2015 Nintendomination!!!

  • 186 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#101 Posted by HernandeZzzz (855 posts) -

@farrell2k said:

@hernandezzzz said:

@farrell2k said:

@hernandezzzz said:

Is that all? What a crappy list...

If you crappy you mean the best exclusive lineup, then everyone with even a little good taste agrees; otherwise, you are just talking nonsense out of your arse!

No, by crappy I mean highly underwhelming. Thanks for the topic though, that title gave me a good laugh.

PS: The lineups of other consoles are irrelevant to the quality of these titles. A bad list is a bad list. Out of all those games, the only one I'd buy is Zelda.

So, basically you acknowledge that they are completely awesome and you are just trolling. Got it.

I'll acknowledge whatever the fuck you want. One thing's for sure though, if that is all that's coming in 2015, I won't be buying a Wii U. That much is fact.

#102 Edited by Speak_Low (1119 posts) -

@PurpleMan5000 said:

@RR360DD said:

Soom promising titles in there, but the Wii U won't dominate anything when it misses out on pretty much all third party games.

Even if it had all of the third party games, nobody would buy them. Nintendo just puts out too many good games every year for them to compete. Playstation gamers wouldn't buy 3rd party games if Naughty Dog were putting out 6-7 games per year, either.

Nintendo doesn't put out 6-7 games a year. In fact, Nintendo's very problem are the huge, almost seasonal gaps between their big titles - that's what killing them (among many other things). Not enough games.

I don't know if it was you or someone else who suggested that Rockstar/Take-Two and other major publishers are afraid to make games for Nintendo consoles because they would never sell as well as Nintendo 1st party games.

I don't think that's true at all. As someone responded, why would Rockstar be scared of Nintendo's game sales? Robust 1st party sales usually means a larger install base. If anything, Rockstar and other publishers would love it if Nintendo had massive 50-60+ million install bases every generation. That's why with the Wii there was more third-party support on the console even with Nintendo 1st party being record-breaking mega-sellers (Mario Kart Wii, Wii Fit, Wii Sports, SSB Wii, Mario Party Wii). Lots of third-party games and Nintendo 1st-party can coexist on the same console, when the conditions are right. The only reason you didn't see Rockstar/Take-Two and Ubisoft bringing over some games to the Wii were hardware reasons (GTA IV, Bioshock and AC just weren't going to run well on that Wii hardware). Nintendo is that "two steps forward, one [stupid] step back" company a lot of times, in every generation.

Third-party is likely looking for a chance to bring their games over when the install bases for Nintendo consoles (and the hardware) is suitable, excellent, and a safe financial bet. But Nintendo haven't given publishers enough good reasons when N64 and GCN had lower install bases, outdated or odd proprietary media, and a consumer fanbase that buys less multiplats ever since the GCN days.

@pikachudude860 said:

Some of these comments are...Meh.

What's wrong with you people? You all act like if a game is not rated M for "mature" it's not any good. Just because a game has doesn't have uber photorealistic graphics and characters, it's "Kiddy" or for "5 year olds"

"UGH, Those games are too colorful. Those games suck." "Those are kiddy games." "Those games are too gimmicky." "Nintendo games are for kids"

"I'm a grown man! If a game doesn't have blood, violence and boobies in it, it sucks. I don't want to play kids games."

"Those games are too cartoony." "Nintendo needs to grow up"

....Grow-up people. Please. It doesn't matter what the games look like. What matters is if their fun or not.

With all the GTA clones (Saints row, Watch_Dogs, etc, etc.) FPS games, interactive movies and other games we've seen over the years, these games are a breath of fresh air.

Grow-up.

There's nothing wrong with kiddy/cartoony. But the OP's list is (rather sadly) showing almost ALL of Nintendo's upcoming games for the next two years. For the Wii U to turn around and even attract PS4/X1/PC gamers, they better bring in more mature titles with stories like TLOU, or coop shooters like Evolve and Destiny, more sports like Madden, NBA 2K and even WWE, more open world games like GTA/RDR, more RPGs, etc

Nintendo can't "dominate" anything when their library is so imbalanced and full of holes when it comes to genre representation. Nobody is against a kiddy or cartoony game existing, but if that's 80%-90% of all of your upcoming and existing games, and when that high percentage of kiddy/cartoony games didn't help Nintendo last year or this year, then Nintendo needs to wake up and seriously seek out the help of third-party or second party and start considering making more mature/darker/intelligent games, more open world, sports, etc

People aren't buying a Wii U now because it's missing so much of the above. I think the OP should be using a different word and not "domination" (what domination? where is it?)

#103 Posted by PhazonBlazer (11960 posts) -

I'll wait for Zelda Remastered on PS4.

#104 Edited by MirkoS77 (7797 posts) -

@pikachudude860 said:

Some of these comments are...Meh.

What's wrong with you people? You all act like if a game is not rated M for "mature" it's not any good. Just because a game has doesn't have uber photorealistic graphics and characters, it's "Kiddy" or for "5 year olds"

"UGH, Those games are too colorful. Those games suck." "Those are kiddy games." "Those games are too gimmicky." "Nintendo games are for kids"

"I'm a grown man! If a game doesn't have blood, violence and boobies in it, it sucks. I don't want to play kids games."

"Those games are too cartoony." "Nintendo needs to grow up"

....Grow-up people. Please. It doesn't matter what the games look like. What matters is if their fun or not.

With all the GTA clones (Saints row, Watch_Dogs, etc, etc.) FPS games, interactive movies and other games we've seen over the years, these games are a breath of fresh air.

Grow-up.

Because it seems to be all they can offer. I love me some colorful games, but hell if I don't pull my hair out when 90% or what they do (especially considering what they are capable of) looks directly out of a Pixar film and holds the same aesthetic. It's very tiresome. Why are they so safe? This is a company that used to offer such a huge variance back in the day. They've morphed into one that's apparently so scared of doing anything else that we get those that share the same style, and iterations upon them.

Not to say MS and Sony don't also do similar, but the vast difference is they compliment them every so often with new material that is AAA, well marketed, hyped and individual from all the rest. And these games are just as much of a breath of fresh air in contrast to the constant repetition we see on Nintendo's systems.

What is so wrong with adopting a bit more of a neutral aesthetic? Did Nintendo not do this in the past with games such as Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Tetrisphere, Eternal Darkness? They do NONE of that anymore. Btw, "mature" =/= blood, boobs, and violence. That is a child's interpretation of maturity. Mature also means dealing with things that come with true maturity.....love, loss, pain, growth, sacrifice, understanding, compassion. Things seen in games like TLoU tackled head-on to great effect that Sony had the courage to make, yet Nintendo with its "games are nothing but toys" attitude completely intentionally ignores the potential of.

They are so stuck in the past in their philosophy of what games should remain being. I'm not saying their gameplay first mantra should be abandoned, I love Mario and the like and they'll always have their place. But for all that is holy, TRY SOMETHING ELSE in addition! I want something more, gaming has been shown to be able to give more, and this company really needs to start growing a pair again and expanding its catalog. They are the ones that made me a gamer, but God knows if they were the only ones on the block I'd have stopped gaming ages ago.

With their current offerings, the only "Nintendomination" that will be occurring will be of the niche.

#105 Posted by MirkoS77 (7797 posts) -

@speak_low said:

@pikachudude860 said:

Some of these comments are...Meh.

What's wrong with you people? You all act like if a game is not rated M for "mature" it's not any good. Just because a game has doesn't have uber photorealistic graphics and characters, it's "Kiddy" or for "5 year olds"

"UGH, Those games are too colorful. Those games suck." "Those are kiddy games." "Those games are too gimmicky." "Nintendo games are for kids"

"I'm a grown man! If a game doesn't have blood, violence and boobies in it, it sucks. I don't want to play kids games."

"Those games are too cartoony." "Nintendo needs to grow up"

....Grow-up people. Please. It doesn't matter what the games look like. What matters is if their fun or not.

With all the GTA clones (Saints row, Watch_Dogs, etc, etc.) FPS games, interactive movies and other games we've seen over the years, these games are a breath of fresh air.

Grow-up.

