I'm sure the "Nintendo can't catch a break" crowd will chime in on this blog with their staunch defense of the company, and that's fine, but this blog will discuss what is, in my opinion, an honest look at the reality of Nintendo and its fans.
We all know Nintendo. There isn't a single person who has gamed on even one console that DOESN'T know Nintendo. They are the Old Guard of the gaming world, and a company that's been around for well over a century. Many would say they are the creators of arguably the best first party games to ever exist, and have probably the most recognized mascot in the world with Mario.
The problem is though that no one is allowed to criticize them. The way I see it, there is a conflict in how Nintendo is perceived in the gaming world. These perceptions make it impossible for anyone to even look at Nintendo in a less than perfect light without a flood of defenders, ever ready to strike. You have the Old Guard, veteran and "saviour" of the gaming industry opinion that many use to demand that Nintendo be given nothing but the utmost and absolute respect. Then it seems that Nintendo are also judged as one would a child trying out new things, and you can't get upset with them for any mistakes they have because they are just learning. These opinions present a problem.
It will never be admitted, at least not completely, by Nintendo fans that Nintendo rehash ideas. It will never be admitted that Nintendo have lost touch with the gamers who grew up on the NES and SNES systems and continue to offer experiences mostly geared towards a different audience. It will never be admitted that games like Pokemon have been the same thing for decades when there are groups of Pokemon fans screaming for a different, more expanded experience. To say these things is to be attacking Nintendo when in reality it's just critiquing ancient practices.
The recent conference Nintendo held called Nintendo Direct was incredibly underwhelming for many. A lot of talking, apologizing for lack of the first party content promised at launch, and vague trailers to show that some games actually do exist sums up Nintendo Direct. It was a conference designed specifically to keep voice of "dissension" quiet. More of a "take our word for it" conference, Nintendo is stumbling with the Wii U, and it's a surprise given their confidence and backing of the Wii in its launch window.
Regardless of how Nintendo is handling things in the public eye, the problem is that too many try to silence any negativity against Nintendo and yet have no problem with negativity against Sony or Microsoft and it's very puzzling to me. Just because someone may have a problem with Nintendo's approach with things, in no way means they are writing Nintendo off as a quality company in the industry. It's a perfectly normal and accepted convention to have constructive criticism. How else would anything improve if no one was allowed to discuss what's wrong?
I suppose that that last sentence is the real question. I wonder if any can truly answer it. What is wrong with Nintendo? Or, if you don't want to answer that one, then answer this one... Why can no one criticise Nintendo?
The friendly folks over at Razer recently sent us their full size Kishi Ultra mobile gaming controller, and this thing didn't disappoint.
VGChartz's Mark Nielsen: "Upon finally finishing Devil May Cry 5 recently - after it spent several years on my “I’ll play that soon” list - I considered giving it a fittingly-named Late Look article. However, considering that this was indeed the final piece I was missing in the DMC puzzle, I decided to instead take this opportunity to take a look back at the entirety of this genre-defining series and rank the entries. What also made this a particularly tempting notion was that while most high-profile series have developed fairly evenly over time, with a few bumps on the road, the history of Devil May Cry has, at least in my eyes, been an absolute roller coaster, with everything from total disasters to action game gold."
Me leaving it out should be telling of my thoughts on it. Better than 2 as a DMC game.
Still a good game though.
3,1,4,5 to me, never played 2. 5 gameplay is amazing but level design was really disappointing to me, just a bunch of plain arenas, the story felt like a worse written rehash of the 3rd and the charater models looked weird ( specially the ladies ). Another problem with 5 was that there was not enough content for 3 charaters so I could never really familiarize with any of them
2.
Dmc.
4.
5.
1.
3.
God DMC2 was an awful game.
And in case this isn't obvious it goes worst to best
Order changes depending on your focus. I tend to focus on gameplay/fun factor, so...
5, 3, 1, 4, 2.
I really didn't like 4 but commend Dante's weapon diversity. The retreading of old ground was pretty unacceptable to me.
But even then... Still more enjoyable than 2 for me
TSA go hands on with the beta for Inazuma Eleven: Victory Road, but how is the game transitioning to the post-stylus era?
What is wrong with Nintendo?"
