When was the last time Nintendo pushed the industry forward?

It's amusing that we're all blown away by such things, but to some of my non-gamer friends they seem like obvious additions to a game. It's like we've gotten so used to not having these details that it's now impressive when we do, lol. But as gamers we do realize the difficulties that are involved in making them come to life.

The last time Nintendo well and truly blew my socks off was with its SNES :

F-zero (amazingly fast racing with revolutionary mode 7 graphics. Wow!)

Street Fighter 2 (a timed exclusive and a near arcade-perfect version of probably the best video game EVER.)

Super Mario World (State of the art platforming)

The NES was also pretty impressive and a serious contestant to the best computer at that time - the Commodore 64.

@toonlonk: most of these things are not notable at all. They are standard by now, bit Nintendo doing it makes it somehow impressive.

The level of detail in RDR2 is far above this.

@DocSanchez:

The only open-world game with most of those details is BOTW. Not even RDR2 has most of those details.

The level of detail in RDR2 is inferior to BOTW in most regards, whether in terms of environmental interactivity (you can interact with almost anything in BOTW, without the artificial barriers that RDR2 has), physics (BOTW's gameplay is way more physics-driven than RDR2), chemistry engine (an innovation pioneered by BOTW that RDR2 lacks), gameplay mechanics (RDR2's mechanics are artificially clunky in typical Rockstar fashion), or non-linearity (BOTW's world design is way more free-form and non-linear, and RDR2's mission design is artificially linear).

A well done VR real-time strategy game could me amazing. Commanding troops from above a battlefield and watching the chaos ensue. It could also reinvent the God genre game.

Realistically, military strategy is most often conducted via monitors (whether static or portable), so that's more representative of real-world military strategy. But come to think of it, considering how the military-industrial complex may adapt to VR or AR in the future (for example, GE Aerospace have already adopted AR, which I mentioned on the previous page), VR or AR could potentially represent the future of real-world military strategy.

Nintendo does a lot of innovative things, but it also seems very internalized, you know? Made specifically for one simple idea and execution for Nintendo, and Nintendo alone. I wouldn't say that, big picture-wise, they push the industry forward as a whole, only themselves.

as long as they throw money at advertising and production values, there will be no innovation. Would love to see a solid studio with a modest budget try to squeeze everything they can out of what they're given.

Regarding Nintendo:

• NES - True
• SNES - True
• N64 - Its biggest contribution was the analog thumbstick.
• GameCube - It pushed gaming forward with the Wavebird, leading to the standardisation of wireless controllers.
• Wii - It opened up a new market for casual gamers. Also, motion controls are making a comeback with VR.
• Wii U - True
• Switch - Its console-handheld hybrid design is progressive and forward-thinking, what consoles of the future could be like.

And don't forget their handhelds:

• Game Boy - Introduced handheld console gaming to the masses.
• Nintendo DS - Introduced portable touch-screen gaming to the masses.
• Nintendo 3DS - Introduced autostereoscopic 3D, which could potentially represent the future of television.

Regarding Sony and Microsoft:

• Online - Sega & Nintendo were pushing online console gaming in Japan years before Sony & Microsoft. And it's SegaNet that first popularized online console gaming globally.
• HDD - True
• Gameplay - Sega, Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft have all had their fair share of gameplay innovation since Gen 6.
• Graphics/Power - GameCube was powerful for its time, stronger than PS2 and comparable to Xbox. But since the Wii, Nintendo dropped-out of the graphics/power race.
• Audio - Not sure what you're referring to here.

@Jag85: No point arguing facts with him. He even doesn't know that AJ Styles is actually a huge Nintendo fan as well as an Xbox Supporter, and has his own collection of Japanese titles when he wrestled in NJPW.

Interesting. Didn't know that. But I was aware of John Cena being a fan of Nintendo... and Fist of the North Star.

What do you mean by Japanese titles? Do you mean Nintendo games exclusive to Japan?

Yes, I'm trying to find an episode of UpUpDwnDwn where he introduce New Day to Super Potato. But here he is with his own segment finding Retro games

@FireEmblem_Man:

Cool channel. Super Potato looks like one of the world's best retro-gaming stores. I didn't think they'd sell a rare mint Atari Jaguar in Tokyo of all places.

I suppose most of the other WWE wrestlers on the channel are also Nintendo fans?

The fact that its portable changed everything, botw and is Mario are amazing. But that fact I can play it in my hands while watching football or taking a shit is 100% a major game changer. Since I got my switch I hadn't been playing my ps4 or pc as much. The switch is my favorite, its dominating all my arcade indie games and giving me great first party1 games while giving me the option to play on the go or on my tv.