There's nothing wrong with kiddy/cartoony. But the OP's list is (rather sadly) showing almost ALL of Nintendo's upcoming games for the next two years. For the Wii U to turn around and even attract PS4/X1/PC gamers, they better bring in more mature titles with stories like TLOU, or coop shooters like Evolve and Destiny, more sports like Madden, NBA 2K and even WWE, more open world games like GTA/RDR, more RPGs, etc

Nintendo can't "dominate" anything when their library is so imbalanced and full of holes when it comes to genre representation. Nobody is against a kiddy or cartoony game existing, but if that's 80%-90% of all of your upcoming and existing games, and when that high percentage of kiddy/cartoony games didn't help Nintendo last year or this year, then Nintendo needs to wake up and seriously seek out the help of third-party or second party and start considering making more mature/darker/intelligent games, more open world, sports, etc

People aren't buying a Wii U now because it's missing so much of the above. I think the OP should be using a different word and not "domination" (what domination? where is it?)

Exactly. I always enjoy your posts, they are most of the time very level headed and objective in their observations. All of the above is 100%right on the money.

Nintendo really needs to expand their library, because it's insane how similar and neglectful it is on many levels. I can't understand how they don't see this.

#106 Posted by The_Last_Ride (73007 posts) -

the only awesome game i see on the Wii U is Smash

#107 Posted by PikachuDude860 (1019 posts) -

@speak_low: There's nothing wrong with kiddy/cartoony. But the OP's list is (rather sadly) showing almost ALL of Nintendo's upcoming games for the next two years. For the Wii U to turn around and even attract PS4/X1/PC gamers, they better bring in more mature titles with stories like TLOU, or coop shooters like Evolve and Destiny, more sports like Madden, NBA 2K and even WWE, more open world games like GTA/RDR, more RPGs, etc

Nintendo can't "dominate" anything when their library is so imbalanced and full of holes when it comes to genre representation. Nobody is against a kiddy or cartoony game existing, but if that's 80%-90% of all of your upcoming and existing games, and when that high percentage of kiddy/cartoony games didn't help Nintendo last year or this year, then Nintendo needs to wake up and seriously seek out the help of third-party or second party and start considering making more mature/darker/intelligent games, more open world, sports, etc

People aren't buying a Wii U now because it's missing so much of the above. I think the OP should be using a different word and not "domination" (what domination? where is it?)

Yeah, I'll admit that the OP is...exaggerating things a bit too much. Wii U may or may not dominate in 2015. But sales will definitely increase. That's all that matters.

Because "Mature" games is all the PS4, Xbox One and PC gamers play? If you like stories, Zelda games have stories. Xenoblade X has a story. Bayonetta 2 has a story. Heck, even Pokemon has stories. The next Zelda is open world. Fire Emblem is an RPG. It has a big story to it as well. Mario Kart 8 is a sports game. And Splatoon is a shooter. Games don't have to be "Mature" to be good games. Not playing a game that you might even enjoy, because of the way it looks, is just dumb.

What Wii U needs is 3rd party support. But it's no use complaining about it, because it may never come back. (Unless the install base grows enough)

If PS Xbox and PC gamers want a Wii U, they don't need 3rd party games on it. They've already have systems for that. What they have in a Wii U is a system with exclusive games they can't get anywhere else. There is no law that says you can't have more than one system.

The main reason the Wii U hasn't been selling is because of the fact that It didn't have many games. It also didn't have many system seller games like Mario Kart 8 and Smash Bros. It has those games now, hence why it's selling much better.

If the gameplay just doesn't interest you, that's fine. To each their own. But if it's just because of the way they look, or because of the Gamepad or something...Just try them and stop limiting yourself to the same old stuff all the time. You may be surprised.

#108 Posted by PikachuDude860 (1019 posts) -

@MirkoS77: Had a long reply writen up, but I accidently deleted it...I'm not typing it all again.

I'll make it shorter.

Maybe Nintendo doesn't make those dark kind of games because they're is no guarantee that they'd sell. No way to know for sure if people would actually buy them. Their previous new IP was the original Pikmin. How did it sell?

This is why Nintendo needs to buy Capcom. Have even more IPs that people love. They would also gain a more diverse library of IPs.

This is a company that used to offer such a huge variance back in the day. They've morphed into one that's apparently so scared of doing anything else that we get those that share the same style, and iterations upon them.

How do we know that those old game weren't the same as they are now? The majority of games back then looked the similar.

And what do you mean by "share the same style, and iterations"? Look at Wind Waker, then look at Twilight Princess. Then look at Skyward Sword. Then the new Wii U Zelda game. (And Hyrule Warriors.) All of those games are almost totally different. The style of gameplay doesn't drastically change because changing it could ruin what makes them so good in the first place. Same goes for Mario, Kirby, Pokemon and others.

Not to say MS and Sony don't also do similar, but the vast difference is they compliment them every so often with new material that is AAA, well marketed, hyped and individual from all the rest. And these games are just as much of a breath of fresh air in contrast to the constant repetition we see on Nintendo's systems.

What do you mean by that exactly? You mean Sony and Microsoft come out with their IPs every so often and add new things to them? And that every IP is different from the rest? Nintendo doesn't do that?

I notice you talk about Nintendo's philosophies. Don't you think that with all that's going on with the Wii U, they'd start changing their philosophies a bit? Nothing drastic, but they need to realize that they need 3rd party support. Without it, they lack the consistent lineup of games.

They need to start working torwards getting that support back. It may be too late for the Wii U, but it would best for ther next console.

#109 Posted by intotheminx (718 posts) -

Looks like more of the same to me. I played games that had Mario and his goons in it for 10+ years. I'm over it and burned out. Give me something new.

#110 Edited by 93BlackHawk93 (5795 posts) -

I'll get these:

  1. The Legend of Zelda Wii U
  2. Xenoblade Chronicles X
  3. Splatoon
  4. Yoshi's Woolly World
  5. Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker

TC makes these games look bad though.

It's a sad day when people compare Mario's family-friendliness to the type of Dora The Explorer.

#111 Edited by MirkoS77 (7797 posts) -

@pikachudude860 said:

@MirkoS77: Had a long reply writen up, but I accidently deleted it...I'm not typing it all again.

I'll make it shorter.

Maybe Nintendo doesn't make those dark kind of games because they're is no guarantee that they'd sell. No way to know for sure if people would actually buy them. Their previous new IP was the original Pikmin. How did it sell?

This is why Nintendo needs to buy Capcom. Have even more IPs that people love. They would also gain a more diverse library of IPs.

This is a company that used to offer such a huge variance back in the day. They've morphed into one that's apparently so scared of doing anything else that we get those that share the same style, and iterations upon them.

How do we know that those old game weren't the same as they are now? The majority of games back then looked the similar.

And what do you mean by "share the same style, and iterations"? Look at Wind Waker, then look at Twilight Princess. Then look at Skyward Sword. Then the new Wii U Zelda game. (And Hyrule Warriors.) All of those games are almost totally different. The style of gameplay doesn't drastically change because changing it could ruin what makes them so good in the first place. Same goes for Mario, Kirby, Pokemon and others.

Not to say MS and Sony don't also do similar, but the vast difference is they compliment them every so often with new material that is AAA, well marketed, hyped and individual from all the rest. And these games are just as much of a breath of fresh air in contrast to the constant repetition we see on Nintendo's systems.

What do you mean by that exactly? You mean Sony and Microsoft come out with their IPs every so often and add new things to them? And that every IP is different from the rest? Nintendo doesn't do that?

I notice you talk about Nintendo's philosophies. Don't you think that with all that's going on with the Wii U, they'd start changing their philosophies a bit? Nothing drastic, but they need to realize that they need 3rd party support. Without it, they lack the consistent lineup of games.

They need to start working torwards getting that support back. It may be too late for the Wii U, but it would best for ther next console.

The reason certain types of games don't sell is due to a multitude of factors that have been festering for years, so I don't mean to say that just introducing those specific types or genres is going to ensure success. But it'd be a start. People seem to say, "these games simply won't sell", throw up their hands, and then come to the conclusion that therefore Nintendo shouldn't even try. No, they have to try, and when they do their initial effort will NOT pay off. But much of this has little to do with the games themselves. Nintendo has cornered themselves. They didn't pay attention to online, marginalized the importance of third parties (and keep doing so), or what gamers deem important. Hence, those people flocked to Sony and MS, who paid attention to their wishes.

