games more than usual. Look at Halo, Uncharted, No More Heroes, Call of Duty, Gears of War, God of War and much more. They're hardly different besides a few gameplay tweaks and a continued story. Actually, Metroid Prime Trilogy is guilty of this too. The atmosphere in those games feel identical. Now look at each iteration of Zelda. It's a brand new story each time with a new perspective, a different art style, and there many new tools that dramatically changes gameplay. Playing every Zelda has its own tone and that's what I love about it. Skyward Sword, in my opnion, is the true evolution that the series needed most. Nothing beats 1:1 movement when dealing with swordplay (well it's not exactly 1:1 but close enough). 3D Mario games also feel the same way (besides Galaxy 1 & 2 comparison).

However features normally surrounding games like online or leaderboards they are fumbling. Its pathetic really. I do not know if its Miyamoto's resistance or they simply just are oblivious of their competition's advancements.

thedude-

There's no debate that Nintendo's commitment to its online-gaming strategy has been mostly lackluster to this point, but to be honest you, I think that it really wasn't a very relevant asset for Nintendo with the DS and Wii to begin with. Just look at most of the DS' and Wii's biggest titles; most of the games wouldn't have benefited from online play and the games that were online play would have worked, such as Mario Kart and Animal Crossing, actually had them, but probably would have sold just as well even if they didn't. Because Nintendo's strategy with those two platforms were as unique as they were in comparison to the industry's perceived 'standards', there really wasn't much of an incentive to provide a very solid online infrastructure at the time. And while Nintendo's online approach was by no means was it perfect, or possibly even average, it still wasn't insufficient enough to hurt the Wii and DS.

I think what will be more telling is how Nintendo approaches online functionality from this point out, as they've no doubt seen what they will have to contend with in that field in order to attract the dedicated gamer market they're so intent on gaining with the Wii U and 3DS. Not to mention that online usage has increased pretty significantly over the past few years through a variety of devices, it would kind of be tough for Nintendo to ignore its presence at this point.

Uh... I find that they HAVE changed their design philosophy's a lot... and I feel this way because I'm upset about it. To me, the experience of Mario 64 is COMPLETELY different than the experience of Galaxy, and I prefer Mario 64's design philosophies. Like many others have said, most people's problems with Skyward Sword was that it changed too much, not that it felt stale. Everything is getting so linear versus the very sandboxy nintendo games of yore. I mean, Mario Galaxy's point A to point B rollercoasters against Mario 64's open worlds where you could potentially happen upon almost any of the stars just via exploration, or Ocarina of Time's Hyrule field with routes in every direction, or Windwaker's great sea versus Skyward Sword's three linear pathways you revisit with slightly altered routes (swimming around for music note fish excepted). Hell, I wish they HADN'T changed their gameplay and design. Yes, I think they did their best to resist the modern gaming age in terms of tech, and that frustrated me a bit, but as far as gameplay is concerned, they've definitely changed.

Now don't get me wrong, I still love all these new games... I mean, it's Nintendo, they're great games... I just loved the old ones better.

[QUOTE="Glutenbob"]

I wouldn't really say the Wii 'worked'. For Nintendo, yeh, it worked. For fans, nope. It was a huge disappointment.

meetroid8

Is the Wii your favorite Nintendo console?

Or better still, is it your least favorite Nintendo console?

Do you like the Wii more than the N64 or GC?

[QUOTE="meetroid8"][QUOTE="Glutenbob"]

I wouldn't really say the Wii 'worked'. For Nintendo, yeh, it worked. For fans, nope. It was a huge disappointment.

Glutenbob

Is the Wii your favorite Nintendo console?

Or better still, is it your least favorite Nintendo console?

Do you like the Wii more than the N64 or GC?

[QUOTE="Glutenbob"]

[QUOTE="meetroid8"] Speak for yourself.meetroid8

Is the Wii your favorite Nintendo console?

Or better still, is it your least favorite Nintendo console?

Do you like the Wii more than the N64 or GC?

[QUOTE="thedude-"]

However features normally surrounding games like online or leaderboards they are fumbling. Its pathetic really. I do not know if its Miyamoto's resistance or they simply just are oblivious of their competition's advancements.

