What's kept Nintendo relevant vs. other Japanese game developers?

It's no secret that Japanese developers have fallen very behind the west in terms of game design. The West has taken control of the industry, and have been at the forefront of groundbreaking game design for many years now, while Japan has largely stagnated. I'd be lying if Nintendo wasn't guilty of this either. For much of the Wii U era, Nintendo has been in a sort of creative rut, with their games not being nearly as influencial or important as they used to be. Yet even at their low point, Nintendo is still far more relevant and successful than most other Japanese publishers. Why is this? How is it that one of the most prolific Japanese developers in the industry from the 80s and 90s, is still able to maintain a sense of relevancy and importance while the likes of Konami and Sega have fallen to the wayside? Is it because they're a platform holder? Is it because their games have more global appeal? How has Nintendo been able to still hang in, and survive the decline of the Japanese gaming industry?

They're responsible for dozens of amazing games. If you ask people what their favorite game ever is, many answers will be a Nintendo game. People don't forget their experiences in Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, Metroid, etc, as well as the fun they had with friends in Mario Kart and Smash.

They make great games.

Nostalgia.

It's because of name recognition that draws in talented developers (the brain drain). But also, they are a very talented company that makes amazing games.

@Pedro: why don't you give it a break man?? Don't you get tired of bashing Nintendo constantly??

Even I see good things in Microsoft & Sony.

Sure helped Sega

simple, Nintendo is one of the most iconic game developers, and they make hardware

Its my job. Until Nintendo start being more relevant or stop existing I will stop. :)

Strongest IP in the industry (possibly in entertainment media) and a fanatic fanbase. You could wrap most any game type in the Mario IP and it would sell over a million copies, easy.

They make great games and their gimmicks tend to work. Minus the Wii U.

They know who they are and they're very good at what they do.

Nintendo's ips are strong. Both in terms of the quality of what they produce (for the most part) and in terms of their visual direction. They aren't necessarily a product of an era (Sonic) or fucking eye sores (anything Nomura draws). Because they aren't overly drawn, they are actually fundamentally simple, so they pop, they stick out, and they remain iconic. Because the look is so obvious, you could never mistake it for anything else. It's why the initial look of Masterchief works so well, or why Doom marine is dressed the way he is. Besides the obvious space marine reference, they are more simple drawings. Green power armor, a helmet, and a gun.

It's why Nintendo has always had good sales in the west consistently, unlike other companies from Japan. So they weren't hurt as much when the console space died there.

It pops. On the flip side, Square's characters make you question which section of the Gap do those mother fuckers making their games buy their clothes. Which is why while Final Fantasy n Kingdom hearts (and that's a huge assist from Disney) do fine for Square because of the branding, while the rest of Square's output does terrible. That isn't eidos stuff obviously.

Hmmm I think there is great game design coming out of the West and East. Likewise, there are games with design choices I don't like coming out too so it is all a matter of preference.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that western games are better than eastern games. The former tends to be more appealing to a certain audience in the west for sure.

They make amazing games?

There are many factors from iconic characters that have mainstream appeal (Mario), iconic developers (Shigeru Miyamoto), memorable games (Super Mario Bros.), games that can appeal to both Japan and the rest of world, a profitable market that is outside of Japan, and so on.

If you're being sarcastic...nostalgia sure did help Sega. You think the contemporary Sonic games would have sold the way it did if not for the 90's nostalgia?

The games were worse than mediocre, but people still tried it out, perhaps hoping that there would be some redemption

Not really. I'd argue a lot of the best games still come from Japan, just not at nearly the same volume.

Japanese devs are making a big comeback you know?

@Epak_: Yeah, but only just recently. For much of the 7th and early 8th generation, Japanese developers have largely fallen behind in the west in terms of revolutionary game design, while western developers were putting forth the real groundbreaking game design. So many of the most influential games last generation came from non-Japanese developers. BioShock, The Last of Us, the first few Assassin's Creed games, Journey, Dead Space, Fallout 3, Skyrim, etc. While Japanese developers either tried way too hard to pander to the West (Lords of Shadow, Resident Evil), made their games way too pretentious and convoluted for their own good (Sonic 06, Final Fantasy 13, most console JRPGs in general), or retreated to making smaller gamers on handhelds and the Wii (No More Heroes, TWEWY, etc.).

