Up until this point, Shigeru Miyamoto had a major influence in leading development of nearly all of Nintendo's hardware. From helping to design the SNES controller, to coming up with the idea for the DS' touch screen. But with Nintendo Switch, Miyamoto has taken a step back, and is not involved with the development of the platform. Instead, Super Mario Galaxy director Yoshiaki Koizumi is spearheading Nintendo's new console as general producer.

Handing the Switch's development over to Koizumi and his team was perhaps the best move Nintendo has made with it's hardware in a long time. Koizumi always struck me as more of a risk taker than Miyamoto. He Directed Donkey Kong Jungle Beat, wrote the story segments for Mario Galaxy and Majora's Mask, and even came up with the Z-Targeting system. I don't think these things would've ended up the same way under Miyamoto's direction.

This is evident with the design and concept of the Switch itself. It feels ballsier, and more cutting edge than any of Nintendo's previous hardware, while still staying true to the company's core philosophies. And I don't think even Miyamoto would be bold enough to take inspiration from Nintendo's oldest roots as a playing card company for the Switch.

I hope to see him have a more prominent role at Nintendo in the future.

I remember reading an interview with Nintendo of America's former indie cheef Dan Adelman who talked about Nintendo's corporate structure. He mentioned that a big reason why Nintendo has been so slow to adapt was because decision making at the company was a slow, convoluted mess. Basically, to get anything done at the company, each division of Nintendo that is involved has to be on board with the plan, if even one person says no, then that idea is as good as dead. Complicating things further was the fact that many senior executives at the company didn't understand modern gaming, so someone who may have had the idea to incorporate features like voice chat, were shot down by the higher ups, and things like the YouTube beta program happen because an older board member at the company has a need for control.

I think the big thing to take away from this is that old management at Nintendo was all over the place. It's seems this outdated corporate structure constantly pitted each division of the company against each other. Additionally, said divisions also felt disconnected and disjointed. For example, the handheld, home console, software, and Networking operations were each entirely seperate divisions, which explains why things like the Wii U OS were poorly optimized. Instead of having a true universal plan for Nintendo, there were instead, a swarm of ideas whose final forms got butchered and mangled because one part of the company couldn't agree on this or that.

This is essentially, the same problem Sega had in the 90s. Sega Enterprises, Ltd. and Sega of America couldn't agree on anything, which lead to stuff like the 32x fiasco, and the mess the Sega Saturn ended up becoming. But whereas Sega's problems were largely a result of culture clash, Nintendo's was almost entirely internal conflict over in Kyoto. Given the two situations, which would you say was worse?

@smearygoose1768: Do you honestly think Nintendo isn't going to add Netflix and other video apps to the Switch later? May I remind you that the 3DS didn't launch with those things too? Hell, it didn't even have an eShop at launch. It's very obvious the Switch is being rushed out the door at Launch just to get the Wii U in it's grave as fast as possible. Nintendo can be grossly incompetent at times, but they're not stupid. They know Netflix and other apps are important to have, they just didn't get them ready for launch.

Let's say, Nintendo made the Nintendo 64 a CD-Based system, and the Saturn was 3D focused, and launched on time like Sega was supposed to, what do you think would've happened with the PlayStation, and what would Nintendo and Sega be like today? IMO, even if Nintendo and Sega didn't make poor hardware decisions regarding the Nintendo 64 and Sega Saturn, the PlayStation still would've dominated, and here's why.

The PlayStation, for better or worse, kick-started the Hollywoodization of Video Games, and made the medium much cooler to the mainstream rather than just a form of novel amusement like a board game or a kids toy. It's entire creative ethos and philosophy was radically different from Nintendo and Sega's. Sony helped shift the market away from simple, arcade style games, and more towards more marketable, cinematic fare. Meanwhile, Nintendo and Sega were still clinging to the game design mentalities they held onto in the 2D era, which ultimately made them look less desirable.

On top of that though, Sony completely tore up the home console rule book, and presented a completely new concept to the industry. Up until that point, Nintendo and Sega had largely relied on their own software to sell systems, whether it be Nintendo's award winning franchises, or Sega's deluge of Arcade ports. 3rd party developers can join if they wanted, but they weren't going to push them as hard as thier own titles. Their systems were designed for their games, first and foremost. Sony came in and presented a completely different approach, they were designing the PlayStation based on the input of all the major developers, who were already fed up with Nintendo's draconian control and Sega's lackadaisical incompetence. They told 3rd parties "hey if you make games for us, then not only will we help you make your games, but we will also help spend millions of dollars in advertising and marketing to get your games out there, and our royalty fees are cheap, everyone is welcome". This resonated well with many developers, who were already fed up with the alternatives. Now all of a sudden here comes a company that isn't gong to jerk them around and crack whips on them (Nintendo) or give them shoddy, over-designed, and broken hardware and told them to deal with it, or bombard them with useless add-ons not even they supported (Sega). This was a company that would actually work with them, and make them feel like the main driving force, rather than just being cheerleaders like they used to.

So in the end, had Sega and Nintendo not been screwing up as badly, Sony still would've won, because their then unconventional approach to hardware development proved to be more effective.

As for the future of Nintendo and Sega, well they would've put up a much better fight, but then Microsoft would come on to the scene and made them irrelevant. Nintendo and Sega likely would've deviated from competing with Sony and Microsoft, and fight a secondary console war.

They never promised anything like that with the Switch. All they said was that they want it to be a console that core and casual gamers can enjoy. Really, why develop games based on this dicthonomy at all. Just make good games, who cares if they're casual, hardcore, or what. If it's good, then that's all that matters.