Madmangamer364

There's no debate that Nintendo's commitment to its online-gaming strategy has been mostly lackluster to this point, but to be honest you, I think that it really wasn't a very relevant asset for Nintendo with the DS and Wii to begin with. Just look at most of the DS' and Wii's biggest titles; most of the games wouldn't have benefited from online play and the games that were online play would have worked, such as Mario Kart and Animal Crossing, actually had them, but probably would have sold just as well even if they didn't. Because Nintendo's strategy with those two platforms were as unique as they were in comparison to the industry's perceived 'standards', there really wasn't much of an incentive to provide a very solid online infrastructure at the time. And while Nintendo's online approach was by no means was it perfect, or possibly even average, it still wasn't insufficient enough to hurt the Wii and DS.

I think what will be more telling is how Nintendo approaches online functionality from this point out, as they've no doubt seen what they will have to contend with in that field in order to attract the dedicated gamer market they're so intent on gaining with the Wii U and 3DS. Not to mention that online usage has increased pretty significantly over the past few years through a variety of devices, it would kind of be tough for Nintendo to ignore its presence at this point.

[QUOTE="meetroid8"][QUOTE="Glutenbob"]

I wouldn't really say the Wii 'worked'. For Nintendo, yeh, it worked. For fans, nope. It was a huge disappointment.

Glutenbob

Is the Wii your favorite Nintendo console?

Or better still, is it your least favorite Nintendo console?

Do you like the Wii more than the N64 or GC?

It's not my favorite console, but Skyward Sword is my favorite 3D Zelda because of the motion controls, Brawl is my favorite Smash, Other M is my favorite Metroid, Sin & Punishment: Star Successor is one of my most played Wii games, and I still play Wii Sports every couple of weeks.

The Wii succeeded beyond my expectations game-wise.

I disagree. A more unified marketable online interface could have have opened so many opportunities for revenue. Both the Wii and the DS has online shops that did not bring in many sales for Nintendo and its partners compared to how many Wiis and DSs were out there. They had the potential to more than double their sales for each store if the memory capacity was not so abysmally small and limiting creatively, if the interface was not slow and disorganized, and if there was a user friendly way to store all of your data. Games that could have had online would have increased the longevity/legs of sales momentum. Mario Kart Wii had online that was still a hassle. If the online was half as good as popular online games on other consoles there would have been a persistant crowd spreading by word of mouth and continuing to play the game long after they bought it. For SSBB this idea would have been even bigger. Imagine the tournament scene that could have been carried out online. Imagine the clan nature and friends list of SSB mates. Imagine if they had DLC for many of these games. The less Nintendo advances each generation with online play the more behind they will be from the competition, which is exactly where they will be with Wii U. Them making an online presence that was insignificant would only bring insignificant results.thedude-

Again, I just don't think the things you were speaking of were in the cards concerning the DS/Wii approach. To do what you're saying for the Wii, it would have likely meant a significantly larger investment for Nintendo and the potential consumer base it was trying to attract. Probably not the best move to make, given that they were already busy enough with getting the Wii off to a good start. To be honest, I'm not even sure if it really would have been worth it at the time, either. We can believe that a better shop interface and more memory could have helped with WiiWare sales, but it's really anyone's guess, not necessarly a very strong argument that the effort towards an improved online interface would have resulted in such a massive success for the platform. As for the DS, it didn't even have a shop until later in its life, with the release of the DSi. By that point, making a big push at such a thing wouldn't have made much sense, especially considering how well the DS was doing without it.

As for your point about the games, simply a bad example all around in terms of showing the importance of online play, I'm afraid. Fact is that Mario Kart Wii sold, what, around 20 million units and is still being played by many people, in spite of its online being a 'hassle'? What's even more telling are the the games that reached similiar marks that didn't touch any online functionality. Wii Fit, New Super Mario Bros. Wii, Brain Age... them and several other key Nintendo titles dominated in sales this gen and online was never in the picture for them. Heck, those games had MUCH longer legs and momentum than any game on any other platform(s) you can speak of, due to their accessibility and mass market appeal. That's still not to say that improved online functionality couldn't have helped some games in some way, but it just goes to my point that at least for this gen, you can't really come to a definite conclusion that Nintendo's online philosophy did them any damage. All we can do is speculate about what Nintendo missed out on, but the numbers fail to reflect an actual impact.

