The thread all about Nintendo, discuss their games, such as Super Smash Bros., Legend of Zelda, Super Mario Galaxy all that junk made by Nintendo.

Nintendo has been in a downward spiral since the end of the SNES. They made some of the greatest games of the 8 and 16-bit era and then came Pokemon. With the tremendous cash cow that was Pokemon came a shift in business strategy and Nintendo gave up on innovation and solid gameplay and instead alienated their audiences with poor design decisions in their hardware and repetitive games that all started to blend together. And lets not forget the horrible spin-off titles that were meant only to sell on name recognition alone. Unfortunately, this trend continues to this day, and to some extent is only getting worse. They are possibly the worst company I know of when it comes to removing gameplay features in new iterations of established franchises.

Unfortunately, what passes for innovation at the big N these days is gimmicky controls which don't actually change gameplay and frequently make it more frustrating. If they wanted true innovation, their controllers would be more ergonomic, have more sensibly placed buttons, and some sort of directional sensor. At the same time, the weaker hardware actually serves to stunt innovation in game design by setting the bar way too low for third party developers. While they putz around with the motion controls, we end up with games that look awful familiar running at low resolutions with stupid AI and very little reliance on weight and physics. Plus, although free, their online network seems to be a relic from the stone age using archaic codes to add friends to your list and using battery powered flash RAM instead of a hard drive for minimal space and very little in the way of downloadable content for games or even demos.

Allow me to sum up Isukun's post:

Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games

You know what? I dont care what anyone says.

Nintendo is my childhood. I have played Nintendo for so long, that I cant even cope playing any different console. I tried the PS3... I didnt see what was so great about it. I played XBox 360 on it's prime money maker: Halo 3. I got bored in five seconds.

Mario, Zelda, metroid, and those other Nintendo games have kept me playing videogames. No other sort of games will do for me.

Nintendo... changes things. Maybe it's not on purpose, but it happens because of things they do. Nintendo saved the videogame industry, and they got their foot in the door with R.O.B. ROB was a barely functional videogame playing robot that worked with two games. It was a gimmick and it didn't work, but it got people to buy the NES as a Robot Toy instead of the then-dead "Video Game".

That's just for a start. The Zapper was another nifty gimmick. Came packaged with the system, and still, relatively few games used it. I guess it was just hard to get variety with the thing. Nintendo gave us Rumble in our controllers. Conversely, they also gave us the Virtual Boy, and stuck to cartridges when CDs could hold so much more data.

I guess the thing about Nintendo is that they don't work in specs. Math doesn't play a large part in their game design strategy. It's all about ideas. Sometimes they're goofy ideas, sometimes they're overzealous ideas, and I don't doubt that a lot of times they're just "What will give us the most money this quarter?" ideas. But the important thing is that something new is happening.

We don't learn anything without a bit of experimentation. Someone's got to have the balls to jump headfirst into a potentially bad idea. And even if it doesn't work for them, at the very least there's the chance that someone else down the line will learn from it.

Nintendo is my childhood.

They were my childhood, too. The problem is they trample on my childhood with their cash in titles and sequels which are shorter, easier, stripped down, and less fun than their previous games. And that goes especially for Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.

But the important thing is that something new is happening.

Actually, my biggest problem with the wii is that NOTHING new is happening. The games are the same as they were before, just with some added gimmicky control mechanisms that add nothing to the actual gameplay. And while we're getting the same old rehashes again, developers don't see the need to push current technology to its limits and create something genuinely new and innovative.

Inkmonkey
I guess the thing about Nintendo is that they don't work in specs. Math doesn't play a large part in their game design strategy. It's all about ideas. Sometimes they're goofy ideas, sometimes they're overzealous ideas, and I don't doubt that a lot of times they're just "What will give us the most money this quarter?" ideas. But the important thing is that something new is happening.

Yup, that pretty much sums it up right there.

The Wii is, at least, something even remotely new and different be it good or bad. I think it just needs some more time, but I am not too enthusiastic, to tell the truth...

Actually, my biggest problem with the wii is that NOTHING new is happening. The games are the same as they were before, just with some added gimmicky control mechanisms that add nothing to the actual gameplay. And while we're getting the same old rehashes again, developers don't see the need to push current technology to its limits and create something genuinely new and innovative.

but what about twilight princess? you get to hit things by slashing the air. that's cool. and that makes gameplay more fun. and i'm pretty sure they pushed current technology for smash bros. brawl the graphics are amazing and you can play the classic games. but making something newer than that is possible.

I'm a nintendo fanboy:P

I've never actually bought a non-nintendo system... except for the PS3. I bought that to compare it with the Wii and the Xbox 360.

My other game systems were all once owned by someone else or a christmas present.

Nintendo is an excellent software developer, an innovative hardware designer, and a large piece of my childhood. They hold gameplay design higher than shock value or fads, and that's one of the biggest reasons I respect them. With so many other developers trying to one-up each other while making essentially the same game, it's usually Nintendo that rises above the stagnation to try something new. Heck, they don't even make a new Mario or Zelda game until they have a new enough concept to use.

Isukun's got sour grapes because the gaming industry changed and he's still stuck in 1991. And Sphlane thinks that a game Sega made can somehow represent Nintendo's entire pilosoophy. Allow me to sum up Lord Shplane's post: Doorknob.

Inkmonkey
We don't learn anything without a bit of experimentation. Someone's got to have the balls to jump headfirst into a potentially bad idea. And even if it doesn't work for them, at the very least there's the chance that someone else down the line will learn from it.