They don't sell because Nintendo, through their continual stubbornness, neglect, and fuck-ups throughout the years, has created a lackluster ecosystem for not only third parties' wishes, but also gamers' desires. Outdated hardware, sub-standard online, mediocre ports with lacking features, a Japan-centric focus. I neglected in my response to you about these other factors at play because you were simply addressing the aesthetics and nothing more, but if you wonder why games struggle on Nintendo's platform, don't look solely at the games and don't look (much less blame) the consumers......look at the platform and company. It doesn't matter how many third parties return in force, how powerful the hardware is, at least at first. Those could all exist tomorrow and Nintendo would still struggle because they have cemented themselves in the minds of many people as the inferior choice and second option (which Iwata actually said, unbelievable as it is: "we aim to be everyone's second console"). It will take a long time and a lot of effort for them to change that perception in the minds of gamers.

And no, no games put out today by Nintendo are even close to offerings such as Eternal Darkness or 007.

"What do you mean by that exactly? You mean Sony and Microsoft come out with their IPs every so often and add new things to them? And that every IP is different from the rest? Nintendo doesn't do that?"

No, what I mean is that MS and Sony do pump out their known and milked franchises, GeoW, Uncharted, Halo, GT, etc but at the same time they are much more willing to invest in large, AAA projects (TLoU, Puppeteer, Knack) on a consistent basis than Nintendo is. Nintendo's even come out and addressed criticism of milking Mario and the lack of new IPs, stating that just because it uses similar assets doesn't mean it's a rehash. While it may be technically true, using similar assets and the same universe gets boring, especially 30 years on. Aesthetics do matter. Nintendo's finally shown a new IP that really feels such: Splatoon, to which I give them credit for, but how long did it take for this to happen? Sure, they've done other new IPs.....low budget endeavors that show up on the eshop with no marketing or hype whatsoever and that I doubt many core fans could even name.

What I want are new, AAA Nintendo IPs that are either long overdue for an update (Metroid, Fzero, Waverace), or new, AAA IPs that are not dressed up in a Mario or Zelda skin (Hyrule Warriors, Mario Maker). That is why it's boring.

Finally, do I think they're going to change their philosophies given what's happened with the Wii U? I don't know. I think Nintendo is so arrogant and stubborn that nobody is going to tell them where things should go. If that means they'll suffer, they'll go into another market (which looks to be what's starting to happen with QoL). They're so prideful they'll never change if it's shown to them that what others are doing is more successful, even if it hurts. Until new management arrives, I think Nintendo is in real danger. Probably even with new management.

#112 Posted by ConanTheStoner (5996 posts) -

Meh.. it may very well be the best exclusive line-up for consoles next year, but that's not saying much really.

#113 Posted by Basinboy (11277 posts) -

Hyping Devil's Third will not end well...
I also think Splatoon will bomb, especially if it's taking the same route as Titanfall (MP-only, $60)

All the other stuff is your typical Nintendo-fare. The lineup is far less compelling than either PS4, X1, or PC for 2015.

#114 Posted by santoron (7792 posts) -

If that all actually releases next year it'd be a tough lineup to beat.

And if you believe that all makes 2015 I have a bridge to sell you...

#115 Edited by farrell2k (6675 posts) -

@intotheminx said:

Looks like more of the same to me. I played games that had Mario and his goons in it for 10+ years. I'm over it and burned out. Give me something new.

OK, I am sure there are plenty of run and gun corridor shooters in 1st and 3rd person for the shooter consoles coming in 2015, because you know, that hasn't been overdone for more than a decade...

@93BlackHawk93 said:

I'll get these:

  1. The Legend of Zelda Wii U
  2. Xenoblade Chronicles X
  3. Splatoon
  4. Yoshi's Woolly World
  5. Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker

TC makes these games look bad though.

It's a sad day when people compare Mario's family-friendliness to the type of Dora The Explorer.

Yeah, I make the games look bad by rightly pointing out that it is the best lineup for 2015. That's fucking stupid and makes absolutely no sense. Nice one...

@MirkoS77 said:

And no, no games put out today by Nintendo are even close to offerings such as Eternal Darkness or 007.

@Basinboy said:

All the other stuff is your typical Nintendo-fare. The lineup is far less compelling than either PS4, X1, or PC for 2015.

LIke what?

PS4:

  • The Order 1886, a run and gun, sci-fi shooter where you fight demons in 1886? Ahuh...
  • Rime, the Wind Waker clone?
  • Let it Die - free to play garbage.
  • Abzu - Journey underwater...wow.
  • Bloodborne - Looks good, but enemies just stand there waiting for you to attack...
  • Uncharted - The first 3 were less fun than watching paint dry.
  • Ratchet and Clank - ANOTHER pointless remaster. Why even bother?

XB1:

  • Inside - Another indie game...
  • Scalebound - Looks like a Monster Hunter clone, and will probably be good.
  • Cuphead - Indie side scroller, looks fantastic!
  • Ori and the Blind Forest - *sigh* another indie title.
  • Quantum Break - give us a break!
  • Fable Legends - Meh, who knows?
  • Crackdown 3 - I wish someone would crack down on the uninspired sequels.

PC - Irrelevant. This is console only, and Nintendo clearly wins 2015, after having dominated 2014.

#116 Posted by magicalclick (23044 posts) -

It is getting more attractive for me. I like cute things and Nintendo games are so cute

#117 Posted by MirkoS77 (7797 posts) -

@farrell2k said:

OK, I am sure there are plenty of run and gun corridor shooters in 1st and 3rd person for the shooter consoles coming in 2015, because you know, that hasn't been overdone for more than a decade...

Yeah, I make the games look bad by rightly pointing out that it is the best lineup for 2015. That's fucking stupid and makes absolutely no sense. Nice one...

@MirkoS77 said:

And no, no games put out today by Nintendo are even close to offerings such as Eternal Darkness or 007.

Developed by Nintendo?

#118 Posted by farrell2k (6675 posts) -

@MirkoS77 said:

Developed by Nintendo?

Neither of those were developed by Nintendo.

#119 Posted by MirkoS77 (7797 posts) -

@farrell2k said:

@MirkoS77 said:

Developed by Nintendo?

Neither of those were developed by Nintendo.

Yes, they were. Unless you're willing to claim second party studios, owned by Nintendo, as not being Nintendo.

#120 Posted by Malta_1980 (11437 posts) -

Wii U has a solid line-up of titles coming out.. However I'm more than happy with what's coming out on PS4 & PC !!

#121 Posted by farrell2k (6675 posts) -

@MirkoS77 said:

@farrell2k said:

@MirkoS77 said:

Developed by Nintendo?

Neither of those were developed by Nintendo.

Yes, they were. Unless you're willing to claim second party studios, owned by Nintendo, as not being Nintendo.

Eternal Darkness was Silicon Knights, not owned by Nintendo and 007 was Rare, also not owned by Nintendo; however, Nintendo did own 49% of Rare stock at one time. Learn your Nintendo history, brah.

#122 Posted by MirkoS77 (7797 posts) -

@farrell2k said:

@MirkoS77 said:

@farrell2k said:

@MirkoS77 said:

Developed by Nintendo?

Neither of those were developed by Nintendo.

Yes, they were. Unless you're willing to claim second party studios, owned by Nintendo, as not being Nintendo.

Eternal Darkness was Silicon Knights, not owned by Nintendo and 007 was Rare, also not owned by Nintendo; however, Nintendo did own 49% of Rare stock at one time. Learn your Nintendo history, brah.

I know it perfectly fine, brah, and even if what you're saying is true, it doesn't do anything to negate my point: Nintendo was much more willing back in those days to work with these developers to bring more exclusive variety to their platforms than they are today, not only in variety but also in scope:

DMA Design: Uni Racers, Body Harvest (Nintendo dropped it in 1997, Midway took it), Angel Studios: Ken Griffey Baseball, Bits Studios: Warlocked, Rare: Donkey Kong Country, Killer Instinct, Goldeneye 007, Perfect Dark, Software Creations: Ken Griffey Baseball, Tin Star, Silicon Knights: Eternal Darkness (N64 version), MGS Twin Snakes, Left Field Productions: Koby Bryant in NBA Courtside, Excitebike 64, Mass Media: Star Craft 64, H20: Tetrisphere, Saffire Corp: Nester's Funky Bowling, James Bond 007, Midway: Cruisn Series.

There's some history for ya. :)

#123 Posted by super600 (30821 posts) -

@santoron said:

If that all actually releases next year it'd be a tough lineup to beat.

And if you believe that all makes 2015 I have a bridge to sell you...

There's a rumor going around that says that at least one big game will release per month so most of those games will be released next year. Nintendo will eventually annouce more games for the console.

