Is Nintendo running on brand loyalty?

[Ossot]

There are other games out there like red steel and no more heroes that wouldn't have been that good without motion controls.

OK It might be Mario and Zelda, but you can do stuff in the games that you couldn't on a game cube.

I can see they are trying to appeal to moms and dads and kids. but not all companies are.

Without Nintendo innovation of their hardware those games wouldn't been as good as they're now.

I may be wrong, but didn't, or maybe isn't, NMH coming out for PS3 as well? The motion controls didn't define NMH anymore than they define TWP.

As for Red Steel. Again, it attempted to use motion controls. I gotchya. It was a mediocre FPS style game with motion controls. Without motion controls it's a mediocre FPS style game. Both of your examples exemplify my exact point. The bulk of wii games, with or without motion controls, are the exact same game. While something like Boom Blox actually does rely on motion controls and would be an entirely different game, it, the game itself, hardly revolutionized the industry.

There's no denying Nintendo moved a gajillion units due to their motion controls. There's no denying the competitors are attempting to duplicate those results. No one in their right mind would argue either of those points. Where we differ is in the driving force behind those facts. While you think it's industry changing innovation that will affect "gamers," I think it's a gimmick that is aimed at the mass market of NON gamers. It's capitalism not creative genius. Nintendo traded in it's core demographic, the people who grew up with it, in lieu of the layman.

I'm 28, so the bulk of my friends are ~30. We all grew up having nintendo blow our minds and blowing into NES cartridges. Not when it was cool, and trendy, and retro, but when it was cutting edge. I'm the only person I know, short of these forums, who will ever defend Nintendo. Do we no longer love Mario? Not at all. But why go buy some "good" Wii game which will more than likely force you to hold your controller at odd angles and cut off any much-too-bright light sources which you may face your Wiimote at, when you could spend the $50 on something like Fable 3. Which I merely use as an example of a contemporary alternative. Is Mario a great game? For sure. I like every Mario released on the Wii. But I'd be willing to bet you a shit ton, you take any of the Marios, the Zeldas, whatever, and release it in HD on 360/PS3 with true online multiplayer and sans motion controls, and it will sell every bit as many units, and I'd be willing to make a small wager, quite a bit more.

 

[Juanmatron]

He's attempting to discredit your argument by implying that you are a Sonic fanboy.

I know that, but is a pretty bad argument and more when my first videogame was Sonic.

 

[Crimsonclaw111]

He's attempting to discredit your argument by implying that you are a Sonic fanboy.

I know that, but is a pretty bad argument and more when my first videogame was Sonic.

The way you worded your posts made it seem (to me) that you took the sonic fan insults personally. I was trying to clarify.

Ah, I see where I messed up. I meant to put a question mark instead of a period in my other post.

 

[Midna]

There are other games out there like red steel and no more heroes that wouldn't have been that good without motion controls.

OK It might be Mario and Zelda, but you can do stuff in the games that you couldn't on a game cube.

I can see they are trying to appeal to moms and dads and kids. but not all companies are.

Without Nintendo innovation of their hardware those games wouldn't been as good as they're now.

I may be wrong, but didn't, or maybe isn't, NMH coming out for PS3 as well? The motion controls didn't define NMH anymore than they define TWP.

As for Red Steel. Again, it attempted to use motion controls. I gotchya. It was a mediocre FPS style game with motion controls. Without motion controls it's a mediocre FPS style game. Both of your examples exemplify my exact point. The bulk of wii games, with or without motion controls, are the exact same game. While something like Boom Blox actually does rely on motion controls and would be an entirely different game, it, the game itself, hardly revolutionized the industry.

There's no denying Nintendo moved a gajillion units due to their motion controls. There's no denying the competitors are attempting to duplicate those results. No one in their right mind would argue either of those points. Where we differ is in the driving force behind those facts. While you think it's industry changing innovation that will affect "gamers," I think it's a gimmick that is aimed at the mass market of NON gamers. It's capitalism not creative genius. Nintendo traded in it's core demographic, the people who grew up with it, in lieu of the layman.

I'm 28, so the bulk of my friends are ~30. We all grew up having nintendo blow our minds and blowing into NES cartridges. Not when it was cool, and trendy, and retro, but when it was cutting edge. I'm the only person I know, short of these forums, who will ever defend Nintendo. Do we no longer love Mario? Not at all. But why go buy some "good" Wii game which will more than likely force you to hold your controller at odd angles and cut off any much-too-bright light sources which you may face your Wiimote at, when you could spend the $50 on something like Fable 3. Which I merely use as an example of a contemporary alternative. Is Mario a great game? For sure. I like every Mario released on the Wii. But I'd be willing to bet you a shit ton, you take any of the Marios, the Zeldas, whatever, and release it in HD on 360/PS3 with true online multiplayer and sans motion controls, and it will sell every bit as many units, and I'd be willing to make a small wager, quite a bit more.