Very well put. I think we all know the world doesn't need three practically identical consoles like we had in the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube era. What's the point?

jagular
Actually, my biggest problem with the wii is that NOTHING new is happening. The games are the same as they were before, just with some added gimmicky control mechanisms that add nothing to the actual gameplay.

Well, sure... if you're judging Wii's entire library on Carnival Games. Just like Isukun you're selectively ignoring the games where the Wii actually worked and improved gameplay. Plus, just watch the next few years now that developers are getting used to the Wii's features. The DS had similar challenges at first and now it has an incredible library full of games that properly use its features.

isukun

Nintendo is my childhood.

They were my childhood, too. The problem is they trample on my childhood with their cash in titles and sequels which are shorter, easier, stripped down, and less fun than their previous games. And that goes especially for Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.

Yes.

isukun

But the important thing is that something new is happening.

Actually, my biggest problem with the wii is that NOTHING new is happening. The games are the same as they were before, just with some added gimmicky control mechanisms that add nothing to the actual gameplay. And while we're getting the same old rehashes again, developers don't see the need to push current technology to its limits and create something genuinely new and innovative.

Yes.

jagular
but what about twilight princess? you get to hit things by slashing the air. that's cool. and that makes gameplay more fun. and i'm pretty sure they pushed current technology for smash bros. brawl the graphics are amazing and you can play the classic games. but making something newer than that is possible.

WAGGLE? You're saying that WAGGLE improved a game? Please, DO NOT say that Miyamoto might hear you and start putting it in more games.

Hawk
Nintendo is an excellent software developer, an innovative hardware designer, and a large piece of my childhood. They hold gameplay design higher than shock value or fads, and that's one of the biggest reasons I respect them. With so many other developers trying to one-up each other while making essentially the same game, it's usually Nintendo that rises above the stagnation to try something new. Heck, they don't even make a new Mario or Zelda game until they have a new enough concept to use.

What? What new concept have ANY of the 3D Zelda games used? They've all been the same game with minor tweaks. Oh, and Mario. Let's not forget about Mario. The only change it's made since the FIRST GAME is the addition of a third dimension on Mario 64. And hey, Metroid. Same as Mario.

Hawk
Isukun's got sour grapes because the gaming industry changed and he's still stuck in 1991. And Sphlane thinks that a game Sega made can somehow represent Nintendo's entire pilosoophy. Allow me to sum up Lord Shplane's post: Doorknob.

Doorknob? Sorry, I don't get the reference. I'm sorry to say that I'm fairly ignorant about such things.

But hey, I'm SURE that Sega just stood there and said "Hey, let's make a game with MARIO in it with no help or permission from Nintendo." If Nintendo gave a RATS ASS about their games, they would NEVER have allowed that abomination to occur.

But hey, you want a game that Nintendo made that epitomizes all of their failings? Games that show the way Nintendo has been existing almost ENTIRELY to cash in on brand recognition, only making good games when they ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO so that their fans won't realize how shitty they're being? Ok, here's a few:

Mario Party
Mario Party DS
WarioWare
Mario Strikers
Link's Crossbow Training
Donkey Kong Barrel Blast
Super Mario Stadium Baseball
Various Pokemon Stadium/Battle Revolution/whatever games
Whatever the next Mario Golf game was called

Of course, those are just the ones Nintendo has made that are designed to cash in on Nintendo fanboyism. You can't forget the ones that are designed to lure in ignorant new gamers with their promise of fun when they ultimately turn out to be pure crap:

Wii Sports
Wii Play
Wii Fit
Wii Music

Hey, and let's not forget the fact that Nintendo is STILL selling us Mario Bros. Hey, how about you quit with Mario Sportsball DX Strikers Golf Play and make some NEW IP that's as good as Mario. I KNOW you can do it Miyamoto. Why don't you?

Hawk
Very well put. I think we all know the world doesn't need three practically identical consoles like we had in the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube era. What's the point?

Maybe what games are on it could be the difference? I know that I didn't think that my 'Cube and my PS2 were ANYTHING alike at the time. And honestly, I agree with Isukun. Besides the generally poorly-implemented motion control gimmick, the Wii is basically the same as the other consoles with worse online.

Hawk
Well, sure... if you're judging Wii's entire library on Carnival Games. Just like Isukun you're selectively ignoring the games where the Wii actually worked and improved gameplay. Plus, just watch the next few years now that developers are getting used to the Wii's features. The DS had similar challenges at first and now it has an incredible library full of games that properly use its features.

Oh sure, there ARE games that it fits with. And there ARE games in which it's properly implemented. Even though I personally will always wish that they weren't in those games, I can admit that they work for some of them.

The facts are, however, that MOST games don't benefit or in fact SUFFER from them. Like, say, Soul Calibur Legends. I was going to buy that game. I thought "O HEI, SOMETHING I CAN PLAY ON WII WITHOUT SUICIDIN'." But then I saw the reviews, and how they talked about bad motion controls killing the game.

Developers need to understand that EVERY game doesn't need motion controls. THAT'S what they need to get used to. I imagine they will at some point, and then we'll see games that actually benefit from them using the MC's, whereas games that don't won't. But really, that looks like it's going to be a long way off.

Anyway though, I don't kno wwhy I'm bothering. It's not like I'll change anyone's opinion. Nintendo screwed me over, so I grew bitter and angry with them. I was a Nintendo fanboy once. And nothing ANYONE said could have dissuaded me. I hade a Gamecube and ONLY a Gamecube until a year before the PS3 came out, when I bought my PS2. I still wanted the Wii, just so I could play with Mario and his friends. Hell, I even thought the motion controls would be fun.