Yes,atm,very.

There should be amazing 3D games of DK,Wario,and Kirby,

And better installments in their smaller franchises.

And just do something DIFFERENT with Zelda,Metroid,and Pokemon!

If you notice, the gameplay and design in their games is the same as when the franchises first made their 2D/3D appearances.

For example, look at Darksiders. The jump from Darksiders 1 to 2, is huge. They have added many more mechanics and increased the world size threefold atleast. Whereas, Skyward Sword actually took a step back. Sure it added motion controls, but that has more to do with hardware design that actualy pure gameplay design.

Is this getting stale for others too?

I am a fan of Nintendo's games, but I just always feel like i've been there done that, too many times. It becomes a chore after a while.

Glutenbob

I think you've got this backwards dude. Nintendo's games, while they may be the same franchises always include stacks of new game mechanics. The gameplay in the games is new for each iteration. If you look at games like Zelda, Mario, Metroid, Pikmin, etc. While they may include the same core mechanics, there's always many new elements to the gameplay. Compare this to games like COD which has been the same game since 3 or 4, uncharted which barely changed from 2 to 3, gears of war which had ever so minor changes, god of war which has been more or less exactly the same, project gotham racing which I don't think has changed, any of the elder scrolls games are all still terrible games, fable hasn't changed or changed for the worse, halo hasn't changed all that much.

That's not to say that these games aren't good games (apart from the elder scrolls series. All disastrously terrible) it's just to say that Nintendo's franchises change hugely and if you can't see that, I don't think you've been playing them.

Uh... I find that they HAVE changed their design philosophy's a lot... and I feel this way because I'm upset about it. To me, the experience of Mario 64 is COMPLETELY different than the experience of Galaxy, and I prefer Mario 64's design philosophies. Like many others have said, most people's problems with Skyward Sword was that it changed too much, not that it felt stale. Everything is getting so linear versus the very sandboxy nintendo games of yore. I mean, Mario Galaxy's point A to point B rollercoasters against Mario 64's open worlds where you could potentially happen upon almost any of the stars just via exploration, or Ocarina of Time's Hyrule field with routes in every direction, or Windwaker's great sea versus Skyward Sword's three linear pathways you revisit with slightly altered routes (swimming around for music note fish excepted). Hell, I wish they HADN'T changed their gameplay and design. Yes, I think they did their best to resist the modern gaming age in terms of tech, and that frustrated me a bit, but as far as gameplay is concerned, they've definitely changed.

Now don't get me wrong, I still love all these new games... I mean, it's Nintendo, they're great games... I just loved the old ones better.

guitarist4292

Exactly. They're making too easy and limited games now. There used to be a expression called "Nintendo hard" once. We want more expansive worlds and harder games, not hand-holding and smaller worlds.

Yes.

Just make amazing 3D versions of Kirby,DK,Wario,and Yoshi already!

they certainly do change their designs.

skyward sword was a lot different than past zeldas. the reliance on motion controls made sword combat much more about reaction than pure attacking like it has been for many entries in the series. it also made most of the enemy designs very different. for exploration, nintendo merged overworld and dungeons for a pacing we hadnt seen yet.

mario has been more of a gradual change in his 3D platformers. mario 64 was much more about open spaces, so youd go to the same location but do a completely different activity. from sunshine to galaxy, the levels have been more guided experiences with game imposed variety.

metroid prime and other m couldnt oppose each other more in their acceptance of "cinematic" design.

paper mario has certainly seen its share of experimentation with spm being nothing like anything in the series. it went from a turn based game to a platforming combat system with stats and loads of little gimmicks.

star fox has changed so much since the N64 that we dont even associate a genre with it. its gone from a rail shooter to an action adventure game to something in between and then disappeared completely.

some changes had good results and some didnt, but nintendo has been home to some of the few developers that actually do change their designs from their cores rather than make additions to the same designs. i mean, taking a world and making it bigger isnt really changing the design. its just giving you more of it.