@Jag85: I feel like I slept through the Splatoon coverage lol. It all passed by me, but I'll take you guys' word for it. I still think that even if you account for all of the factors you've mentioned (f2p downloads, trials) the other games still sold much more. Even if you look at gaming news today, they continue to be popular. Every time overwatch releases a short, it goes trending top 10 on YouTube. Part of it is the advantage of multiplatform vs Splatoon exclusivity, though.

You're right about the similar gap between Spiderman 2 and arkham asylum. I thought it was more! We can both agree that they were inspirations moving forward, but Spiderman 2 likely started the chain.

VR strategy can be awesome! Imagine a Civilization game where the globe takes up your entire vision and you manage your country that way. Or XCOM with full view of the area and perspective manipulation. I personally see the potential in every genre. At its worst, it'll be no different than what we have but just cover your full field of view and be 3d (big improvements imo).

It's good that they are still trying for Google Glass. The idea definitely has potential, I wonder if we can make contact lenses like that any time soon. I imagine not!

RDR2 has a better narrative and more of a focus on realism, but I'd say BotW holds up as the game with stronger gameplay. Its controls feel smooth, reactive, and amazing to use, especially when compared to how awkward and clunky RDR2's movement and aiming controls are. The movement options in BotW are also way more polished, varied and feel more fun to use when compared to just walking/running/riding a horse everywhere. Even though the latter is more "realistic," it lacks the same magic of riding a rock through the sky halfway across the map or snowboarding down a mountain on your shield. Enemies are also (generally) more fun to fight in BotW. The combat options are very physics-based, making almost every encounter unique in its own way, as opposed to the "shoot person/use deadeye if you're having a hard time shooting them/use bow if you're trying to be sneaky" in RDR2. I'm not saying RDR2 is a bad game. It's a top-tier open-world game. It just leans more towards the "realism simulator" side of the spectrum, whereas BotW leans more to the "gameplay first" side.

Hardware wise i think they never did. When it comes to software, on the other hand, Nintendo was always ahead their competition in platformers, both 2d and 3d.

@PAL360: this is true.

Media coverage isn't necessarily a good indication of global popularity. Fortnite gets way more coverage than PUBG, yet PUBG has the larger global user base. And the PC games with the largest user bases, CrossFire and Dungeon Fighter Online, barely get media coverage at all (at least from Western media). As for Splatoon, you've hit the nail on the head with the multiplat vs. exclusive comparison. When Splatoon 1 & 2 released, the Wii U and Switch each had an install base below 10 million, with each game exceeding a 50% attach rate. In comparison, Overwatch and Fortnite released to an install base exceeding a billion. That's why comparing exclusive numbers to multi-plat numbers is not a fair comparison.

Agree with the rest of your post though.

Well I don't mean strict real world application, but a Company of Heroes game or a new Black and White/Populus. Picking up people off fields, creating weather through different motions to unleash on the land (hurricanes, lightning), forming or destroying land. VR is perfect for all of this, though I don't know if hardware is yet possible to do it to the degree of fidelity we're accustomed to with these genres.

Yep, majority of them are. Randy Orton LOVES Mario Kart, actually got a switch to play MK8DX, Xavier Woods has a Tri-Force tattoo, both his tag teams enjoy Smash Bros. Compared to Wrestling in the 80's-early 90's they all bond with Video Games now and have better chemistry with each other.

The Wii ushered in motion controls. I know what you're going to say, it was a stupid gimmick, but for one every single gaming company copied them, two we still use them in some games in more subtle ways, three VR relies heavily upon them, and four there's obviously a demand for PC-like precision in controls that Nintendo came the closest to delivering.

They were pretty close to being one of the first players in the interactive collectibles game. Okay, that one is objectively terrible.

I know the 3DS' 3D is a running joke now, but people forget that for a brief period of a couple of years 3D was all the rage. People thought that everyone would be sitting around computers and televisions with overpriced glasses forever, and Nintendo brought us 3D gaming without glasses. That was bigger than it gets credit for. And it has applications for VR. And, as is the case with just about everything Nintendo did differently, it worked extremely well when done right. Super Mario 3D land was an innovative use of the technology and showed how good games could be when they utilized it. Unfortunately, no one besides Nintendo made games that took proper advantage of it. Not Nintendo's fault.