But then, I got my Wii. I had games for it, some the reviewers considered good, others they considered bad. But really, they all fealt flawed. The controls annoyed me to no end. Even Twilight Princess failed to be as good as I hoped, though it was an EXCELLENT game, entirely because of the poorly-implemented motion controls.

And I thought "Oh well, Nintendo can't make ALL their games like this." Oh, but I was wrong. I got my Wii for Christmas year before last. And I STILL have yet to see developers learn their lesson. For each success, their are 20 failures. Failures that could have been SO MUCH better if they'd simply abstained from the Wiimote gimmick fad and stuck to their roots, and what the games were good at.

But oh well. I guess they'll learn what genres do and don't need it EVENTUALLY. I hope eventually is SOON, but I'm not holding my breath.

Lord Shplane, you need to realize a few things:

- The games you've listed as "bad" in your post are based on opinion, not fact. While more people will agree with you on certain games like Soul Calibur Legends, there are plenty of games you mentioned that people love. I really like WarioWare for instance, and I don't think my opinion is less valid than yours. And are you going to tell all the people who are enjoying Wii Sports that they're not really enjoying themselves? They're having fun. Once again, your opinion. And you haven't even tried Wii Music or Wii Fit yet.

- Though you've managed to point out some certifiably bad games, their existence does not prove the failure of the Wii or Nintendo, especially in the face of the certifiably excellent games also existing on the Wii. There have been just as many turds come out of Squaresoft and yet you've got no problem championing their black mage because you know they have made and still make some very good games.

- Stating that Mario games' only change has been a switch to 3D is a very myopic view. Let's list some changes from Mario Galaxy: gravity fields, new power-ups, cooperative play, imagemap-based collision, improved camera,
Even Zelda has made improvements, including more fleshed-out characters, new items, and if playing as a wolf isn't considered a "change", I don't know what is. And you can't say it isn't a change just because you don't like it. Sticking to the same general formula does not equal "unchanged".

Lord Shplane
But hey, you want a game that Nintendo made that epitomizes all of their failings? Games that show the way Nintendo has been existing almost ENTIRELY to cash in on brand recognition, only making good games when they ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO so that their fans won't realize how shitty they're being? Ok, here's a few:

Mario Party
Mario Party DS
WarioWare
Mario Strikers
Link's Crossbow Training
Donkey Kong Barrel Blast
Super Mario Stadium Baseball
Various Pokemon Stadium/Battle Revolution/whatever games
Whatever the next Mario Golf game was called

Of course, those are just the ones Nintendo has made that are designed to cash in on Nintendo fanboyism. You can't forget the ones that are designed to lure in ignorant new gamers with their promise of fun when they ultimately turn out to be pure crap:

Wii Sports
Wii Play
Wii Fit
Wii Music

Warioware? You think Warioware is crap? Is that all of them, or just the one on the Wii? And the Mario sports titles, while not excellent Mario games and pretty goofy as sports games, are still fun. They're generally well-designed, if oversimplified. I'd defend Mario Party in the same way; it's shallow, but it's supposed to be. It's a party game. It's the video-game equivalent of Uno or Pictionary, both of which are utterly worthless as a one-player experience, but is just a fun, mindless thing to do with friends. I'm not saying that they're all great; Mario Strikers got a little too wild with the "wacky" fun thing, but it was still more fun for me than Fifa 08.

I'm not gonna defend Pokemon, though...

Haha, and Wii sports as "Pure Crap"? Maybe it's shallow, but it works, and it works well. It's fun if you're not tripping over yourself looking for reasons to be pissed off about motion control. Wii Play is a bit disappointing, until you realize that, despite the reversal in labelling, it's actually a $40 Wii Remote packaged with a $10 game. For $10, it's a perfectly serviceable game.

I think your decision to immediately label Wii Fit and Wii Music as crap is a good sign that you're not exactly going at this with an unbiased mind. I'm not going to insult your intelligence by trying to convince you that you've actually enjoyed Wii Sports and somehow just didn't notice, but now you're just lumping in two innocent games you've never experienced as "pure crap" is just juvenile.


The Wii is... well, let's say "difficult". It's new technology; or at the very least a new way of presenting old technology. It's a new way of looking at things, that's for sure, and the problems it experiences are largely from people who are still looking at it the same way they look at everything else. You have to think a little differently, and even Nintendo is struggling with that. What's important isn't necessarily that everyone developing games suddenly gets it. That's just not gonna happen. Hell, there are people out there who still can't program right for solely button-based games. But the important thing is that the potential exists.

Nintendo didn't create Flight, but they've handed out wings. People just need to figure out what to do with the damn things.

Isukun's got sour grapes because the gaming industry changed and he's still stuck in 1991.

That's funny. Despite my problems with Nintendo, I've stayed an avid gamer since the Atari days. My beef isn't with the industry. It doesn't bother me that developers and manufacturers base their decisions on the almighty dollar, it just bothers me when quality suffers because of it. Nintendo has consciously and consistently made the decision to lower their quality standards with each new system released over the last three generations. They hide how they're screwing over their customers with little cheap gimmicks they steal from the arcade or home PC markets and claim are major innovations.

Haha, and Wii sports as "Pure Crap"? Maybe it's shallow, but it works, and it works well. It's fun if you're not tripping over yourself looking for reasons to be pissed off about motion control.

While I don't agree with everything Shplane says, I do agree that Wii Sports is not a very good game. It's a tech demo that could have been a game if they had just gone the extra five feet and fleshed out the different modes. Would it have killed them to allow for nine innings in baseball? How hard would singles matches in tennis be? What about another half a course in golf? Boxing is just awful and primarily that is due to poor motion control. Bowling is the only part of the game that even feels remotely complete. I would have been satisfied if Wii Sports really were just a demo of a more complete title coming in the future, but it wasn't. It was billed as a full game and even sold separately overseas.