@Jag85: Well, Nintendo is made up of more than just Miyamoto. And now that Miyamoto no longer runs Nintendo EPD (New name for EAD essentially), Well be seeing a massive shift in Nintendo's software going forward.

@reduc_ab_: Sorry, that was a typo.

Splatoon, IMO not only feels like a Nintendo title, but it also feels much like a Sega game in spirit. While it is a good start, I think Nintendo should do more. Sega and Nintendo were similar in that they both focused on simple gameplay and novel control schemes (Nintendo with their console/handheld innovations, and Sega with their many arcade games). But the difference, is their approach to those philosophies. Nintendo is about a certain way of looking at gaming, Sega however, was about encapsulating what was a little more "real" about being a gamer. They were the Nickelodeon, to Nintendo's Disney. They were bolder, louder, weirder, and more experimental than their safe, wholesome counterpart.

For example, take a game where you race on hoverboards. While Nintendo would just make a relatively slow paced game with simple controls, easy to learn tutorials, and a simple look. Sega would make an outlandish arcade racer with a gimmicky board controller, loud, funky music, vivid colors and flashy effects, rebellious attitude, and gameplay so-fast and in-your-face, the whole game is over before you even realize what happened. This is what seperated the two. While Nintendo focused on slower paced home console games, Sega's strength was fast paced arcade games that throw as much at the player as possible in a short amount of time. Unlike Nintendo, who introduced mechanics and content little at a time, Sega gave you all the mechanics you need at the start, and more often than not, what you saw was what you got.

In recent years, Nintendo has taken some ques from Sega of yesteryear, culminating into the creation of Splatoon, the most innovative thing to come out of them in a while. It takes the design elements Sega was known for, and combines them with Nintendo's. But I think Nintendo should do more. They should adopt more of the bold, risk-taking, culture of Sega of Yore, while not tossing out their own values. Going back to Disney. People say Disney has expanded with brands aimed at more mature audiences. But Disney also had to adopt some of Nickelodeon's philosophies as well. You can see this in some of their newer cartoons like Gravity Falls, Star Vs. The Forces of Evil, Phineas and Ferb, Future Worm, etc. So I definitely think Nintendo can learn from many of Sega's games. The question is, should they?

@Ovirew: Nintendo may be done with the Wii and DS brands, but the philosophies and technology they introduced are still within the company, and if you want to argue, they've always been in the company's DNA. What is changing however, is their approach. As I explained, Nintendo has moved passed trying to force 3D Mario or Zelda down casual gamers throats, and has learned that casual gamers have graduate naturally to games like them, not have them force fed to them. And their approach to casual games has also changed as well. 1-2 Switch and Snipperclips are far more experimental and riskier than the relative safeness of Wii Sports, and games like ARMS and Splatoon are designed to work on multiple levels, where a casual gamer or newcomer can pick them up, and have fun, but if they like what they play, they can also hone their skills and become a more hardcore player.

In the past years, Nintendo's philosophy has been to help expand the gaming population, and the company continues to make serious attempts to push video games as a serious form of entertainment for those who never really played, or had any interest in gaming before, and not just some hobby for geeky, heterosexual males. As far as Nintendo is concerned, everyone's a gamer, some just need a push.

However, this has been met with some backlash by some lapsed hardcore fans of the company, who proclaim that Nintendo needs to be making "REAL" games for "REAL gamers" and not for "soccer-moms" and "grandmas" because they're lame and pansies. I'm usually against this mentality sense all it does is limit game variety and prevents the medium from gaining any substantial growth as a mainstream form of entertainment. Hell if anything, Nintendo's efforts seems to have paid off, as not only has this generation seen gaming's fastest, and most significant evolution in years, but other companies and people have also adopted the ideas and lessons taught by Nintendo and the late Satoru Iwata, and did them in ways more relevant to people of today. From mobile games, to Gameplay streams and Let's Plays on Twitch and YouTube, to indie games, to the rise of mainstream eSports. These are all thing that can help expand the gaming population, and get those who otherwise didn't have any interest in games, to try out all the amazing things this medium is capable of.

So with all that in mind, why would be a good idea to throw all that away, just to appease a vocal minority? Now if you're talking about Nintendo not compromising the design of their games just for the sake of achieving their goals, then there is some truth to that. I think one thing developers, including Nintendo struggled with last generation, was converting the new found non-gamers to more hardcore titles. Skyward Sword is a good example, and one often cited by fans. Nintendo's thinking was that they can hook the casual gamer on Wii Sports and such, then convert them to more traditional games like Zelda or Mario. Not a bad philosophy to have. The problem was that at times, Nintendo went about it in a very ham-fisted way, especially in otherwise, excellent games. Skyward Sword was a fine game in it's own right, but it felt like Nintendo was trying to force the Wii Sports audience to enjoy games like it, rather than let them graduate to it naturally. Casual gamers can't just be thrown the game and be told to play it, they have to become more familiar with the medium, and have to graduate to more complex experiences when they feel they're ready, not when the developer decides they're ready.

Fortunately, newer methods like the ones I've mentioned above, are far more effective, and Nintendo seems to have taken notice of it. They've also taken a very different approach to converting casuals into lifelong players. Splatoon for example, is simple and friendly enough for grandma to enjoy, but also deep enough for more dedicated players, and well designed enough so that if granny likes what she plays, she can hone her skills and tear shit up online. All within the same game mind you. ARMS is very similar in that sense as well. So instead of hooking casuals with Wii Sports and then try to convert them to Zelda, Nintendo is instead now focusing on games that work on multiple levels, and then hoping that they eventually become interested in games like Breath of the Wild on the player's terms, not the company's terms.

So with all that said, do you feel Nintendo's efforts to help expand the game population are worth it?