#124 Posted by MirkoS77 (7797 posts) -

@super600 said:

@santoron said:

If that all actually releases next year it'd be a tough lineup to beat.

And if you believe that all makes 2015 I have a bridge to sell you...

There's a rumor going around that says that at least one big game will release per month so most of those games will be released next year. Nintendo will eventually annouce more games for the console.

Why wait?

#125 Edited by farrell2k (6675 posts) -

@MirkoS77 said:

@farrell2k said:

@MirkoS77 said:

@farrell2k said:

@MirkoS77 said:

Developed by Nintendo?

Neither of those were developed by Nintendo.

Yes, they were. Unless you're willing to claim second party studios, owned by Nintendo, as not being Nintendo.

Eternal Darkness was Silicon Knights, not owned by Nintendo and 007 was Rare, also not owned by Nintendo; however, Nintendo did own 49% of Rare stock at one time. Learn your Nintendo history, brah.

I know it perfectly fine, brah, and even if what you're saying is true, it doesn't do anything to negate my point: Nintendo was much more willing back in those days to work with these developers to bring more exclusive variety to their platforms than they are today, not only in variety but also in scope:

DMA Design: Uni Racers, Body Harvest (Nintendo dropped it in 1997, Midway took it), Angel Studios: Ken Griffey Baseball, Bits Studios: Warlocked, Rare: Donkey Kong Country, Killer Instinct, Goldeneye 007, Perfect Dark, Software Creations: Ken Griffey Baseball, Tin Star, Silicon Knights: Eternal Darkness (N64 version), MGS Twin Snakes, Left Field Productions: Koby Bryant in NBA Courtside, Excitebike 64, Mass Media: Star Craft 64, H20: Tetrisphere, Saffire Corp: Nester's Funky Bowling, James Bond 007, Midway: Cruisn Series.

There's some history for ya. :)

We disagree, braddah. Third party developers flocked to the wiiu upon its launch and didn't have a problem with the platform. They seemed to have worked fine with 3rd party devs; it's the low sales of their games that keep them away.

#126 Posted by superbuuman (2997 posts) -

@super600 said:

@santoron said:

If that all actually releases next year it'd be a tough lineup to beat.

And if you believe that all makes 2015 I have a bridge to sell you...

There's a rumor going around that says that at least one big game will release per month so most of those games will be released next year. Nintendo will eventually annouce more games for the console.

There's doubt Nintendo can even pull that off, so far they have shown they can't. I'll believe it when I see it. Expecting more delays & the usual apology -> need more time because of quality. :P

#127 Posted by emgesp (2372 posts) -

Sorry, but none of those games interest me enough to spend $300 on a Nintendo console. I'll stick with my PS4.

#128 Edited by PurpleMan5000 (7485 posts) -

@speak_low said:

@PurpleMan5000 said:

@RR360DD said:

Soom promising titles in there, but the Wii U won't dominate anything when it misses out on pretty much all third party games.

Even if it had all of the third party games, nobody would buy them. Nintendo just puts out too many good games every year for them to compete. Playstation gamers wouldn't buy 3rd party games if Naughty Dog were putting out 6-7 games per year, either.

Nintendo doesn't put out 6-7 games a year. In fact, Nintendo's very problem are the huge, almost seasonal gaps between their big titles - that's what killing them (among many other things). Not enough games.

I don't know if it was you or someone else who suggested that Rockstar/Take-Two and other major publishers are afraid to make games for Nintendo consoles because they would never sell as well as Nintendo 1st party games.

I don't think that's true at all. As someone responded, why would Rockstar be scared of Nintendo's game sales? Robust 1st party sales usually means a larger install base. If anything, Rockstar and other publishers would love it if Nintendo had massive 50-60+ million install bases every generation. That's why with the Wii there was more third-party support on the console even with Nintendo 1st party being record-breaking mega-sellers (Mario Kart Wii, Wii Fit, Wii Sports, SSB Wii, Mario Party Wii). Lots of third-party games and Nintendo 1st-party can coexist on the same console, when the conditions are right. The only reason you didn't see Rockstar/Take-Two and Ubisoft bringing over some games to the Wii were hardware reasons (GTA IV, Bioshock and AC just weren't going to run well on that Wii hardware). Nintendo is that "two steps forward, one [stupid] step back" company a lot of times, in every generation.

Third-party is likely looking for a chance to bring their games over when the install bases for Nintendo consoles (and the hardware) is suitable, excellent, and a safe financial bet. But Nintendo haven't given publishers enough good reasons when N64 and GCN had lower install bases, outdated or odd proprietary media, and a consumer fanbase that buys less multiplats ever since the GCN days.

@pikachudude860 said:

Some of these comments are...Meh.

What's wrong with you people? You all act like if a game is not rated M for "mature" it's not any good. Just because a game has doesn't have uber photorealistic graphics and characters, it's "Kiddy" or for "5 year olds"

"UGH, Those games are too colorful. Those games suck." "Those are kiddy games." "Those games are too gimmicky." "Nintendo games are for kids"

"I'm a grown man! If a game doesn't have blood, violence and boobies in it, it sucks. I don't want to play kids games."

"Those games are too cartoony." "Nintendo needs to grow up"

....Grow-up people. Please. It doesn't matter what the games look like. What matters is if their fun or not.

With all the GTA clones (Saints row, Watch_Dogs, etc, etc.) FPS games, interactive movies and other games we've seen over the years, these games are a breath of fresh air.

Grow-up.

There's nothing wrong with kiddy/cartoony. But the OP's list is (rather sadly) showing almost ALL of Nintendo's upcoming games for the next two years. For the Wii U to turn around and even attract PS4/X1/PC gamers, they better bring in more mature titles with stories like TLOU, or coop shooters like Evolve and Destiny, more sports like Madden, NBA 2K and even WWE, more open world games like GTA/RDR, more RPGs, etc

Nintendo can't "dominate" anything when their library is so imbalanced and full of holes when it comes to genre representation. Nobody is against a kiddy or cartoony game existing, but if that's 80%-90% of all of your upcoming and existing games, and when that high percentage of kiddy/cartoony games didn't help Nintendo last year or this year, then Nintendo needs to wake up and seriously seek out the help of third-party or second party and start considering making more mature/darker/intelligent games, more open world, sports, etc

People aren't buying a Wii U now because it's missing so much of the above. I think the OP should be using a different word and not "domination" (what domination? where is it?)

This year Nintendo has published Donkey Kong: Tropical Freeze, Mario Kart 8, Wii Sports Club, Professor Layton and the Azran Legacy, Yoshi's New Island, Mario Gold: World Tour, Kirby: Triple Deluxe, and Tomodachi Life. Before the year is over, they will also publish Bayonetta 2, Smash, Professor Layton vs Phoenix Wright, Pokemon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire, and Hyrule Warriors. That is a lot more than 6-7 games. It's 13.

#129 Edited by nintendoboy16 (27266 posts) -

@MirkoS77 said:

Developed by Nintendo?

When was a damn James Bond game developed by Nintendo? Last I checked, Nintendo only published two (three if you count the Japanese release of the Goldeneye remake) James Bond games, and they were developed by Rare (N64) and Sapphire (GB).

#130 Edited by nintendoboy16 (27266 posts) -

@speak_low said:

@pikachudude860 said:

Some of these comments are...Meh.

What's wrong with you people? You all act like if a game is not rated M for "mature" it's not any good. Just because a game has doesn't have uber photorealistic graphics and characters, it's "Kiddy" or for "5 year olds"

"UGH, Those games are too colorful. Those games suck." "Those are kiddy games." "Those games are too gimmicky." "Nintendo games are for kids"

"I'm a grown man! If a game doesn't have blood, violence and boobies in it, it sucks. I don't want to play kids games."

"Those games are too cartoony." "Nintendo needs to grow up"

....Grow-up people. Please. It doesn't matter what the games look like. What matters is if their fun or not.

With all the GTA clones (Saints row, Watch_Dogs, etc, etc.) FPS games, interactive movies and other games we've seen over the years, these games are a breath of fresh air.

Grow-up.