@TheMisterManGuy: they make good games as opposed to games that just have the Japanese anime game look and feel.

And I'm not saying that games that have the stereotypical anime look can't be good games, but there's definitely subset of Japanese games that just use that as their main schtick instead of actual good gameplay.

It's sorta the same type of argument as presented in this video:

https://youtu.be/jtTBYMvLBbw

Nintendo isn't caught up in being Japanese.

@TheMisterManGuy:

What elements of the design of games do you find revolutionary?

The money farmed from Wii casuals.

@jumpaction: Open-World design, graphics technology, Story telling, scale. These are things western developers have been ahead in for years.

@TheMisterManGuy:

Interesting. I'd be willing to contest some of these points. Certainly, I think that Western developers are at the forefront of graphical advancements in the medium but I'd contest that they are also entirely hit and miss when it comes to open-world design.

For example, I think the open world design taken in games like Far Cry and Assassin's Creed is very poor. Rather than approach the open world with a sense of purpose, these games are stuffed up with repetitious tasks and meaningless collectibles that pad out the experience. Though, I don't think many Japanese games succeed in the same either. To be fair, open world isn't as 'trendy' as it is in the West. Still, the likes of 'A Link Between Worlds' is a far better example of open world design than the former with side quests offering admirable rewards and an integrated flow of exploration and puzzle solving that is interwoven into the core game-loop.

Story-telling has certainly become a focal point for some Western developers. Though the interactive structure of these elements has much remained the same since Half-Life, we have seen an increase in graphical fidelity and performance that had lead to superb voice casting and believable animations. However, this is a credit to graphics technology. I wouldn't credit the game design for this. Independent studios are certainly taking a different approach but in many of these cases such as Journey, we see a post-modern result that had lead to the traditions of the medium being left behind. That is not to say this is a bad thing. Games like Journey are excellent examples of game-feel and agency but without a core-game loop or win/loss ratio, the game is also entirely difficult to replay numerous times.

I thought we were just talking about how great Japan is a few threads ago?

Wouldn't say Japan has fallen just that the west has risen.

Also, regarding storytelling, that's an area where Japan is still ahead, in two different ways. On the narrative front, Japanese visual novels have the best writing in the medium, and the most meaningful narrative choices that impact the storytelling. On the gameplay front, Japanese developers like Team Ico and From Software are better at integrating the storytelling into the gameplay design, with the only Western developer that comes close probably being thatgamecompany (who take a more Japanese-influenced approach, rather than a typical Western approach).

Their conservative business practices, quality control on primary IP, and they don't chase trends.

They did 3D when no one else was doing it right. They did 2D when everyone else was going bankrupt playing the graphics game. They sell consoles at a profit. They don't run their IP's into the ground with yearly releases. And most important of all: they don't listen to arm chair internet folk or youtubers.

Everyone bashed mario maker for being on 3DS without online...and yet it sold over a million copies...shows what you know.

@Jag85:

I like that passive story-telling approach too. I like when games tell story using the environment.

@TheMisterManGuy: Pokemon mario Zelda Mario kart ssb are you really asking this just look at the sales of Mario kart 7 pokemon etc

@mariokart64fan:

People always forget Animal Crossing. New Leaf sold 10 million copies and Wild World did 12 million. ;)

That's more than I thought. Why is it so popular?

@Jag85:

It appeals to a very large audience, I suppose. Both kids and adults see the appeal of the series which I guess contributes to its large numbers.

Who says nintendo is relevant the wii u sucked big time.

They are firmly ingrained. After the Atari crash they took a foothold in America, many people ignorant of the genre still refer to consoles, as a "Nintendo", though much more so the case back then. While Sega frittered hardware after hardware Nintendo focused primarily on software, which to this day is associated with quality.

Even if people talk shit about their hardware, they will have a very difficult time dismissing their software.

Great game design philosophy coupled with rigorous IP management of franchises that has extremely expansive potential.

Are you serious or did that whole wii u flop slipped your memory.

The Wii-U still has a decent lineup of games. The only real flop as a console was probably the Virtual Boy which (if memory serves) was created by the guy who created the highly, highly, very successful Gameboy, which he was fired for. And died.