You're not looking close enough if you think Nintendo games haven't evolved in the past 20-25 years.Haziqonfire

I don't consider a downgrade to be 'evolution'

You're not looking close enough if you think Nintendo games haven't evolved in the past 20-25 years.Haziqonfire

I don't consider a downgrade to be 'evolution'

[QUOTE="Haziqonfire"]You're not looking close enough if you think Nintendo games haven't evolved in the past 20-25 years.Glutenbob

I don't consider a downgrade to be 'evolution'

I don't see how it's a downgrade. It's a hubworld with branching paths to the dungeons. That's the same as every past Zelda, especially Wind Waker.

If you notice, the gameplay and design in their games is the same as when the franchises first made their 2D/3D appearances.

For example, look at Darksiders. The jump from Darksiders 1 to 2, is huge. They have added many more mechanics and increased the world size threefold atleast. Whereas, Skyward Sword actually took a step back. Sure it added motion controls, but that has more to do with hardware design that actualy pure gameplay design.

Is this getting stale for others too?

I am a fan of Nintendo's games, but I just always feel like i've been there done that, too many times. It becomes a chore after a while.

Glutenbob

No, no, no.

If anything this generation by Nintendo shows they can evolve, make larger levels (TP), change mechanics (SS), completely redesign a true time and tested formula (SMG1/2)...

And last generation we had Metroid in 1st person, Fox on foot in Starfox...

And I lol'ed at Darksiders.

If you notice, the gameplay and design in their games is the same as when the franchises first made their 2D/3D appearances.

For example, look at Darksiders. The jump from Darksiders 1 to 2, is huge. They have added many more mechanics and increased the world size threefold atleast. Whereas, Skyward Sword actually took a step back. Sure it added motion controls, but that has more to do with hardware design that actualy pure gameplay design.

Is this getting stale for others too?

I am a fan of Nintendo's games, but I just always feel like i've been there done that, too many times. It becomes a chore after a while.

Glutenbob

No, no, no.

If anything this generation by Nintendo shows they can evolve, make larger levels (TP), change mechanics (SS), completely redesign a true time and tested formula (SMG1/2)...

And last generation we had Metroid in 1st person, Fox on foot in Starfox...

And I lol'ed at Darksiders.

It's funny how these threads are usually created by people who never come to the wii boards yet frequent the PS3 and 360 boards :lol:nini200

Gives us something to do, at least.

It's funny how these threads are usually created by people who never come to the wii boards yet frequent the PS3 and 360 boards :lol:nini200

[QUOTE="Haziqonfire"]You're not looking close enough if you think Nintendo games haven't evolved in the past 20-25 years.Glutenbob

I don't consider a downgrade to be 'evolution'

Do you like the Wii more than the N64 or GC?

Glutenbob

Yes.

This thread belongs in System Wars. Let's ignore Nintendo's changes to gameplay. Let's ignore the stylus controls of the DS, the motion controls of the Wii. Let's ignore the planets in Mario Galaxy and a story mode in Smash Bros that resembles a old arcade-style beat-em-up (new for Smash), the creation of first-person Metroid and later giving Samus a personality (good or bad, that's a first in Metroid's history). Let's ignore the fact that every Star Fox since 64 has been RADICALLY different in gameplay from eachother: a dungeon-crawler, a hybrid third-person/rail shooter, and a touch control strategy game. Let's ignore everything new Nintendo has done over the last decade, some of which was direct inspiration for many of today's more "evolved" games.

Nintendo's apparent lack of risk-taking really is a problem as everyone seems to ignore it.

WiiCubeM1

I think Nindendo are constantly evolving gameplay design, and are doing more-so than most other companies. It's just because it's within an old franchise, people look past it. Games like Zelda: SS, Galaxy, Other M, New Super Mario Bros. Wii (robust multiplayer 2D Mario platformer) are examples of this, just to name a few. A new IP that evolves gameplay is the Wii series too - bringing a new dimension to party games as well as bringing fittness etc. into it. Whether or not you like these games, they are still pushing old genres and franchises in new directions.