There's nothing wrong with kiddy/cartoony. But the OP's list is (rather sadly) showing almost ALL of Nintendo's upcoming games for the next two years. For the Wii U to turn around and even attract PS4/X1/PC gamers, they better bring in more mature titles with stories like TLOU, or coop shooters like Evolve and Destiny, more sports like Madden, NBA 2K and even WWE, more open world games like GTA/RDR, more RPGs, etc

Nintendo can't "dominate" anything when their library is so imbalanced and full of holes when it comes to genre representation. Nobody is against a kiddy or cartoony game existing, but if that's 80%-90% of all of your upcoming and existing games, and when that high percentage of kiddy/cartoony games didn't help Nintendo last year or this year, then Nintendo needs to wake up and seriously seek out the help of third-party or second party and start considering making more mature/darker/intelligent games, more open world, sports, etc

People aren't buying a Wii U now because it's missing so much of the above. I think the OP should be using a different word and not "domination" (what domination? where is it?)

Because that worked SO well for the GameCube and this game, did it?

#131 Posted by Bread_or_Decide (17952 posts) -

Captain Toad!!!!

#132 Posted by gamefan67 (9906 posts) -

Zelda, X, Devil's Third, and Splatoon are the only games that really interest me out of that list.

Way too many platformers and/or mario spin offs for my taste. Hope we get some info on fire emblem x shin megami tensei soon I expect the game to release in 2015.

#133 Posted by farrell2k (6675 posts) -

@emgesp said:

Sorry, but none of those games interest me enough to spend $300 on a Nintendo console. I'll stick with my PS4.

This should read: "Sorry, but none of those games interest me enough to spend $300 on a Nintendo console. I'll stick with my PS4, even though it will have a sub par lineup of games."

#134 Posted by freedomfreak (41464 posts) -
@farrell2k said:

This should read: "Sorry, but none of those games interest me enough to spend $300 on a Nintendo console. I'll stick with my PS4, even though it will have a sub par lineup of games."

This should read: "Sorry, but none of those games interest me enough to spend $300 on a Nintendo console. I'll stick with my PS4, even though it will have a lineup of games I'm not interested in."

#135 Edited by 93BlackHawk93 (5795 posts) -

@farrell2k said:

@93BlackHawk93 said:

I'll get these:

  1. The Legend of Zelda Wii U
  2. Xenoblade Chronicles X
  3. Splatoon
  4. Yoshi's Woolly World
  5. Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker

TC makes these games look bad though.

It's a sad day when people compare Mario's family-friendliness to the type of Dora The Explorer.

Yeah, I make the games look bad by rightly pointing out that it is the best lineup for 2015. That's fucking stupid and makes absolutely no sense. Nice one...

I should of said thread.

#136 Posted by farrell2k (6675 posts) -

@93BlackHawk93 said:

@farrell2k said:

@93BlackHawk93 said:

I'll get these:

  1. The Legend of Zelda Wii U
  2. Xenoblade Chronicles X
  3. Splatoon
  4. Yoshi's Woolly World
  5. Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker

TC makes these games look bad though.

It's a sad day when people compare Mario's family-friendliness to the type of Dora The Explorer.

Yeah, I make the games look bad by rightly pointing out that it is the best lineup for 2015. That's fucking stupid and makes absolutely no sense. Nice one...

I should of said thread.

Then I make the THREAD look bad by rightly pointing out that it is the best lineup for 2015? That's fucking stupid and makes absolutely no sense. Oh, Jesus...

#137 Edited by MirkoS77 (7797 posts) -

@farrell2k said:

@emgesp said:

Sorry, but none of those games interest me enough to spend $300 on a Nintendo console. I'll stick with my PS4.

This should read: "Sorry, but none of those games interest me enough to spend $300 on a Nintendo console. I'll stick with my PS4, even though it will have a sub par lineup of games."

  • Destiny
  • Arkham Knight
  • Gran Turismo
  • Little Big Planet 3
  • Alien Isolation
  • Dragon Age Inquisition
  • Shadow of Mordor
  • Witcher 3
  • Evil Within
  • Evolve
  • AC: Unity
  • CoD AW
  • Far Cry 4
  • The Order
  • Bloodborne
  • Silent Hills
  • The Division
  • Uncharted 4
  • EA sports titles
  • indie titles

.....and others I've missed.

That's just next year mostly (perhaps a few will drop in '16). If that's just the beginning (and in addition to what's already out) and what you'd consider sub-par, then I'm curious as to what you find great.

#138 Edited by farrell2k (6675 posts) -

@MirkoS77 said:

@farrell2k said:

@emgesp said:

Sorry, but none of those games interest me enough to spend $300 on a Nintendo console. I'll stick with my PS4.

This should read: "Sorry, but none of those games interest me enough to spend $300 on a Nintendo console. I'll stick with my PS4, even though it will have a sub par lineup of games."

  • Destiny
  • Arkham Knight
  • Gran Turismo
  • Little Big Planet 3
  • Alien Isolation
  • Dragon Age Inquisition
  • Shadow of Mordor
  • Witcher 3
  • Evil Within
  • Evolve
  • AC: Unity
  • CoD AW
  • Far Cry 4
  • The Order
  • Bloodborne
  • Silent Hills
  • The Division
  • Uncharted 4
  • EA sports titles
  • indie titles

That's just next year mostly (perhaps a few will drop in '16). If that's just the beginning (and in addition to what's already out) and what you'd consider sub-par, then I'm curious as to what you find great.

So you list a bunch of multiplats? We're discussing exclusives. Try to keep up, brah.

#139 Posted by MirkoS77 (7797 posts) -

@farrell2k said:

@MirkoS77 said:

@farrell2k said:

@emgesp said:

Sorry, but none of those games interest me enough to spend $300 on a Nintendo console. I'll stick with my PS4.

This should read: "Sorry, but none of those games interest me enough to spend $300 on a Nintendo console. I'll stick with my PS4, even though it will have a sub par lineup of games."

  • Destiny
  • Arkham Knight
  • Gran Turismo
  • Little Big Planet 3
  • Alien Isolation
  • Dragon Age Inquisition
  • Shadow of Mordor
  • Witcher 3
  • Evil Within
  • Evolve
  • AC: Unity
  • CoD AW
  • Far Cry 4
  • The Order
  • Bloodborne
  • Silent Hills
  • The Division
  • Uncharted 4
  • EA sports titles
  • indie titles

That's just next year mostly (perhaps a few will drop in '16). If that's just the beginning (and in addition to what's already out) and what you'd consider sub-par, then I'm curious as to what you find great.

So you list a bunch of multiplats? We're discussing exclusives. Try to keep up, brah.

Huh, I read the sentence as, "I'll stick with my PS4, even though it will have a sub par lineup of games." Didn't see the word exclusives anywhere mentioned.

Are you from the Hawaiian islands or something? Brah?

#140 Posted by farrell2k (6675 posts) -

@MirkoS77 said:

@farrell2k said:

@MirkoS77 said:

@farrell2k said:

@emgesp said:

Sorry, but none of those games interest me enough to spend $300 on a Nintendo console. I'll stick with my PS4.

This should read: "Sorry, but none of those games interest me enough to spend $300 on a Nintendo console. I'll stick with my PS4, even though it will have a sub par lineup of games."

  • Destiny
  • Arkham Knight
  • Gran Turismo
  • Little Big Planet 3
  • Alien Isolation
  • Dragon Age Inquisition
  • Shadow of Mordor
  • Witcher 3
  • Evil Within
  • Evolve
  • AC: Unity
  • CoD AW
  • Far Cry 4
  • The Order
  • Bloodborne
  • Silent Hills
  • The Division
  • Uncharted 4
  • EA sports titles
  • indie titles

That's just next year mostly (perhaps a few will drop in '16). If that's just the beginning (and in addition to what's already out) and what you'd consider sub-par, then I'm curious as to what you find great.

So you list a bunch of multiplats? We're discussing exclusives. Try to keep up, brah.

Huh, I read the sentence as, "I'll stick with my PS4, even though it will have a sub par lineup of games." Didn't see the word exclusives anywhere mentioned.

Are you from the Hawaiian islands or something? Brah?

It's an entire thread about exclusives, braddah. Any discussion of non-exclusives is irrelevant, brah. Try to keep up, boss.

#141 Posted by pyro1245 (968 posts) -

You had me at Xenoblade

#142 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (7485 posts) -

@MirkoS77 said:

@farrell2k said:

@emgesp said:

Sorry, but none of those games interest me enough to spend $300 on a Nintendo console. I'll stick with my PS4.

This should read: "Sorry, but none of those games interest me enough to spend $300 on a Nintendo console. I'll stick with my PS4, even though it will have a sub par lineup of games."

