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

@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.).

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?

@lamprey263: I feel the reason Nintendo is often their own worst enemy is because they have no real enemy, aside from making games consoles, Nintendo has pretty much nothing in common with Sony and Microsoft. Nintendo gave up competing with Sony and Microsoft because Nintendo cannot relate to those them. Sony Interactive Entertainment and Microsoft Studios are smaller gaming arms of multi-national mega conglomerates. They built themselves off of buying studios, and money hatting the work of other publishers, they have the money, resources, staff, and backing of their parent companies to actually go all out in hardware.

Nintendo is primarily a game developer who just so happens to be a platform holder. They largely built themselves on homemade ideas, in-house game designers, and they come from a bygone forgotten era in game design and gameplay. Their ideologies and views of video games as a medium are radically different from the other two, that the only way Nintendo can hold their own against Sony and Microsoft, is if the company underwent a massive change. And this requires more than a few policy changes, powerful system, and new coat of marketing paint. It requires a complete, fundimental change in the roots of the company. Their philosophies, ideals, views, beliefs, and overall style would need to essentially be scrapped, and be replaced with those more in line with the big two. So while they could technically destroy Sony and Microsoft if they wanted to, the trade off would be giving up their identity. They'd become a hollow brand, a shell of who they once were. So while you'll get that PS4 killer you'd always dream of, it wouldn't come from Nintendo, it'd come from a completely different company that just uses the Nintendo name.

Nintendo has grown, and changed their strategy and approach over the years. But the philosophies, ideals, views, beliefs on how the company views video games has never really changed, if anything, they increasingly doubled down on them more and more over the years. For better or worse, Nintendo has clung to the same philosophies for more than 30 years. Sega had much of the same philosophies, but had a radically different style and approach. The Nintendo vs Sega duel is so memorable because Nintendo could relate to Sega, Sega could relate to Nintendo. The two companies were so similar, yet so different, that it made competition between them far more interesting than watching Nintendo get pushed around by the two popular kids. This is why we need another Sega, specifically, Nintendo needs another Sega. They need a company with the same ideals as them, but with a very different style and attitude, to tackle them head-on in the underpowered, secondary console market. This gives Nintendo a reason to compete because they now have a competetor they can relate to, and thus, more of an incentive to better themselves as a company.

You know that saying, "two is company, but there's a crowd"? Well Nintendo needs company, not a crowd.

@ConanTheStoner: Basically, Nintendo needs a direct rival with the same goals, ideals, audience, and philosophies as them, But with a ballsier, more daring approach and strategy. Sega filled this role in the 90s, but now that they no longer make hardware, someone else should carry the torch.

@aigis: Not necessarily. As long as they bring their own approach and style to it, then another company can hold their own against Nintendo in the same niche.

@nintendoboy16: No, what Nintendo needs is someone who can compete with them head-on in the under-powered, casual and first-party focused, secondary console space directly. Someone like what Sega was in the 90s, but in a modern day. Nintendo needs a "Nickelodeon" to their "Disney" so-to-speak.

https://gamesandopinions.wordpress.com/2017/02/05/nintendo-needs-an-anti-nintendo/

This explains IMO, what is actually missing from Nintendo, a true rival.

@storm_of_swords: I don't mean to imply that 3D World is a bad game by any means. It's certainly a game that's worth making. The problem was that it's not the flagship Mario or proof of concept the Wii U needed at the time.

Having a fairly safe sequel to a linear 3DS game with the only mechanical difference being a cat suit and co-op as the only 3D Mario on the system gives the impression Nintendo has lost their ambition, and was running out of ideas. So it's not about whether it was a good or bad game, it's about what the Wii U needed to gain traction, and 3D World, as good as it was, wasn't enough.

Have you noticed that this generation has been eerily familiar to the 32/64-bit generation? In case you don't think so, let's look at the consoles.

PlayStation 4 = PlayStation - After being too overly-ambitious with the PlayStation 3, Sony returned the PlayStation brand to it's roots with the PlayStation 4. A big reason the PlayStation succeeded was because it gave developers and gamers EXACTLY what they wanted. A polished, powerful system that was easy to program for. It wasn't so much about innovation or surprising people, it was more about making something for the developers, and allowing them to make what they want, with very few restrictions. All factors that play into the PS4. But critically, Sony was able to capitalize on the competition's poor decisions, luring former fans of competing platforms into their hands. Speaking of which...

Xbox One = Nintendo 64 - Microsoft enjoyed a lot of success with the Xbox 360, being the go to platform for all the big core gamer blockbusters. However, the Xbox One at first, much like the Nintendo 64 initially, seemed like a disaster. The problem with the Nintendo 64 was that Nintendo stubbornly clung to outdated draconian policies including sticking with the expensive and bulky cartridge format. This pissed off developers who at this point, were already fed up with Nintendo's big bully attitude at the time. While Microsoft's plans with the Xbox One weren't developer controlling, they certainly were gamer controlling. Microsoft initially wanted to come in and dictate it's users over where they can play their games, when they can play them, where they can trade them in, who they could share them with, and how they can play them and how long they can play them for.