They become less and less relevant to me for each generation. Nintendo is good to make games for kids, thats cool i guess.

So the decent lineup of games that failed to sell hardware is not a flop ???

Was talking about quality, not sales.

The Dreamcast was killed, but it's generally considered one of the best consoles made with the best software lineup.

The Wii-U though not earth shattering, is pretty far from "the worst thing ever".

I own a PS3, and it's like having a meticulously crafted shit in the corner of your room. I've tried offering it away for free and people didn't want it, many took it as an insult.

@uninspiredcup: Good software sells hardware goes the nintendo catch phrase. You can damage control all day but the market has spoken. Less than 13 million units sold and the wii u is not even being produced any more.

Not sure what you mean by this,more to the point, it's been proven wrong. The Sega Dreamcast has a staggering lineup of games, Sega learned their lesson from the Saturn, 32X and Sega-CD and ended up created one of the greatest and best supported consoles.

Many people sought out a PS2 purely because it had a DVD drive and was more powerful, touting technology well beyond super-computers - and with that, Sega bowed out.

More to the point, marketing is very important. Sega turned out it's fortunes with Nintendo, not through software alone, but image, portraying itself as the MTV generation console. Before that, they were largely popular here, in Europe. Which is why people from Europe tend to talk more favorably of Sega over Nintendo, while Americans generally couldn't give a shit about Sega outside of the Genesis, it was the power of marketing.

Wii-U, from what I can tell from vaguely keeping track, had terrible marketing, people weren't even sure if it was a new console or an add-on.

@uninspiredcup: The wii sold over 100 mill vs the wii u 12.5 mill and you think it was bad marketing for that massive flop in sales wow.

Nintendo has bad leadership.

I didn't read every single response here, but I feel like a lot of people are missing the point entirely - what makes Nintendo different from other Japanese devs?

I'd have to say, most other Japanese developers focus on making games in one or two series' for a long period of time. A good example would be Nippon-Ichi or From Software. NI makes Disgaea sequels, it's what they do - but every once in a while they'll do something slightly different and maybe it'll be a Phantom Brave, or Makai Kingdom, or a weird little spin-off like a Prinny game. FS was known for King's Field for years, and then they moved on to Evergrace and its sequels for a bit, before striking gold with Demon's Souls - and it spawned several sequels and spin-offs.

Nintendo not only makes sequels to hit game IPs, but makes sequels that really mix things up. Mario 3 is not Mario World is not Mario 64 is not Mario Galaxy is not Mario Sunshine is not New Super Mario Bros. In addition, they will make really weird and experimental new IPs every so often, which could turn out to be another great new IP with several sequels over the years like Splatoon, Pikmin, Animal Crossing and Dillon's Rolling Western.

In addition, I'd say Nintendo is committed to making games that are good, but don't rely too heavily on excessive violence or complicated themes. They keep things simple and refreshing, and it is successful and prevents stagnancy.

Not sure what you're trying to argue tbh.

In regards to Nintendos leadership, they have been stupid in the past and have been stupid now. They however have also been clever, causing everyone else to mimic them, badly.

To be clear, 100% I do not view the Wii-U as a bad console, regardless of sales, it had an ok software lineup though not speculator and the manner in which they moved on brings about bad memories of the 32X.

A rabid, loyal fanbase and positioning their games to profit first and foremost while controlling costs (other devs have not managed adapting to the HD transition and Nintendo got away with avoiding it largely by positioning heir platform as the non-HD alternative).

But as has been shown, even Nintendo hasn't been able to cleanly move into the HD era.

The fact that Nintendo is still a console manufacturer. Most of the Japanese industry has abandoned consoles, with Nintendo being one of the few exceptions. Due to Nintendo being a console manufacturer, that forces them to focus on consoles. And because of the lack of third-party support, that forces them to make up for it with great first-party games.

Good software did sell the Wii U. It was about the only thing that sold it. All things considered, the Wii U sold 10+ million consoles solely on Nintendo exclusives. Can't say the same would happen on other consoles without the support of third parties. Look at the sales of many of the Nintendo exclusives on the Wii U, they sold a million plus.