  • Destiny
  • Arkham Knight
  • Gran Turismo
  • Little Big Planet 3
  • Alien Isolation
  • Dragon Age Inquisition
  • Shadow of Mordor
  • Witcher 3
  • Evil Within
  • Evolve
  • AC: Unity
  • CoD AW
  • Far Cry 4
  • The Order
  • Bloodborne
  • Silent Hills
  • The Division
  • Uncharted 4
  • EA sports titles
  • indie titles

.....and others I've missed.

That's just next year mostly (perhaps a few will drop in '16). If that's just the beginning (and in addition to what's already out) and what you'd consider sub-par, then I'm curious as to what you find great.

Arkham Knight, The Witcher 3, Alien Isolation, and Uncharted 4 look amazing. Thankfully I can play all of them but Uncharted without having to purchase a new system.

#143 Edited by PikachuDude860 (1019 posts) -

@MirkoS77: The reason certain types of games don't sell is due to a multitude of factors that have been festering for years, so I don't mean to say that just introducing those specific types or genres is going to ensure success. But it'd be a start. People seem to say, "these games simply won't sell", throw up their hands, and then come to the conclusion that therefore Nintendo shouldn't even try. No, they have to try, and when they do their initial effort will NOT pay off. But much of this has little to do with the games themselves. Nintendo has cornered themselves. They didn't pay attention to online, marginalized the importance of third parties (and keep doing so), or what gamers deem important. Hence, those people flocked to Sony and MS, who paid attention to their wishes.

True. You make good points. But let's look back for a moment...

Online gaming on consoles started to take off in the 6th gen, right? (Gamecube, PS2 and original Xbox...Dreamcast) If I remember correctly, Microsoft was the one who was really pushing it. Sony was looking into it as well. Nintendo was not. They were focusing more on the games. Maybe Gamecube wasn't properly optimized for a lot of online games. (Though it had Phantasy Star Online). When the Wii came out, Nintendo made it 480p because not many people had HDTVs at the time of release. (Just like if somebody made a 4K console now, when not many people have 4K TVs.) However, albeit not as good, the original Wii was compatible with online gaming. Nintendo just didn't look too much into it. Once again, Nintendo just focused on the games. Was this a good idea? I don't know. The Wii was selling TONS of units, so maybe it didn't matter to them. However, we both can agree that they should of been more prepared.

Now with the Wii U, Nintendo is finally getting the picture with online gaming. Games like Mario Kart 8 and Smash Bros. have a focus on online modes. Splatoon's main focus seems to be online. Nintendo is starting to get with the times. They've gotten into HD. All they need is the 3rd party support and more powerful hardware.

As for the more dark and mature IPs. I'm not against that at all. I'm all for new Nintendo IPs. But...If you know that the initial effort will not pay off, why would you pay a ton of cash for a big budget new IP? So people would get familar with the IP? As I said, there is no garentee that people will care for it. It's good to set up new game franchies for the future, but spending lots of cash just to get a new IP out there that may, or may not, make a big difference just seems like a bad way to invest money to me. Getting 2nd/3rd party exclusive games instead seems like a better idea. Then come out with a new IP or 2 every now and then.

Right now, Nintendo has those mature exclusives on Wii U. Bayonetta 2, Devil's Third and Fatal Frame 5. They don't have to invest big money on those games. And they can focus on new IPs like Splatoon. If Splatoon doesn't sell well, Nintendo could make the money back off of the other 3 games, assuming they sell well. If they don't, Nintendo wouldn't of spent a fortune of those games.

They don't sell because Nintendo, through their continual stubbornness, neglect, and fuck-ups throughout the years, has created a lackluster ecosystem for not only third parties' wishes, but also gamers' desires. Outdated hardware, sub-standard online, mediocre ports with lacking features, a Japan-centric focus. I neglected in my response to you about these other factors at play because you were simply addressing the aesthetics and nothing more, but if you wonder why games struggle on Nintendo's platform, don't look solely at the games and don't look (much less blame) the consumers......look at the platform and company. It doesn't matter how many third parties return in force, how powerful the hardware is, at least at first. Those could all exist tomorrow and Nintendo would still struggle because they have cemented themselves in the minds of many people as the inferior choice and second option (which Iwata actually said, unbelievable as it is: "we aim to be everyone's second console"). It will take a long time and a lot of effort for them to change that perception in the minds of gamers.

You mean Wii U consoles? Well, it seems Wii U purchase intent has greatly risien since E3 2014. Mario Kart has boosted Wii U sales by 666%. And Wii U game pre-orders have seen an increase since this year's Gamescom.

I don't know about past Nintendo consoles, but I think the main reason the Wii U wasn't selling at first was because of...Well, the games. (And the Marketing and such). Wii U didn't have any games that made people want to buy the console at first. Games like Mario Kart. Zelda, big 3D Mario adventure, Smash Bros, etc, etc, wasn't out at the time. The only people who bought it around lauch was Nintendo fans. Now that games like Mario Kart and such are out, the Wii U is starting to sell better.

As for the 3rd party games...Nintendo could of done more to market and/or help the 3rd party games. But 3rd parties are to blame as well. They didn't put enough effort into the Wii U versions of their games. They just ported it, and that's it. No Miiverse integration. No gamepad features. Just the game. Plus, most of the games were inferior ports. I'm not talking about the graphics, but the content. Missing features, DLC and stuff.

I'm sure the majority of Wii U owners have a second console. Why whould Wii U owners buy, let's say...Batman, on Wii U if it's missing features? Why buy it when the other PS and Xbox versions have more to offer? 3rd parties are not giving Wii U owners enough of a reason to buy their games. That's the main reason why they don't sell. It's not just Nintendo's fault.

What Nintendo needs to do is get that 3rd party support back. Because without it, thing will only get worse for them.

And no, no games put out today by Nintendo are even close to offerings such as Eternal Darkness or 007.

There is Xenoblade.

And wasn't 007 made by Rare? Perfect Dark, Banjo Kazooie, DK64 and other were made by Rare too. Rare is with Microsoft now.

As for Eternal darkness, maybe they can make more games like it. But games like Xenoblade and Fatal Frame are mature games put out by Nintendo.

No, what I mean is that MS and Sony do pump out their known and milked franchises, GeoW, Uncharted, Halo, GT, etc but at the same time they are much more willing to invest in large, AAA projects (TLoU, Puppeteer, Knack) on a consistent basis than Nintendo is. Nintendo's even come out and addressed criticism of milking Mario and the lack of new IPs, stating that just because it uses similar assets doesn't mean it's a rehash. While it may be technically true, using similar assets and the same universe gets boring, especially 30 years on. Aesthetics do matter. Nintendo's finally shown a new IP that really feels such: Splatoon, to which I give them credit for, but how long did it take for this to happen? Sure, they've done other new IPs.....low budget endeavors that show up on the eshop with no marketing or hype whatsoever and that I doubt many core fans could even name.

What I want are new, AAA Nintendo IPs that are either long overdue for an update (Metroid, Fzero, Waverace), or new, AAA IPs that are not dressed up in a Mario or Zelda skin (Hyrule Warriors, Mario Maker). That is why it's boring.

Well, as I said, Nintendo has recently invested in games like Fatal Frame and Bayonetta 2. I believe they own most of the Fatal Frame series. The Fossil Fighters series too. And they're coming out with another new IP called Project S.T.E.A.M. Maybe last generation, they got lazy and didn't do much outside of bringing out new Mario, Zelda and other games. But Nintendo is really trying as of late. They just need to try harder. (3rd party support, marketing, cross-Buy etc, etc.)

"Using similar assets and the same universe gets boring, especially 30 years on" Well, that's more of a matter of opnion. Games like Mario and Kirby and such were never intended to be deep, ever changing stories and universes. Zelda's story and setting has changed with every game. (Different time period or universe) I'm sure Metroid and others are the same.

As for Splatoon, better late than never.

Finally, do I think they're going to change their philosophies given what's happened with the Wii U? I don't know. I think Nintendo is so arrogant and stubborn that nobody is going to tell them where things should go. If that means they'll suffer, they'll go into another market (which looks to be what's starting to happen with QoL). They're so prideful they'll never change if it's shown to them that what others are doing is more successful, even if it hurts. Until new management arrives, I think Nintendo is in real danger. Probably even with new management.

Maybe "QOL" is just another way for them to make money, in case the consoles don't sell as well as they'd hope. People may not like the idea of it, but it's good to have a secondary source of cash coming in. Just make sure it's totaly profitable.