Well, now they've got the attention of the mass market, all signs point to Nintendo's next gen being a campaign to recapture the core gamers who deserted after the Wii. I hope so, anyway.

 

[Juanmatron]

There are other games out there like red steel and no more heroes that wouldn't have been that good without motion controls.

OK It might be Mario and Zelda, but you can do stuff in the games that you couldn't on a game cube.

I can see they are trying to appeal to moms and dads and kids. but not all companies are.

Without Nintendo innovation of their hardware those games wouldn't been as good as they're now.

I may be wrong, but didn't, or maybe isn't, NMH coming out for PS3 as well? The motion controls didn't define NMH anymore than they define TWP.

As for Red Steel. Again, it attempted to use motion controls. I gotchya. It was a mediocre FPS style game with motion controls. Without motion controls it's a mediocre FPS style game. Both of your examples exemplify my exact point. The bulk of wii games, with or without motion controls, are the exact same game. While something like Boom Blox actually does rely on motion controls and would be an entirely different game, it, the game itself, hardly revolutionized the industry.

There's no denying Nintendo moved a gajillion units due to their motion controls. There's no denying the competitors are attempting to duplicate those results. No one in their right mind would argue either of those points. Where we differ is in the driving force behind those facts. While you think it's industry changing innovation that will affect "gamers," I think it's a gimmick that is aimed at the mass market of NON gamers. It's capitalism not creative genius. Nintendo traded in it's core demographic, the people who grew up with it, in lieu of the layman.

I'm 28, so the bulk of my friends are ~30. We all grew up having nintendo blow our minds and blowing into NES cartridges. Not when it was cool, and trendy, and retro, but when it was cutting edge. I'm the only person I know, short of these forums, who will ever defend Nintendo. Do we no longer love Mario? Not at all. But why go buy some "good" Wii game which will more than likely force you to hold your controller at odd angles and cut off any much-too-bright light sources which you may face your Wiimote at, when you could spend the $50 on something like Fable 3. Which I merely use as an example of a contemporary alternative. Is Mario a great game? For sure. I like every Mario released on the Wii. But I'd be willing to bet you a shit ton, you take any of the Marios, the Zeldas, whatever, and release it in HD on 360/PS3 with true online multiplayer and sans motion controls, and it will sell every bit as many units, and I'd be willing to make a small wager, quite a bit more.

Well, now they've got the attention of the mass market, all signs point to Nintendo's next gen being a campaign to recapture the core gamers who deserted after the Wii. I hope so, anyway.

Nintendo doesn't need core gamers. We only have to see this graphic to know that:

NES won because it was made for people with "playable superhuman abilities". Do you want to know who were the majority of those players with "playable superhuman abilities" playing a videogame console during the arcade era?

People do not buy games to pass them, they but games to have fun with them, after all, it is the functionality of videogames.

 

[Midna]

On the topic of the Wii's new controls being useless, I disagree. I believe more than motion controls, the Wii benifited from it's pointer controls. Aiming with an analog stick in Zelda is damn hard. When pointer controls were added to TP, aiming the bow or other projectile weapon became really easy, convenient and precise. The double clawshot minigame is almost impossible in GC Twilight Princess. Other games benifited greatly from pointer controls, like the Metroid Prime series. I believe Corruption's control scheme to be far superior to Prime and Echoes on the gamecube.

Also Juan. Do not believe the larger part of the gaming market is 8 year olds, but rather teens. Heh, my father was a gamer during the arcade and later the NES era. Those games are damn hard. They were never meant for 8 year olds, or used by them either. I know that almost every gamer teen nowadays has a 360 or a PS3. And they play mostly CoD on them. Nintendo also needs those idiots who think violence and graphics = good games.

 

[Midna]

Double Dragon Post

 

[KingVamp]

Well, now they've got the attention of the mass market, all signs point to Nintendo's next gen being a campaign to recapture the core gamers who deserted after the Wii. I hope so, anyway.

Edit: I believe more than motion controls, the Wii benifited from it's pointer controls. Aiming with an analog stick in Zelda is damn hard. When pointer controls were added to TP, aiming to bow or other projectile weapon became really easy, convenient and precise. The double clawshot minigame is almost impossible in GC Twilight Princess. Other games benifited greatly from pointer controls, like the Metroid Prime series. I believe Corruption's control scheme to be far superior to Prime and Echoes on the gamecube.

Thank you

!!!

@Guild McCommunist So you think they should go Sega?