This pissed off a lot of gamers who were already weary of the XB1 for being more of a TV box than a games console. But much like how the Nintendo 64 succeeded in the West despite it's limitations, the Xbox One eventually gained a following among gamers after Microsoft scrapped it's initial draconic plans. Though it does have all the major blockbusters, as well as some very popular indie titles, and what is perhaps Microsoft's most refined first party output yet, it still lags behind the PS4 in terms of sales and developer support.

Wii U = Sega Saturn - It's amazing how once successful companies, can spiral out of control in only a couple of years. Nintendo enjoyed success with Wii by going after an audience of newcomers, who never really got into gaming before due to the complex nature of modern games. Sega enjoyed success with the Sega Genesis by targeting an edgier, older demographic than the competition with more mature content. The problem with both, was maintaining a long term relationship with those audiences. Sega's string of gimmicky Genesis add-ons, and the botched launch of the Sega Saturn nuked consumer faith in the company, and caused once Genesis fans, to leave the brand. Sega was seen as a fad, a washed up video game icon that succeeded on the novelty of "kewl", only to have their own arrogance destroy their momentum. Similarly, Nintendo's momentum with the Wii was showing it's age with the rise of mobile gaming and Kinect. Rather than adapt to the changing tastes of their consumers, Nintendo instead released the Wii U, a system which nobody, still to this day, can understand.

Both the Sega Saturn and the Wii U share the same problems of being too expensive, too difficult to develop for, and more complicated than they really should've been. Filled with useless technology, broken promises, conflicting priorities, and abysmal (and non-existant) marketing, the Saturn and U were massive slaps in the face to Wii and Genesis owners respectively. Costing their platform holders hundreds (in Sega's case billions) of dollars, and admiration.

Disappointingly as well, neither platform had a true Sonic game, nor a true 3D Mario respectively. The Saturn instead got a bunch of spin-off games, and the Wii U got an upgraded sequel to a 3DS game with co-op. Not exactly what fans were expecting. All is not doom and gloom however. The Saturn hosted a variety of unique first party offerings from Sega such as Virtua Fighter, Burning Rangers, and the cult classic, Nights into Dreams. Nintendo has also put out solid entries into their Award-Winning first party franchises such as Mario Kart, Smash Brothers, and the groundbreaking shooter, Splatoon. And much like how the Sega Saturn built a surprisingly strong lineup of Japanese 3rd party games, The Wii U gained a cult following with Independent developers, getting most of the big names like Shovel Knight, and Minecraft, as well as some unique exclusives like Runbow. Both of these made up for the otherwise non-existent 3rd party support.

Nintendo Switch = Sega Dreamcast - After the failure of the aforementioned consoles, Nintendo and Sega were given a shake up in management, and with their next platforms, were determined to learn from most of their mistakes. The Sega Dreamcast was the complete opposite of the Saturn, it's hardware was simple, and was easy to program for. It had an excellent first year lineup (despite a lackluster launch lineup in Japan), and initially, had a lot of developers on board. It was also ahead of it's time in several aspect such as built-in online play. In addition, it hosted what is regarded by many as a creative renaissance from Sega. The Dreamcast hosted some of the most innovative, strange, offbeat, and down right creative and relentless first party support that no other platform holder has been able to top before or since. Unfortunately, it was too little, too late. Sega's past failings had already dug the company's financial grave, and the company began making new mistakes such as lack of DVD playback, that held the Dreamcast back. Once the PlayStation 2 got a US release date, it was all over for Sega. Gamers and developers preferred to wait for Sony's new, DVD capable machine, and ignored all the amazing things Sega was bringing to the table. What's especially sad, was that Sony didn't really have to do much of anything. They had all the goodwill of gamers from the PlayStation, and all the love and adoration from third parties to go with it. All they had to do was hype up the system like it was the new masaiah, then sit back and start printing money.

While it's too early to determine the fate of the Nintendo Switch, it already looks to be in a better position than it's predecessor. For starters, the Switch seems like a much more attractive, and better designed device than the Wii U, and combines nearly 30 years of Nintendo hardware into one, simple, and accessible package. The system is easy to develop for, forgoing the outdated PowerPC espresso crap, and needlessly complicated GPGPU nonsense of the Wii U, in favor on much simpler hardware courtesy of Nvidia. It's marketing is much more competent, and while it's launch lineup is bare-bones, the lineup for it's first year as a whole looks pretty solid. On top of this, Nintendo seems to be a much ballsier, more experimental developer than they were a few years ago. From bold reinventions of their classics like The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild and Super Mario Oddyssey. To innovative and casual friendly takes on traditionally daunting genres like Splatoon and ARMS. To truly original ideas like 1-2 Switch and Snipperclips. There are some roadblocks such as it's pricing, and uncertain online features, but none of those are able to detract was is perhaps, Nintendo's best idea for a console in years.