But the important thing is that the potential exists.

It's more like the illusion of potential exists. Unfortunately, the more complex the controls, the harder it is for the system to keep up with what you're doing. Right now, the wii is stuck just replacing buttons or simple analog control with pointer functions or simple movements. That's not really innovation and doesn't hold much more potential than your average dual shock or xbox controller. As I've said before, the games function essentially the same as before, except now you flick the controller instead of hitting "B" or you point at an IR emitter instead of using a second analog stick.

If Nintendo really wanted to be innovative, they would have put down a little extra money in R&D and developed a system which detected position and heading in real time. It's actually not a very complex problem to resolve and would have minimally added to the production costs of the system. It would also have resolved a good half of the headaches developers have trying to make reasonably functional motion controls in games for the wii. If they had done this with the system, I would think a little differently about it at this point and I might even agree with the wings statement. As it is, though, Nintendo has just handed out moon shoes and TOLD us we can fly.

Haha, well, I know better than to expect you to listen to a polite, reasonable argument that in any way conflicts with your decision on what's right or what's wrong. But for the sake of other people:

Don't take Isukun too seriously. He's an old man, very set in his ways. Nintendo is far from perfect, but despite what he's telling you, they're not trying to sabotage videogames.

jagular
Actually, my biggest problem with the wii is that NOTHING new is happening. The games are the same as they were before, just with some added gimmicky control mechanisms that add nothing to the actual gameplay.

Well, sure... if you're judging Wii's entire library on Carnival Games. Just like Isukun you're selectively ignoring the games where the Wii actually worked and improved gameplay. Plus, just watch the next few years now that developers are getting used to the Wii's features. The DS had similar challenges at first and now it has an incredible library full of games that properly use its features.

umm. i quoted that. it was isukun who said that.

Hawk
- The games you've listed as "bad" in your post are based on opinion, not fact. While more people will agree with you on certain games like Soul Calibur Legends, there are plenty of games you mentioned that people love. I really like WarioWare for instance, and I don't think my opinion is less valid than yours. And are you going to tell all the people who are enjoying Wii Sports that they're not really enjoying themselves? They're having fun. Once again, your opinion. And you haven't even tried Wii Music or Wii Fit yet.

How about we look at review scores then?

You'll not that most of the games I said got some pretty bad reviews. And how the HELL could either of those be good?

Hawk
- Though you've managed to point out some certifiably bad games, their existence does not prove the failure of the Wii or Nintendo, especially in the face of the certifiably excellent games also existing on the Wii. There have been just as many turds come out of Squaresoft and yet you've got no problem championing their black mage because you know they have made and still make some very good games.

OH, I admit Square's turds. I know about X-2 and that crap-ass spinoff of FF XII that came out for the DS. I know they had a chocobo racing thing come out at one point. And then there was that rail-stabber Dragon Quest spinoff that they made for the Wii...

I admit that Square has it's bad moments. But unlike Nintendo, they at least TRY with almost all of their games. And they don't tend to make too many spinoff games that exist solely to sell on fanboyism and lack quality. Every FF game I've ever played at least TRIED to be good, even X-2.

Unfortunately, I can't say the same for Mario Spinoff #3362.

Hawk
- Stating that Mario games' only change has been a switch to 3D is a very myopic view. Let's list some changes from Mario Galaxy: gravity fields, new power-ups, cooperative play, imagemap-based collision, improved camera,
Even Zelda has made improvements, including more fleshed-out characters, new items, and if playing as a wolf isn't considered a "change", I don't know what is. And you can't say it isn't a change just because you don't like it. Sticking to the same general formula does not equal "unchanged".

Yes, they've done little things. They've added and tweaked a little bit. But they haven't done anything MAJOR. I would respect that. I really would. IF Nintendo would make some new games to go with it.

If Nintendo's as great as everyone likes to think that they are, why do they never make anything NEW? Why don't they make a NEW series that's as good as Mario or Zelda? You'd think that the people who came up with those could come up with something else. Why haven't they?

Inkmonkey
Warioware? You think Warioware is crap? Is that all of them, or just the one on the Wii? And the Mario sports titles, while not excellent Mario games and pretty goofy as sports games, are still fun. They're generally well-designed, if oversimplified. I'd defend Mario Party in the same way; it's shallow, but it's supposed to be. It's a party game. It's the video-game equivalent of Uno or Pictionary, both of which are utterly worthless as a one-player experience, but is just a fun, mindless thing to do with friends. I'm not saying that they're all great; Mario Strikers got a little too wild with the "wacky" fun thing, but it was still more fun for me than Fifa 08.

They might be fun...

For a few minutes. Then they get boring. And how often do you have 3 friends over to play these games with? Even then, my friends would get bored fairly quickly, and want to take out Call of Duty 4 (8D) or Halo (*Shudder*).

And comparing it to another sports game? That's like sniffing deer droppings and dog shit to see which smells better.

Plenty of multiplayer games are made without being shallow. Maybe Nintendo could make a multiplayer version of Mario Galaxy where you run around as Mario with Luigi trying to beat the crap out of Bowser. It wouldn't be easy, but I'd trust them to do it, if they'd only TRY. Unfortunately, there's been a HUGE lack of that as of late.

Some of those games might be acceptable for a slight diversion for a few minutes. But ultimately, they're nothing more than shovelware designed to sell on brand recognition.