But the thing about it is, what choice do they have? If they want to stay relevant to gamers, they have to change their philosophies. Again, nothing drastic, but start getting 3rd party support back. Learn to market better. Learn to build powerful tech for the consoles. Get more 2nd party studios. Buy some IPs. Buy Capcom. Do something.

They're doing stuff like Camp Miiverse and the Smash Bros. Tournaments. Good. Reggie has said that 3rd party support may not come back until the Wii U's install base grows. That's good. But work torwards getting back on 3rd parties good side's. Work torwards the future. Thay could be doing that as we speak.

Iwata isn't getting any younger. He's not going to stay the CEO forever. Nintendo will get new management one day...But as I've said time after time, New magagment could be disastrous for Nintendo. A new CEO could get in there and in a few years, persuade the higher-ups to let the company go 3rd party. They could screw up all of Nintendo's IPs. A new CEO could ruin everything.

You say they wouldn't do that, but how do you know? People didn't think Iwata would do anything bad when he first came in...

#144 Edited by Heil68 (45795 posts) -

@pikachudude860 said:

@MirkoS77: The reason certain types of games don't sell is due to a multitude of factors that have been festering for years, so I don't mean to say that just introducing those specific types or genres is going to ensure success. But it'd be a start. People seem to say, "these games simply won't sell", throw up their hands, and then come to the conclusion that therefore Nintendo shouldn't even try. No, they have to try, and when they do their initial effort will NOT pay off. But much of this has little to do with the games themselves. Nintendo has cornered themselves. They didn't pay attention to online, marginalized the importance of third parties (and keep doing so), or what gamers deem important. Hence, those people flocked to Sony and MS, who paid attention to their wishes.

True. You make good points. But let's look back for a moment...

Online gaming on consoles started to take off in the 6th gen, right? (Gamecube, PS2 and original Xbox...Dreamcast) If I remember correctly, Microsoft was the one who was really pushing it. Sony was looking into it as well. Nintendo was not. They were focusing more on the games. Maybe Gamecube wasn't properly optimized for a lot of online games. (Though it had Phantasy Star Online). When the Wii came out, Nintendo made it 480p because not many people had HDTVs at the time of release. (Just like if somebody made a 4K console now, when not many people have 4K TVs.) However, albeit not as good, the original Wii was compatible with online gaming. Nintendo just didn't look too much into it. Once again, Nintendo just focused on the games. Was this a good idea? I don't know. The Wii was selling TONS of units, so maybe it didn't matter to them. However, we both can agree that they should of been more prepared.

Now with the Wii U, Nintendo is finally getting the picture with online gaming. Games like Mario Kart 8 and Smash Bros. have a focus on online modes. Splatoon's main focus seems to be online. Nintendo is starting to get with the times. They've gotten into HD. All they need is the 3rd party support and more powerful hardware.

As for the more dark and mature IPs. I'm not against that at all. I'm all for new Nintendo IPs. But...If you know that the initial effort will not pay off, why would you pay a ton of cash for a big budget new IP? So people would get familar with the IP? As I said, there is no garentee that people will care for it. It's good to set up new game franchies for the future, but spending lots of cash just to get a new IP out there that may, or may not, make a big difference just seems like a bad way to invest money to me. Getting 2nd/3rd party exclusive games instead seems like a better idea. Then come out with a new IP or 2 every now and then.

Right now, Nintendo has those mature exclusives on Wii U. Bayonetta 2, Devil's Third and Fatal Frame 5. They don't have to invest big money on those games. And they can focus on new IPs like Splatoon. If Splatoon doesn't sell well, Nintendo could make the money back off of the other 3 games, assuming they sell well. If they don't, Nintendo wouldn't of spent a fortune of those games.

They don't sell because Nintendo, through their continual stubbornness, neglect, and fuck-ups throughout the years, has created a lackluster ecosystem for not only third parties' wishes, but also gamers' desires. Outdated hardware, sub-standard online, mediocre ports with lacking features, a Japan-centric focus. I neglected in my response to you about these other factors at play because you were simply addressing the aesthetics and nothing more, but if you wonder why games struggle on Nintendo's platform, don't look solely at the games and don't look (much less blame) the consumers......look at the platform and company. It doesn't matter how many third parties return in force, how powerful the hardware is, at least at first. Those could all exist tomorrow and Nintendo would still struggle because they have cemented themselves in the minds of many people as the inferior choice and second option (which Iwata actually said, unbelievable as it is: "we aim to be everyone's second console"). It will take a long time and a lot of effort for them to change that perception in the minds of gamers.

You mean Wii U consoles? Well, it seems Wii U purchase intent has greatly risien since E3 2014. Mario Kart has boosted Wii U sales by 666%. And Wii U game pre-orders have seen an increase since this year's Gamescom.

I don't know about past Nintendo consoles, but I think the main reason the Wii U wasn't selling at first was because of...Well, the games. (And the Marketing and such). Wii U didn't have any games that made people want to buy the console at first. Games like Mario Kart. Zelda, big 3D Mario adventure, Smash Bros, etc, etc, wasn't out at the time. The only people who bought it around lauch was Nintendo fans. Now that games like Mario Kart and such are out, the Wii U is starting to sell better.

As for the 3rd party games...Nintendo could of done more to market and/or help the 3rd party games. But 3rd parties are to blame as well. They didn't put enough effort into the Wii U versions of their games. They just ported it, and that's it. No Miiverse integration. No gamepad features. Just the game. Plus, most of the games were inferior ports. I'm not talking about the graphics, but the content. Missing features, DLC and stuff.

I'm sure the majority of Wii U owners have a second console. Why whould Wii U owners buy, let's say...Batman, on Wii U if it's missing features? Why buy it when the other PS and Xbox versions have more to offer? 3rd parties are not giving Wii U owners enough of a reason to buy their games. That's the main reason why they don't sell. It's not just Nintendo's fault.

What Nintendo needs to do is get that 3rd party support back. Because without it, thing will only get worse for them.

And no, no games put out today by Nintendo are even close to offerings such as Eternal Darkness or 007.

There is Xenoblade.

And wasn't 007 made by Rare? Perfect Dark, Banjo Kazooie, DK64 and other were made by Rare too. Rare is with Microsoft now.

As for Eternal darkness, maybe they can make more games like it. But games like Xenoblade and Fatal Frame are mature games put out by Nintendo.

No, what I mean is that MS and Sony do pump out their known and milked franchises, GeoW, Uncharted, Halo, GT, etc but at the same time they are much more willing to invest in large, AAA projects (TLoU, Puppeteer, Knack) on a consistent basis than Nintendo is. Nintendo's even come out and addressed criticism of milking Mario and the lack of new IPs, stating that just because it uses similar assets doesn't mean it's a rehash. While it may be technically true, using similar assets and the same universe gets boring, especially 30 years on. Aesthetics do matter. Nintendo's finally shown a new IP that really feels such: Splatoon, to which I give them credit for, but how long did it take for this to happen? Sure, they've done other new IPs.....low budget endeavors that show up on the eshop with no marketing or hype whatsoever and that I doubt many core fans could even name.

What I want are new, AAA Nintendo IPs that are either long overdue for an update (Metroid, Fzero, Waverace), or new, AAA IPs that are not dressed up in a Mario or Zelda skin (Hyrule Warriors, Mario Maker). That is why it's boring.

Well, as I said, Nintendo has recently invested in games like Fatal Frame and Bayonetta 2. I believe they own most of the Fatal Frame series. The Fossil Fighters series too. And they're coming out with another new IP called Project S.T.E.A.M. Maybe last generation, they got lazy and didn't do much outside of bringing out new Mario, Zelda and other games. But Nintendo is really trying as of late. They just need to try harder. (3rd party support, marketing, cross-Buy etc, etc.)

"Using similar assets and the same universe gets boring, especially 30 years on" Well, that's more of a matter of opnion. Games like Mario and Kirby and such were never intended to be deep, ever changing stories and universes. Zelda's story and setting has changed with every game. (Different time period or universe) I'm sure Metroid and others are the same.

As for Splatoon, better late than never.

Finally, do I think they're going to change their philosophies given what's happened with the Wii U? I don't know. I think Nintendo is so arrogant and stubborn that nobody is going to tell them where things should go. If that means they'll suffer, they'll go into another market (which looks to be what's starting to happen with QoL). They're so prideful they'll never change if it's shown to them that what others are doing is more successful, even if it hurts. Until new management arrives, I think Nintendo is in real danger. Probably even with new management.