 

[Juanmatron]

On the topic of the Wii's new controls being useless, I disagree. I believe more than motion controls, the Wii benifited from it's pointer controls. Aiming with an analog stick in Zelda is damn hard. When pointer controls were added to TP, aiming to bow or other projectile weapon became really easy, convenient and precise. The double clawshot minigame is almost impossible in GC Twilight Princess. Other games benifited greatly from pointer controls, like the Metroid Prime series. I believe Corruption's control scheme to be far superior to Prime and Echoes on the gamecube.

Also Juan. Do not believe the larger part of the gaming market is 8 year olds, but rather teens. Heh, my father was a gamer during the arcade and later the NES era. Those games are damn hard. They were never meant for 8 year olds, or used by them either. I know that almost every gamer teen nowadays has a 360 or a PS3. And they play mostly CoD on them. Nintendo also needs those idiots who think violence and graphics = good games.

I say NES was do it for kids and won. NES never go to the hardcore market and it was a success. So, why Nintendo needs core public?

I think the secret of success for Nintendo would be back experiences while NES and SNES games are also added to the catalog of the GCN and N64 eras.

 

[Ossot]

Nintendo doesn't need core gamers. We only have to see this graphic to know that:

Perhaps we're arguing different points. The more back and forth we have the more it seems that may be the case. It appears as if I'm arguing whether Wii's motion controls IMPROVED the gaming industry, and you're arguing whether Wii's motion controls improved their stock price.

Also, for what it's worth, unless that image was sarcastic, I don't know how an image showing Nintendo's sales peaking when they were aiming for the core market helps your point. But that's neither here nor there, as I imagined the Wii's sales being on it as well. Which, in that case, would.

edit: Actually, open reading your post, you seem to think that kids weren't the hardcore market in the 1980s. The 15-35 year old demographic wasn't quite the same then as it is today. The reason the "hardcore" demographic today consists of an older crowd is because it is, largely, the SAME people that were playing NES 20+ years ago. NES was aimed at kids because there simply was no other market.

 

[Juanmatron]

Nintendo doesn't need core gamers. We only have to see this graphic to know that:

Perhaps we're arguing different points. The more back and forth we have the more it seems that may be the case. It appears as if I'm arguing whether Wii's motion controls IMPROVED the gaming industry, and you're arguing whether Wii's motion controls improved their stock price.

Also, for what it's worth, unless that image was sarcastic, I don't know how an image showing Nintendo's sales peaking when they were aiming for the core market helps your point. But that's neither here nor there, as I imagined the Wii's sales being on it as well. Which, in that case, would.

Nintendo wanted to make a console with a price of 100$. Why Wii cost that price? WiiMote isn't the reason. The reason was this console:

And that image wasn't sarcastic. It's the true, even if we doesn't like that true.

 

[_Chaz_]

I say NES was do it for kids and won. NES never go to the hardcore market and it was a success.

Beat Contra without the Konami Code and say that.

Hard games used to be the thing, but now if a game is hard, people won't buy it.

 

[Ossot]

Okay, now I'm sure of it, and done. You seem like a reasonably intelligent guy. I can't imagine actually learning a second language enough to do as much with it as you have. So I'm not insulting you for not speaking English as well as this debate warrants, but the fact is, you don't. Things are clearly being lost in translation, and that's not something even 10 more pages of this thread could remedy.

Have a good evening.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

Nintendo doesn't need core gamers. We only have to see this graphic to know that:

Perhaps we're arguing different points. The more back and forth we have the more it seems that may be the case. It appears as if I'm arguing whether Wii's motion controls IMPROVED the gaming industry, and you're arguing whether Wii's motion controls improved their stock price.

Also, for what it's worth, unless that image was sarcastic, I don't know how an image showing Nintendo's sales peaking when they were aiming for the core market helps your point. But that's neither here nor there, as I imagined the Wii's sales being on it as well. Which, in that case, would.

Nintendo wanted to make a console with a price of 100$. Why Wii cost that price? WiiMote isn't the reason. The reason was this console:

Stop talking in pictures, this isn't 4chan.

You're not making any sense. Why are you talking about Wii pricing now? Yeah it was cheap when it came out and being a relatively inexpensive console it made it sell more, but it's not relevant to the topic at hand. The Wii sold because it appealed to the casual market. Period. The Kinect is $150 (which is pricey as hell for a peripheral), not counting the price of a Xbox 360 if you don't have one, and it still did some major selling at launch.

 

[KingVamp]

I say NES was do it for kids and won. NES never go to the hardcore market and it was a success.

Beat Contra without the Konami Code and say that.

Hard games used to be the thing, but now if a game is hard, people won't buy it.

Isn't blood,violence, good storyline, and blood the new thing?

jk

I'm lost on Juan argument, what is he arguing again?

 

[Juanmatron]

I say NES was do it for kids and won. NES never go to the hardcore market and it was a success.

Beat Contra without the Konami Code and say that.