Inkmonkey
I'm not gonna defend Pokemon, though...

Pokemon was actually the one that I thought was doing it the LEAST of all of them, but at least you'll admit that they're doing SOMETHING wrong.

Inkmonkey
Haha, and Wii sports as "Pure Crap"? Maybe it's shallow, but it works, and it works well. It's fun if you're not tripping over yourself looking for reasons to be pissed off about motion control. Wii Play is a bit disappointing, until you realize that, despite the reversal in labelling, it's actually a $40 Wii Remote packaged with a $10 game. For $10, it's a perfectly serviceable game.

Honestly, I don't WANT to spend $10 on a worthless game. That's why I don't tend to buy games off of the Playstation Store. Pain looks interesting, but not enough for me to waste one sixth of what it would cost me to buy a full game.

And I'm not looking for reasons, they're jumping out at me and punching me in the face.

Inkmonkey
I think your decision to immediately label Wii Fit and Wii Music as crap is a good sign that you're not exactly going at this with an unbiased mind. I'm not going to insult your intelligence by trying to convince you that you've actually enjoyed Wii Sports and somehow just didn't notice, but now you're just lumping in two innocent games you've never experienced as "pure crap" is just juvenile.

It's a good sign that I learned from experience.

Inkmonkey
The Wii is... well, let's say "difficult". It's new technology; or at the very least a new way of presenting old technology. It's a new way of looking at things, that's for sure, and the problems it experiences are largely from people who are still looking at it the same way they look at everything else. You have to think a little differently, and even Nintendo is struggling with that. What's important isn't necessarily that everyone developing games suddenly gets it. That's just not gonna happen. Hell, there are people out there who still can't program right for solely button-based games. But the important thing is that the potential exists.

The potential exists...

For SOME games. The problem is that people try to apply it to ALL games, when they quite simply can't. How could motion controls POSSIBLY improve the Monster Hunter series? A game based ENTIRELY on stabbing people? Waggle? I'm sure that even you and Hawk can admit that waggle is worthless.

Inkmonkey
Nintendo didn't create Flight, but they've handed out wings. People just need to figure out what to do with the damn things.

People need to figure out when to use the wings and when to stay on the ground.

Lord Shplane
And comparing it to another sports game? That's like sniffing deer droppings and dog shit to see which smells better.

Well, I'm not going to pick apart your whole post, since that would be a tremendous waste of my time. But I will say this: just because you, personally, don't like sports games doesn't automatically make them shit. I, as a general rule of thumb, don't like console-based First Person Shooters. Never really enjoyed the two-stick navigation method. I like the more intuitie nature of the mouse, and if more games were programmed like Metroid, I'd prefer them on the Wii. But I don't think that all FPS games are shit just because I'm not part of the audience that enjoys them.

Videogames are like music. Everyone's got genres of music they do or do not like, but simply the fact that one of them isn't in your specific "like list", doesn't null it to every other listener out there.

Lord Shplane
How about we look at review scores then?

Yeah, why don't we? But let's check Gamerankings.com:

Mario Party DS: 71%
WarioWare: Smooth Moves: 86.4%
Mario Strikers Charged: 79%
Mario Superstar Baseball: 77%
Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour: 82%

So, if a 5 or 6 out of 10 is considered an "Average" game by industry standards, you mind telling me why over 70% is a bad score?

Lord Shplane
OH, I admit Square's turds. I know about X-2 and that crap-ass spinoff of FF XII that came out for the DS. I know they had a chocobo racing thing come out at one point. And then there was that rail-stabber Dragon Quest spinoff that they made for the Wii...

I admit that Square has it's bad moments. But unlike Nintendo, they at least TRY with almost all of their games. And they don't tend to make too many spinoff games that exist solely to sell on fanboyism and lack quality. Every FF game I've ever played at least TRIED to be good, even X-2.

Unfortunately, I can't say the same for Mario Spinoff #3362.

So how is it that when Square makes turds like Ehrgeiz, they "tried" and with Nintendo's alleged turds they didn't try? Sounds like an irrational bias to me. And it sure is easy for somebody who has never made a game to decide when somebody actually "tried".

Lord Shplane
Yes, they've done little things. They've added and tweaked a little bit. But they haven't done anything MAJOR. I would respect that. I really would. IF Nintendo would make some new games to go with it.

By your pathetic definition on change, Final Fantasy hasn't had a MAJOR change for its entire series.... and neither has Street Fighter, GTA, DOA or Bomberman. And why don't companies make major changes to big franchises? Because if you add guns to a Mario game, it's no longer a Mario game. It's Shadow the Hedgehog. You know what kind of toilet Sonic's in right now because Sega wasn't mindful of the changes they made.

Evolutionary changes, not revolutionary. If Nintendo's guilty of gradual change in their core franchises, then so is virtually every other developer out there.

Lord Shplane
If Nintendo's as great as everyone likes to think that they are, why do they never make anything NEW? Why don't they make a NEW series that's as good as Mario or Zelda? You'd think that the people who came up with those could come up with something else. Why haven't they?

Animal Crossing, Pikmin, Fire Emblem, Disaster: Day of Crisis, Excite Truck, Waverace, F-Zero, Star Fox, to name a few. Take your pick.

Lord Shplane
They might be fun...

For a few minutes. Then they get boring. And how often do you have 3 friends over to play these games with? Even then, my friends would get bored fairly quickly, and want to take out Call of Duty 4 (8D) or Halo (*Shudder*).

And comparing it to another sports game? That's like sniffing deer droppings and dog shit to see which smells better.