Well in my opinion, They have been struggling for some time to keep relevant in an industry where the game has changed (pardon the pun) the vast majority of gamers these days seem to prefer titles seen on the PS3 and 360 since they are perceived to be geared toward the hardcore audience, so in order to combat this they appeal to their loyal fanbase with rebuilds and sequels of their already well established franchises all while drawing in the more casual crowd with fun and easily accessible titles, when they do release new IP's and 3rd party titles they usually retain the quality most of us have come to expect from Ninty (note Xenoblade & Pickmin).
Nintendo aren't above criticism, I've criticised them enough myself with what they pulled with the Wii abandoning the core gamers, the problem I've noticed is a lot of people pointing out what's wrong with Nintendo tend to miss the point of why they chose to do whatever they did. Look at the discussions/articles regarding the recent Nintendo Direct with people stating the usual "Doom for Nintendo" the way I see it is they knew their consumers had some concerns/issues regarding the lack of future titles being announced and the poorly optimised aps, so they addressed them and announced their plans to rectify these mistakes and concerns and went on to announce their plans for releasing new titles in the coming months and what to expect further on with the Wii U, it mite have felt a little underwhelming for some people but we don't need to make a big song and dance over everything.
Nintendo are on good form as they stand now, I only hope they keep it up.
I tend to look at Nintendo in the same kind of scenario as Call Of Duty (bear with me here).
Nintendo were so massively popular because they innovated and brought gamers a new, fresh and exciting experience with Zelda, Mario etc. But as time has gone on it has just been put on a repeat loop of the same thing with a new lick of paint. In itself it isn't a bad thing if you love those games, but as a company for gamers, before long you will become a dinosaur and be totally irrelevant to the people that put you up there in the first place.
Just as in the same light COD4 was super popular because it was a fresh, exciting experience that took online gaming at a console level to new heights. But now time has moved on and they no longer cater to those who MADE it popular because they enjoyed the fresh, new experience and just want to release the same thing over and over with a new skin and minor tweeks.
Innovation is no longer innovation if you repeat it over and over. Nintendo need big change to get me back as a gamer on their platforms.
I loved my Nintendo games when i was younger and was dazzled by the experience, now 23yo, Nintendo don't cater to me anymore when i was part of the generation who made them so popular. Why should i buy a Wii U for example just to play HD Pikmin and we all know HD Zelda and Mario are coming plus ports of games i played as much as 2 years ago on my PS3.
The 1st party stuff is predictable and no longer exciting and the back catalog of my PS3 isn't there, so it's a redundant platform in my opinion.
Most publishers are straddling the ling of catering to a progressive gamer innovating and sticking to roots while implementing parts or mechanics that allow casuals to enjoy too. Look at EA with Mass Effect and Dead Space etc, while Nintendo have stuck almost 100% to the people who don't mind the same thing over again and don't want change or innovation.
If gamers want "old" Nintendo who innovated and brought new exciting games, characters and worlds to us, then this barrier of invincabilty around them needs to go and people need to raise their voices and stomp their feet to let them know they don't want 6 more years of reformatted Mario instead of mercilessly defending them against any and all criticism despite how correct and relevant that complaint may be.
... the 2nd blog on the front page is about Nintendo rushing towards a GameCube-like disaster, but it seems no-one can criticize Nintendo.
They're the "innocent" one.
For 6 years, they had a system clearly designed for children, soccer moms, elderly, etc ("everyone"). The attitude has become that criticizing Nintendo is like criticizing children's toys or a medicine ball or whatever the elderly like these days.
For many years, they have had games that follow closely to design of their predecessors. Not like game sequels, but like the same games almost being made over and over in the manner of generations. The attitude has become that Nintendo games are a "legacy" and "don't fix what isn't broken", so "attacking" Nintendo is like attacking Bach or Beethoven.
Attempts at hardcore Wii games were scarce, so they were treated like something special. "Attacking" them at the same level of any game was to be "ungrateful".
It's time for some people to learn, however, that Nintendo is just another developer/manufacturer. They are no longer doing the Wii thing anymore. They are now (re)entering the world of hard/core games and WILL be criticized like anyone else. If you enter the Colosseum, you're a fool to expect to not be attacked by lions like anyone else.
you have such a black and white perspective of everything you cant see things for how they really are.
conflicting opinions is at the heart of debate just as much as it is the motivation for the actions of the few as well as the majority.
compromise and understanding in a debate is entirely possible. it is just very diffucult when one begins with a perception that everyone is either with you or against you.