Hard games used to be the thing, but now if a game is hard, people won't buy it.

Isn't blood,violence, good storyline, and blood the new thing?

jk

I'm lost on Juan argument, what is he arguing again?

Konami already makes games for DOS and Atari, Contra has DOS and Atari version. They launched those games to see if they sell on the system.

I argumented Metroid Other Shit and then... I can't remember! That's why we must use the chat dammit!

 

[Shinigami357]

I say NES was do it for kids and won. NES never go to the hardcore market and it was a success.

Beat Contra without the Konami Code and say that.

Hard games used to be the thing, but now if a game is hard, people won't buy it.

Isn't blood,violence, good storyline, and blood the new thing?

jk

I'm lost on Juan argument, what is he arguing again?

He isn't arguing. He's just raging that mario and nintendo ran sonic and atari to the ground. Of course there's no mention of all the crappiest sonic titles here, right? Oh, whoops

 

[Canonbeat234]

I say NES was do it for kids and won. NES never go to the hardcore market and it was a success.

Beat Contra without the Konami Code and say that.

Hard games used to be the thing, but now if a game is hard, people won't buy it.

Isn't blood,violence, good storyline, and blood the new thing?

jk

I'm lost on Juan argument, what is he arguing again?

He isn't arguing. He's just raging that mario and nintendo ran sonic and atari to the ground. Of course there's no mention of all the crappiest sonic titles here, right? Oh, whoops

Stop right there troll!! He wasn't arguing about anything from Sonic nor Atari, he was making some valid points which does take time to do research on.

From what I have read so far, Juan's argument is base on the titles that Nintendo made which some of them weren't successful. Nintendo made a DS game which is called Starfox:Command. StarFox was made by Rareware which is the reason why there will be no more sequels. Personally, DKC on the SNES was originally made by Rareware. DKC: Returns to my surprise is looking good even though its being made by Nintendo.

On Topic: Nintendo has been doing this for a while now, SEGA is no innocent company either. SEGA has fuck themselves due to being irresposible, unorganized, and prideful. Why do you think SEGA can releasing the classic Sonic games fron Genesis unto every bloody gaming device they can think of. What Nintendo is doing that SEGA overlooked is that Nintendo kept the formula simple. Mario - Rescue the princess. Zelda - Link saves Hyrule/World-whatever. These two things shown that the main core gameplay were always there but with twist and turns into it. SEGA made a Sonic game it has been like this...

Sonic - Defeat Robotnik (scratch that)
- Defeat ancient god (scratch that)
- Introduce new character/play the dark side (scratch that)
- Play with all Sonic characters while defeating Robotnik's metallic hedgehog (scratch that)
- Introduce new chracter w/ darker storyline plus complex plot device (scratch that)
- Defeat ancient god (scratch that)
- Defeat Robotnik (Wait, this works?)

You see what SEGA had to do in order to bring around town again?

 

[Shinigami357]

Wait, what? What BS is this? Valid points? Any troll with 5 minutes of google can come up with his ridiculous claims.

1. Nintendo is "killing" metroid blah blah and blah.
- Not true. It's called "change", learn to deal with it. Change is what Nintendo is good at. He won't accept it coz that's wht happens when the changes come: people panic. It's a knee-jerk reaction. If the change is bad, Nintendo will maybe try to improve it or dump it, either way, the series is progressing, not dying. Invalid point.
2. Nintendo "killed" some of it's series
- This is half-true at best. Some of these series' are in hibernation. Nintendo will bring them out as they please. It is their decision, not yours, and you have no say on what they want to do with it. Not one damn thing. Some series died? Oh, right that's just part of natural progression. Some things come to an end, others prosper. Deal with it. Invalid point.
3. Miyamoto sucks
- LOL at this. Seriously? What, a few games and you pass verdict? Again, he's judgmental at best. You don't have any damn right to judge someone who's been in the industry this long. Making decisions in a multi-million company is tough, and some mistakes happen. Again DEAL WITH IT.

Which one of those are even valid points??? He's the one trolling here.

 

[Canonbeat234]

I'm not going to argue, he didn't say Miyamoto sucks! He did complain about some titles that will never get release heck that's business. I will never get to see Jazz Jackrabbit on 3D that's for sure.

Now the Metriod part, you people created that stupid topic from the very beginning! He was first complaining about Metriodther M. If I remember clearly, Nintendo is about innovation so that's one for you about Metriod. Same thing as for Kirby although I wonder who did created KirbyEY? HAL productions?

Also I called you a troll because he was voicing concerns and bash Nintendo more than he did to SEGA. The topic was about brand loyality not Metriod: Other M. So whoever the hell brought that game up is direcly the troll!

Edit: Then again, this topic reminds of those articles from CNN. Badly written.