Purely matters of taste. Honestly, I'd rather race around a fantasy track shooting red shells at my opponents instead of racing modified cars for pink slips in L.A. Other people have different tastes, and I respect that. Hopefully you respect your friends' love for Halo.

Lord Shplane
For SOME games. The problem is that people try to apply it to ALL games, when they quite simply can't. How could motion controls POSSIBLY improve the Monster Hunter series? A game based ENTIRELY on stabbing people? Waggle? I'm sure that even you and Hawk can admit that waggle is worthless.

Worthless? Heck no. Just overused. A quick flick of the wrist worked pretty well in Super Mario Galaxy. And didn't we already discuss how Monster Hunter was moved to Wii for monetary reasons (Sony's fault) not because its developers had some crazy desire to add motion controls?

Shplane, you need to get off this ridiculous agenda of yours. Nintendo has no obligation to cater to your tastes. They're catering to the tastes of others, and from the looks of it, doing it rather well. Get out of this stupid 1990's "Genesis vs. SNES" attitude and realize that you don't have to slam the opposition to enjoy your own.

Puff_Of_Smoke
I'm a nintendo fanboy:P

High five dude, so am I!

Hawk
Yeah, why don't we? But let's check Gamerankings.com:

Mario Party DS: 71%
WarioWare: Smooth Moves: 86.4%
Mario Strikers Charged: 79%
Mario Superstar Baseball: 77%
Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour: 82%



So, if a 5 or 6 out of 10 is considered an "Average" game by industry standards, you mind telling me why over 70% is a bad score?

Any particular REASON why you chose Gamerankings over Metacritic when Metacritic already had a link?

And honestly, I don't consider a score to be "good" unless it's at least an 80%, though there ARE games that I like.

However, half-assed minigame collections and sports games that rely solely on brand recognition AREN'T among them. Can you HONESTLY tell me that you would buy ANY of those games had they not been Mario based?

Hawk
So how is it that when Square makes turds like Ehrgeiz, they "tried" and with Nintendo's alleged turds they didn't try? Sounds like an irrational bias to me. And it sure is easy for somebody who has never made a game to decide when somebody actually "tried".

I don't know, maybe when a game is a complete copy/paste of the previous game?

Honestly, I've never played Ehrgeiz, or indeed heard of it. But I CAN say that every Square game that I HAVE PLAYED had at lest some effort behind it.

Hawk
By your pathetic definition on change, Final Fantasy hasn't had a MAJOR change for its entire series.... and neither has Street Fighter, GTA, DOA or Bomberman. And why don't companies make major changes to big franchises? Because if you add guns to a Mario game, it's no longer a Mario game. It's Shadow the Hedgehog. You know what kind of toilet Sonic's in right now because Sega wasn't mindful of the changes they made.

While FF games haven't switched up their formula TOO much, they AT LEAST come up with a new story and characters for each game. And they DO try new stuff. I'll ADMIT that they don't do it as much as I would like, but I also like the fact that they don't OVERDO it. There's a nice little happy spot here that no one's quite hitting. They're either changing too much or too little.

Gameplay wise, I admit that they're tweeks aren't much bigger than the ones from Mario. But they DO make a new story. Instead of just being "OMG MARIO SAVE PEACH BOWSER KIDNAP'D HER."

In fact, that's actually my biggest problem. All Mario games have the EXACT SAME STORY. Could they TRY to do something new? They did with Zelda at least, and I LOVED the story.

Someone
Evolutionary changes, not revolutionary. If Nintendo's guilty of gradual change in their core franchises, then so is virtually every other developer out there.

Nintendo is guilty of almost NO changes. I consider it gradual when you can tell the difference between the newest game and the last without having to look at the covers.

Hawk
Animal Crossing, Pikmin, Fire Emblem, Disaster: Day of Crisis, Excite Truck, Waverace, F-Zero, Star Fox, to name a few. Take your pick.

None of those are as good as Mario. And all but Pikmin, Animal Crossing, and Excite Truck started the franchise a LONG time ago, didn't they?

Lord Shplane
They might be fun...

For a few minutes. Then they get boring. And how often do you have 3 friends over to play these games with? Even then, my friends would get bored fairly quickly, and want to take out Call of Duty 4 (8D) or Halo (*Shudder*).

And comparing it to another sports game? That's like sniffing deer droppings and dog shit to see which smells better.

I TRY to respect their enjoyment of Halo... I REALLY do... But it's HARD man, it really is.

The sports game thing was mostly a joke, I enjoy bashing sports games, but still they're pretty homogenous. And hey, Mario Kart is ANOTHER one of those series that hasn't changed at all ever.

Hawk
Worthless? Heck no. Just overused. A quick flick of the wrist worked pretty well in Super Mario Galaxy. And didn't we already discuss how Monster Hunter was moved to Wii for monetary reasons (Sony's fault) not because its developers had some crazy desire to add motion controls?

When you start saying that swinging your arm back and forth over and over and over again to make someone stab, something is SEVERELY wrong. Now a "flick" is ok, but that's not waggle. Waggle is the OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER stab thing. Or at least that's what I understood it to be.

Maybe my terminology is wrong, but I think you understand what I'm saying?

Hawk
Shplane, you need to get off this ridiculous agenda of yours. Nintendo has no obligation to cater to your tastes. They're catering to the tastes of others, and from the looks of it, doing it rather well. Get out of this stupid 1990's "Genesis vs. SNES" attitude and realize that you don't have to slam the opposition to enjoy your own.