The Switch is a revolutionary step forward in mobile gaming. It proved that people wanted a system that could function as a mobile system or a home console, to the point where Microsoft is now designing products that directly mimic it. And it showed that motion controls still have a place in today's gaming world. There are a lot of people who had been asking for mobile games that could play like console games for a long time, and Nintendo almost single-handedly made that a reality.

Now, granted, Nintendo has made a lot of unforced errors with all of these consoles, but it doesn't change the fact that they had a profound effect on how the industry operates.

The reason you don't see fidget spinners around anymore is because they already cured autism. Well, them and parents who don't vaccinate.

lmfao that sheep cuck was extra euphoric with his spam in the first page. Stay missing out, amiibo nerds.

Truthfully the last time Nintendo pushed the industry was in the 1980s. They've been a constant flop ever since. Even their only system to reach 100m sales was starved for games. lol womp womp.

BOTW is one boring ass game. I can tell a lot of work went into it but there just wasn't enough to see and do in it to keep me entertained. Super Mario Odyssey and DKC Tropical Freeze are legit though. Best platformers I've played since the SNES/N64 days.

@Rockman999: Even the most hardcore Nintendo haters acknowledge the N64 pushed the industry forward in the '90s... Saying the '80s is just ridiculous.

@jeezers: I can play it in my hands while watching football or taking a shit...

Then you have something to wipe your arse with too! A total game changer! :D

The truth is developers hate Nintendo. No-one wanted to release games for the Wii-U because it was too costly then when N realised their mistake it was too late.

They still don't play nice with devs and BoTW is boring sauce.

Let's be honest they want to make money and not take ANY chances. Wii-motes weren't a chance - they made sure EVERYONE knew about this new amazing technology but just didn't quite manage to make them work properly. Otherwise, not a bad idea.

Wii Fit and Sports has been their biggest contribution to gaming so far in terms of numbers and impact. It was just short lived because it was a short term cash grab. They don't care they're filling the world with megatons of plastic which goes unused.

In fact. I'm going to flip flop now. Labo is a great idea. Just not quite finished like the wiimotes. It needed to be modular like mechano. Then they would have had a Minecraft sized gaming phenomenon on their hands. Really combining the real world and creativity with computer games. Shame it was just Airfix but cardboard (which is fine because it's biodegradable and hopefully cheap to replace as plastic would break just as much as cardboard if you sat on it).

The Wii was a huge risk, one of the biggest gambles in gaming history. Before the Wii, the general consensus among the gaming media, analysts and forums (including this one) was that "Nintendo is Doomed" (TM). The failure of the GameCube (despite being a powerful console) confirmed to much of the game industry that there is no longer much room left for Nintendo's "kiddie" games in the console market. Nintendo's stocks hit an all-time low, and it was on its last legs as a console manufacturer. Even if Nintendo made "everyone" in the game industry know about the Wii, that wouldn't guarantee any success, since it was still the same old "kiddie" Nintendo console, except this time it was greatly under-powered.

Nintendo relied on the "blue ocean" strategy to create a new market for itself. There was no such thing as a "casual" non-gamer market back then, so Nintendo decided to create a new "casual" market by targeting non-gamers who had no interest in video games, which is a huge gamble no matter how you spin it. There was no guarantee at all that non-gamers who had no interest in video games would suddenly be willing to buy a video game console. Yet that's what Nintendo was banking on to make the Wii a success. In order to appeal to non-gamers, Nintendo had to come up with a new creative approach to marketing video games. And in the end, their efforts paid off, with Nintendo pulling-off the biggest comeback in gaming history, and creating a new "casual" market while doing so.

@Jag85: Bollocks. It’s what I said.

@Jag85:

lmfao, the N64 pushed the industry in the 90s?

They used outdated and massively overpriced cartridges while Sony and even Sega made the right call about giving gamers hardware that could produce bigger and better games. Because unlike Nintendo, Sony thinks of the gamer first.

They released an abomination of a controller with a shoddy analog stick that just limped to the side after a year only for it to become instantly obsolete the moment Sony released their DUAL analog stick controller. There's a reason why the Dualshock has remained an iconic controller over the past 20 years, Sony understands that they're selling their products to fully functional working adults and not oblivious parents scrambling to pick up a last minute hanukkah gifts for their bratty kids.

The only thing the N64 had going for it compared to the competition was it's graphics processing capabilities but again with 32mbs of cartridge space available developers were left trying to squeeze blood out of a stone.

The only people Nintendo pushed the industry forward for with the N64 were those still on the SNES.