[QUOTE="Glutenbob"]

If you notice, the gameplay and design in their games is the same as when the franchises first made their 2D/3D appearances.

For example, look at Darksiders. The jump from Darksiders 1 to 2, is huge. They have added many more mechanics and increased the world size threefold atleast. Whereas, Skyward Sword actually took a step back. Sure it added motion controls, but that has more to do with hardware design that actualy pure gameplay design.

Is this getting stale for others too?

I am a fan of Nintendo's games, but I just always feel like i've been there done that, too many times. It becomes a chore after a while.

sonic_spark

No, no, no.

If anything this generation by Nintendo shows they can evolve, make larger levels (TP), change mechanics (SS), completely redesign a true time and tested formula (SMG1/2)...

And last generation we had Metroid in 1st person, Fox on foot in Starfox...

And I lol'ed at Darksiders.

You got to be kidding with the 'completely redesign a true time...SMG1/2" part. Other than a bit of gravity shenanigans, SMG isn't anything revolutionary.

As TP was a gamecube game that they delayed a whole year so it could be on the Wii.

I am talking about Nintendo of this generation. They were great during the GC days.

I am talking about Nintendo of this generation. They were great during the GC days.

Glutenbob

...

wut?

You got to be kidding with the 'completely redesign a true time...SMG1/2" part. Other than a bit of gravity shenanigans, SMG isn't anything revolutionary.

Glutenbob

Other than a bit of gravity shenanigans, SMG isn't anything revolutionary.

Glutenbob

Neither is Darksiders 2 or any of the things you mentioned about it.

Hypocrisy much? :P

[QUOTE="thedude-"]I disagree. A more unified marketable online interface could have have opened so many opportunities for revenue. Both the Wii and the DS has online shops that did not bring in many sales for Nintendo and its partners compared to how many Wiis and DSs were out there. They had the potential to more than double their sales for each store if the memory capacity was not so abysmally small and limiting creatively, if the interface was not slow and disorganized, and if there was a user friendly way to store all of your data. Games that could have had online would have increased the longevity/legs of sales momentum. Mario Kart Wii had online that was still a hassle. If the online was half as good as popular online games on other consoles there would have been a persistant crowd spreading by word of mouth and continuing to play the game long after they bought it. For SSBB this idea would have been even bigger. Imagine the tournament scene that could have been carried out online. Imagine the clan nature and friends list of SSB mates. Imagine if they had DLC for many of these games. The less Nintendo advances each generation with online play the more behind they will be from the competition, which is exactly where they will be with Wii U. Them making an online presence that was insignificant would only bring insignificant results.Madmangamer364

Again, I just don't think the things you were speaking of were in the cards concerning the DS/Wii approach. To do what you're saying for the Wii, it would have likely meant a significantly larger investment for Nintendo and the potential consumer base it was trying to attract. Probably not the best move to make, given that they were already busy enough with getting the Wii off to a good start. To be honest, I'm not even sure if it really would have been worth it at the time, either. We can believe that a better shop interface and more memory could have helped with WiiWare sales, but it's really anyone's guess, not necessarly a very strong argument that the effort towards an improved online interface would have resulted in such a massive success for the platform. As for the DS, it didn't even have a shop until later in its life, with the release of the DSi. By that point, making a big push at such a thing wouldn't have made much sense, especially considering how well the DS was doing without it.

As for your point about the games, simply a bad example all around in terms of showing the importance of online play, I'm afraid. Fact is that Mario Kart Wii sold, what, around 20 million units and is still being played by many people, in spite of its online being a 'hassle'? What's even more telling are the the games that reached similiar marks that didn't touch any online functionality. Wii Fit, New Super Mario Bros. Wii, Brain Age... them and several other key Nintendo titles dominated in sales this gen and online was never in the picture for them. Heck, those games had MUCH longer legs and momentum than any game on any other platform(s) you can speak of, due to their accessibility and mass market appeal. That's still not to say that improved online functionality couldn't have helped some games in some way, but it just goes to my point that at least for this gen, you can't really come to a definite conclusion that Nintendo's online philosophy did them any damage. All we can do is speculate about what Nintendo missed out on, but the numbers fail to reflect an actual impact.