NINTENDO IS MY OWN

I LOVE NINTENDO

BUT NINTENDO DOESN'T LOVE ME ANYMORE

It OPENED MY EYES is all. I stopped looking at "OMG MARIO", and I started looking at actual gameplay. And then I became dissappointed. I want them to do what they did BEFORE, I want them to try new things and be GOOD at it. I want there to be almost as many new storylines and worlds and characters a their are games.

But no, that will never happen. Because Nintendo KNOWS that it can make the mainstay of it's cash out of Mario Party and Mario Sports games.

What's with all the talk about reviewer scores, Shplane? I remember a few occasions where you specifically stated that you don't trust reviewer scores at all. I think it was in a discussion about how Twilight Princess was getting perfect scores all over the place, despite the apparent "evil" of a waggle-based fighting system.

So, if a 5 or 6 out of 10 is considered an "Average" game by industry standards, you mind telling me why over 70% is a bad score?

a 5 or 6 isn't average by industry standards. Reviewers use a scale more akin to the academic grading scale. since there is a lot of personal opinion when it comes to rating anything entertainment-related, most reviewers know that readers are generally not going to consider any rating below an 8 to be good, just as most students know a "C" isn't a good grade.

Quite honestly, though, review scores don't stack up to much these days unless you consider where the industry's loyalties lie. Many gamers have been losing faith in reviewers lately since they have a tendency to crap on games that appeal to fans of oldschool gaming and are often hypocritical when it comes to the reasons they pass judgment on games adding fuel to the conspiracy theories of reviewers taking kickbacks to give games higher scores or simply giving lower ratings to systems they don't like for personal reasons.

Animal Crossing, Pikmin, Fire Emblem, Disaster: Day of Crisis, Excite Truck, Waverace, F-Zero, Star Fox, to name a few. Take your pick.

I know shplane mentioned this already, but most of those are from the 8 or 16-bit days. The only real exceptions are Animal Crossing (N64), Pikmin (GC), and Disaster: Day of Crisis. The problem there, though, is that Pikmin wasn't a major success for Nintendo and certainly isn't a franchise on par with the others. Animal Crossing has it's following, but it's more of a niche market, as well. Then you have Disaster: Day of Crisis which IS NOT A NINTENDO GAME. It's developed by Monolith, the same company that made Xenosaga and Baten Kaitos.

Worthless? Heck no. Just overused. A quick flick of the wrist worked pretty well in Super Mario Galaxy.

I hated that in Mario Galaxy. It wasn't necessary and added nothing to the game. It is something I see too often on the wii. Motion controls thrown in for no reason. One of the biggest problems with this approach is that the motion sensitivity isn't 100% accurate on the system and you frequently get games that don't play well because of it. Even games I have liked on the system are frequently held back by the generally poor design of the hardware.

Does it really matter if Nintendo isn't making new IPs on a regular basis? I mean; does the fact that Mario is in a game automatically make it inferior to a game that has a new character? I know games sell better by plugging Mario into them, but that's been a Nintendo thing since the Punch-Out!! days.

You know, it's getting to where I don't want to talk to these guys anymore. Isukun argues out of irrational bias, and Shplane argues out of ignorance. And both of them think that it's some kind of silly contest.... so much that Isukun has to twist words and definitions in a vain attempt to make himself right, and Shplane has to tell lies about games he has never played.

Lucky for me, it doesn't matter. I enjoy the games coming out of Nintendo, and there are plenty for me to play right now. I never claimed Nintendo was perfect, but the nice thing is that they don't have to be. Because what console maker is? One console maker is benefiting from an illegal monopoly and the other gave us rootkits. You just choose the machine with your style of games and you leave the other folks alone.

Nintendo's style of games match my taste in games. That's why I play Nintendo.

I guess from what I'm seeing Nintendo does what basically all game companies do: exaggerates about the power of their system, uses popular characters to sell unrelated games, and put on a happy-go-lucky "we only care about games" face to the public. But somehow Nintendo is worse, because they're exaggerating about different things than the other companies.

Now, I don't want to come off as the kind of guy who views Nintendo as some kinda all-knowing, all loving gaming deity that bestows bountiful blessings etc, etc.. But I don't think that they're suddenly evil and/or idiots for making a game system that developers haven't quite adjusted to yet. Actually, it's better to say a system that many developers haven't quite adjusted to yet. People are figuring it out; just look at stuff like Zack and Wiki.

Hey, and let's not forget the fact that Nintendo is STILL selling us Mario Bros. Hey, how about you quit with Mario Sportsball DX Strikers Golf Play and make some NEW IP that's as good as Mario. I KNOW you can do it Miyamoto. Why don't you?

If you want to see something truly new, go back to 1989.

Every style of gameplay has been created. What we do now is expand on these concepts. If you blame Nintendo for rehashing, you'd have to blame Squaresoft, Valve, Activision, EA, Sony Computer Entertainment America, SEGA, Capcom, Rockstar, Eidos, Infograms, Infinity Ward, Konami, Midway, Neversoft, and Ubisoft for doing the same thing.

Will Final Fantasy XII be a rehash? Of course. Will GTA 4 be a rehash? Yup. Is Call of Duty 4 a rehash? Most certainly. Is Team Fortress 2 a rehash? My magic eight ball says yes. We live in the time and age where the ground has been placed down before us and we now have to build on to it.

Inkmonkey
What's with all the talk about reviewer scores, Shplane? I remember a few occasions where you specifically stated that you don't trust reviewer scores at all. I think it was in a discussion about how Twilight Princess was getting perfect scores all over the place, despite the apparent "evil" of a waggle-based fighting system.

*Shrug*

People change, and I did. I still don't FULLY trust reviewers, but I do put enough stock in the to use them in an internet argument.