@Rockman999:

N64 facts:

• The most powerful console prior to the Dreamcast.
• The first console with a 64-bit CPU.
• First console GPU capable of T&L, anti-aliasing, texture filtering, and Z-buffering.
• First console supporting JPEG texture compression and MP3 audio compression.
• First console with more than two controller ports.
• First console to come with an analog thumbstick controller as standard.
• Popularized the analog thumbstick, which remains the standard console control scheme to this day.
• Introduced force-feedback vibrations to console controllers with the Rumble Pak.

As for the PS1, its Dual Shock controller design was largely copied from Nintendo. The PS1 controller's shape and button layout were based on the SNES controller, while the Dual Shock's analog thumbstick and force-feedback were based on the N64 controller.

@Jag85: N64 was woefully underpowered.

This is my memory. Some idiot man-boy I knew had bought one thinking it was the next thing in gaming and I was fully excited to see what it could do. He proudly loaded up Turok and I was like 'wow, 3d'. Then I played it, for about 10 seconds and was like, 'got any other games'? Such a bad game. There are about 5 decent games on the console but Mario 64 was never a good game. None of them are 3d games. The games were just pitched at a console which has greater capabilities than the N64 could offer. It could only just do 3d. Wave Race looks nice (controlling) but again a swirling giant pixel mess on screen.

Anti aliasing was the only way they could hide the pathetic texture quality and resolutions and basically essential, same goes for compression. The carts were just too small in capacity.

We all know by now that bits is a meaningless term and rumble packs remain a pointless gimmick.

A bad console.

Isn't eternal darkness a cinematic game?

Actual footage of Nintendo pushing the industry forward.

@jackamomo:

https://www.gamespot.com/forums/system-wars-314159282/n64-did-not-age-well-33362951/?page=3

After tumbbing through a few of these interactions, it’s clear to me that you reached you own conclusions before making this thread

Botw and mario odyssey were unlike the world had seen before. The switch is a hybrid console, unlike anything else avail at the time. And going back a little further, the wii was a unique offering and trail blazer for it’s time.

I don’t even own a swtch. So, i’m not what you would consider a fan boy. Your arguments appear foolish.

I guess when graphics are all you think matters, you miss what's really going on around you.

@Jag85: you just posted me an old thread which is trying to pass off emulated screenshots for actual N64 footage.

N64 has maximum 640x480 resolution although most games used 320x240.

So I can't see how these 1240x768 images could possibly be from an N64. That would have to be some serious driver optimisation over the usual games.

Not to mention flat screen tv would not even come out during the consoles lifetime at least not in HD.

So kind of shooting yourself in the foot there. I know what N64 games look like and they are low resolution. It was the worst looking console of it's generation and I'm glad Sega passed it up with it's crappy Silicon Graphics chipset.

@Bread_or_Decide: is this directed toward me? Because graphics are one area where i can see an arguement that nintendo is not breaking barriers. I wouldn’t even think of pretending graphically nintendo is leading the pack.

And graphics have easily become the most ubiquitous part of video games. If anything, increased realism has made games more confusing. Leads to more hand holding and blander gameplay. Where it was once very important, it's now the least important part of video games. How realer do things need to get?

Nintendo knows this, which is why they focus on gameplay.

I don't know what interactions you've been thumbing through, but I've reached different conclusions based off some nice discussions I've had here.

Every point you made in that middle portion was addressed multiple times in the thread.

If you have any further concerns, we can definitely get into a discussion, but unfortunately calling my arguments foolish without justification isn't a viable way to debate ;).

Graphics and realism are just as important today as they ever were. I fail to see how confusion, hand holding, or bland gameplay has anything to do with the pursuit of realism. Those are flaws in design and forms of realism can be achieved without them.

Realism is also a very vague term. A game can look very realistic but still take place in a fantasy setting. A game can look terrible/"video-gamey" but adhere to realistic principles (ex: laws of physics, circadian rhythms, survival necessities, etc.). A game can also not follow those 'realistic principles' but create a world that feels real (detailed and dynamic). These are all design decisions and can each, in their own way, be called 'realistic'.

That's the view I've had of them too. They tend to do their own thing, but it does make them one of the more interesting companies in gaming. Sometimes it leads to silly decisions (removing let's plays and their late/barebones online system) and other times it leads to brilliant ones (Wii or the Switch).

@jackamomo:

You completely missed the point... Which is the post that I quoted, not the link. I only posted the link as a source to show where my old post is from.

Try reading the actual quoted post this time:

Not sure about pushing it forward but they have a great idea with the switch.

I’m sorry but i can’t read your otiginal post without wondering what planet you were on when raising this topic for discussion.