Inkmonkey
Does it really matter if Nintendo isn't making new IPs on a regular basis? I mean; does the fact that Mario is in a game automatically make it inferior to a game that has a new character? I know games sell better by plugging Mario into them, but that's been a Nintendo thing since the Punch-Out!! days.

Yes, when every other company is making them every other day. ESPECIALLY since Nintendo is hailed as being innavative, pioneering etc... why aren't they?

And see, that's a bad thing. For every Mario-plug game that's good, there are ten that are bad. But Nintendo's rabid fanbase buys them anyway, so Nintendo has no incentive to change.

Mario being in the game doesn't make it inferior. It's when a game is designed SOLELY to sell on the fact that it's Mario that the game is crap. And unfortunately, Nintendo makes FAR more of these than they do anything else.

Isukun
I hated that in Mario Galaxy. It wasn't necessary and added nothing to the game. It is something I see too often on the wii. Motion controls thrown in for no reason. One of the biggest problems with this approach is that the motion sensitivity isn't 100% accurate on the system and you frequently get games that don't play well because of it. Even games I have liked on the system are frequently held back by the generally poor design of the hardware.

I note that no one has ever responded to this argument when we make it. I wonder why that is, Isukun?

Hawk
You know, it's getting to where I don't want to talk to these guys anymore. Isukun argues out of irrational bias, and Shplane argues out of ignorance. And both of them think that it's some kind of silly contest.... so much that Isukun has to twist words and definitions in a vain attempt to make himself right, and Shplane has to tell lies about games he has never played.

Argues from irrational bias? And you DON'T? Please, Mr. "I prefer Mario Kart because you shoot turtle shells".

CONTEST?! If it was a CONTEST, I'd be saying "Hey, I sure hope that Nintendo suddenly dies and stops making any games ever again", instead of "I sure wish Nintendo was as good as it was back in the SNES&N64 days."

And how is saying "Hey, this game is exactly like that game, and I disliked that game, therefore this game is bad" lying? And do NOT deny that they're the same. Because you can tell that they are from miles and miles away.

Ignorance? I can look things up as well as you can. I've played a fairly large number of these games, and didn't like any of them. It stands to reason that I wouldn't like their clones.

Hawk
Lucky for me, it doesn't matter. I enjoy the games coming out of Nintendo, and there are plenty for me to play right now. I never claimed Nintendo was perfect, but the nice thing is that they don't have to be. Because what console maker is? One console maker is benefiting from an illegal monopoly and the other gave us rootkits. You just choose the machine with your style of games and you leave the other folks alone.

My problem is that I MISS THE OLD NINTENDO. I miss Nintendo when it was GOOD. But you seem to just NOT CARE. No matter WHAT HAPPENS, you will continue to buy game after game of whatever garbage that Nintendo throws at you, so long as it says "Mario" on it.

A lot of games ARE my style of game. Twilight Princess, Mario Galaxy, Prime 3, BRAWL. I'm just mad because:

A ) These games have crap mechanics thrown in them just because people CAN which detract from the overall experience and-
B ) They're too busy making shovelware and stamping "Mario" on it to make MORE games that are like those ones

Hawk
Nintendo's style of games match my taste in games. That's why I play Nintendo.

Nintendo's GOOD games match my style of games, but I'm not going to buy garbage just because it has a plumber's face on it.

Inkmonkey
I guess from what I'm seeing Nintendo does what basically all game companies do: exaggerates about the power of their system, uses popular characters to sell unrelated games, and put on a happy-go-lucky "we only care about games" face to the public. But somehow Nintendo is worse, because they're exaggerating about different things than the other companies.

How are other companies doing any of that?

I haven't seen "Kratos Party" or "Master Cheif's Warthog Racing". Please, give examples of other people doing this. I'm SURE that they do exist, but not on the same level as Nintendo.

And the reason that Nintendo's exaggerations are WORSE is because they're not only nowhere near as GOOD as Nintendo says they are, they actually DETRACT from games in some cases. Not all, I admit that, but it's true.

Inkmonkey
Now, I don't want to come off as the kind of guy who views Nintendo as some kinda all-knowing, all loving gaming deity that bestows bountiful blessings etc, etc.. But I don't think that they're suddenly evil and/or idiots for making a game system that developers haven't quite adjusted to yet. Actually, it's better to say a system that many developers haven't quite adjusted to yet. People are figuring it out; just look at stuff like Zack and Wiki.

They're EVIL for:

A ) Abandoning parts of their fanbase to buy more casual gamers. I mean really, how hard could it POSSIBLY be to copy Mario 64's control scheme, make a few minor adaptations to it so that it works with a Gamecube controller, and offer that as a control option on Mario Galaxy?
B ) Making piles and piles and piles of shovelware that still sells like crazy just because it says "IT'S-A-ME, ANOTHER MARIO SPINOFF!!"

They're STUPID for:

A ) Not realizing that EVERY game doesn't need motion controls.
B ) Not telling developers that EVERY game doesn't need motion controls.
C ) Not asking Miyamoto to work on making new series that are as good as Mario.
D ) Letting Sega use Mario for Mario & Sonic at the Olympics.

B ) Not telling developers that EVERY game doesn't need motion controls.

This is single handily the stupidest thing I've ever seen you post. It's a developers choice to add motion control to any game. It's not like Nintendo has an iron fist over them telling them that they must make a game utilize waggle. Hell, Sakurai didn't add motion controls to Brawl because they wouldn't fit. Developers see that games that feature motion controls do well, they'll add motion controls, even if they are just tacked on. How is this Nintendo's fault? Jesus.