Maybe "QOL" is just another way for them to make money, in case the consoles don't sell as well as they'd hope. People may not like the idea of it, but it's good to have a secondary source of cash coming in. Just make sure it's totaly profitable.

But the thing about it is, what choice do they have? If they want to stay relevant to gamers, they have to change their philosophies. Again, nothing drastic, but start getting 3rd party support back. Learn to market better. Learn to build powerful tech for the consoles. Get more 2nd party studios. Buy some IPs. Buy Capcom. Do something.

They're doing stuff like Camp Miiverse and the Smash Bros. Tournaments. Good. Reggie has said that 3rd party support may not come back until the Wii U's install base grows. That's good. But work torwards getting back on 3rd parties good side's. Work torwards the future. Thay could be doing that as we speak.

Iwata isn't getting any younger. He's not going to stay the CEO forever. Nintendo will get new management one day...But as I've said time after time, New magagment could be disastrous for Nintendo. A new CEO could get in there and in a few years, persuade the higher-ups to let the company go 3rd party. They could screw up all of Nintendo's IPs. A new CEO could ruin everything.

You say they wouldn't do that, but how do you know? People didn't think Iwata would do anything bad when he first came in...

I was just going to say that and thus Nintendo needs to put pout hardware worth a shit and get 3rd party support.

#145 Posted by deltazero (77 posts) -

Nintendo making another console that is inferior power wise compared to its competition isn't doing it any favors. Look how popular the wii was and even then it missed out on lots of 3rd party games. I think nintendo have to realize this if they ever want a strong 3rd party again

#146 Posted by cainetao11 (18002 posts) -

Zelda and splatoon no doubt. But Halo 5, quantum break on X1 and bloodborne and uncharted 4 on ps4 . I have no interest in Yoshio, captain toad, or Kirby. And Mario I am a little tired of.

#147 Posted by cainetao11 (18002 posts) -

@Heirren: You forgot to couple in 3DS. And while you are at it you should mention that wiiu plays all wii games, and will eventually give access to Nintendos holy grail of a back catalog.

Yes. WiiU's BC is a big point to me because I only had a Wii shortly and there are gems to be played. Not to forget all the greats from the past as you said. Splatoon and Zelda are big on my list also. How will I do my school work?

#148 Edited by Speak_Low (1119 posts) -

@MirkoS77 said:

The reason certain types of games don't sell is due to a multitude of factors that have been festering for years, so I don't mean to say that just introducing those specific types or genres is going to ensure success. But it'd be a start. People seem to say, "these games simply won't sell", throw up their hands, and then come to the conclusion that therefore Nintendo shouldn't even try. No, they have to try, and when they do their initial effort will NOT pay off. But much of this has little to do with the games themselves. Nintendo has cornered themselves. They didn't pay attention to online, marginalized the importance of third parties (and keep doing so), or what gamers deem important. Hence, those people flocked to Sony and MS, who paid attention to their wishes.

They don't sell because Nintendo, through their continual stubbornness, neglect, and fuck-ups throughout the years, has created a lackluster ecosystem for not only third parties' wishes, but also gamers' desires. Outdated hardware, sub-standard online, mediocre ports with lacking features, a Japan-centric focus. I neglected in my response to you about these other factors at play because you were simply addressing the aesthetics and nothing more, but if you wonder why games struggle on Nintendo's platform, don't look solely at the games and don't look (much less blame) the consumers......look at the platform and company. It doesn't matter how many third parties return in force, how powerful the hardware is, at least at first. Those could all exist tomorrow and Nintendo would still struggle because they have cemented themselves in the minds of many people as the inferior choice and second option (which Iwata actually said, unbelievable as it is: "we aim to be everyone's second console"). It will take a long time and a lot of effort for them to change that perception in the minds of gamers.

And no, no games put out today by Nintendo are even close to offerings such as Eternal Darkness or 007.

"What do you mean by that exactly? You mean Sony and Microsoft come out with their IPs every so often and add new things to them? And that every IP is different from the rest? Nintendo doesn't do that?"

No, what I mean is that MS and Sony do pump out their known and milked franchises, GeoW, Uncharted, Halo, GT, etc but at the same time they are much more willing to invest in large, AAA projects (TLoU, Puppeteer, Knack) on a consistent basis than Nintendo is. Nintendo's even come out and addressed criticism of milking Mario and the lack of new IPs, stating that just because it uses similar assets doesn't mean it's a rehash. While it may be technically true, using similar assets and the same universe gets boring, especially 30 years on. Aesthetics do matter. Nintendo's finally shown a new IP that really feels such: Splatoon, to which I give them credit for, but how long did it take for this to happen? Sure, they've done other new IPs.....low budget endeavors that show up on the eshop with no marketing or hype whatsoever and that I doubt many core fans could even name.

What I want are new, AAA Nintendo IPs that are either long overdue for an update (Metroid, Fzero, Waverace), or new, AAA IPs that are not dressed up in a Mario or Zelda skin (Hyrule Warriors, Mario Maker). That is why it's boring.

Finally, do I think they're going to change their philosophies given what's happened with the Wii U? I don't know. I think Nintendo is so arrogant and stubborn that nobody is going to tell them where things should go. If that means they'll suffer, they'll go into another market (which looks to be what's starting to happen with QoL). They're so prideful they'll never change if it's shown to them that what others are doing is more successful, even if it hurts. Until new management arrives, I think Nintendo is in real danger. Probably even with new management.

Fantastic post and well said, MirkoS77. I just kept nodding and nodding with every point and example. This post really captures Nintendo's pervasive flaws, and why they seem to be going through similar problems that stretch all the way back to the N64 era - that's a LONG time ago in console years. Modern Nintendo management really needs a radical shakeup (but I agree that that isn't a guarantee for change either). So many of these massive problems could've been avoided had they taken more attentive and productive steps earlier on (while Wii was "printing money" and people were laughing at Sony/MS and PS360 for everything they did, serious trouble was still brewing for Nintendo and not solved). I even believe one reason why the Wii U has failed in sales is because Sony/MS are simply doing certain things better and grabbing their potential buyers by the millions - the competition is growing too good these last few years.

Nintendo and some of their defenders can repeatedly say "Nintendo isn't competing or even thinking about Sony/MS" all they want, to make the company sound stoic and savvy, but those other two companies do have a major impact on Nintendo, and coupled with Nintendo's own intrinsic flaws - we're seeing all of those combined years of negligence, managerial incompetence and "meekness" and other underdeveloped skills as a business really hit them the hardest they've ever felt. The Wii U failure has been one good, meaty fist to the Nintendo chin, and this is probably why Iwata looks stunned right now, and repeats the same sentences at Investor meetings.

As for this thread and the idea of Nintendo domination, are we talking about OP's personal enjoyment or are we talking about Nintendo's place in the industry? Because if Nintendo dominates your personal life, your gaming library and amount of fun you derive from them, then that is your own thing - a little blog-worthy if you ask me. But to say Nintendo "dominates" the industry and competition is not just debatable, but a very shaky statement to begin with. Look at their history and current sales situation (still a staggering 3+ million behind the GCN sales) and their lifeless relationships with third-party (which they need in order to thrive). Just look at it all and still tell me they have absolutely nothing to worry about and they are on top of the world now.

#149 Edited by Speak_Low (1119 posts) -

@PikachuDude860

We do seem to overlap and agree on certain things. Nintendo could do a lot better with third-party. Also, while you say the Zelda series has changed a lot and that shows Nintendo is keeping up with modern tastes, what we're saying is the Wii U's entire library needs far more variety outside of Nintendo games. So this console is not getting any NBA2K, WWE, Madden and EA UFC. What are the alternatives for those looking for some sports games? Is SSBU and Wii U Sports Club the closest to a competitive fighting and "sports" game? That's it? I shouldn't have to scrounge for examples for such a popular genre.

So it's disappointing that there is no Destiny or Division on the Wii U. What are the alternatives for the lack of these large-scale online shooters? Is Splatoon all that there is left? This is kind of important because in the next few years, there will be more and more of these open world games (and may even become the best-selling genre) and the Wii U not having any outside of "X" is going to hurt them (and "X" isn't even co-op or competitive, is it?)

And then there are games like TLOU, Quantum Break and Quantic Dream's (Heavy Rain, Beyond: Two Souls) future games. I'm not asking for Nintendo to publish and copy these games exactly, but to realize that there is another emerging crowd of gamers who happen to like games with movie-quality characters and more serious storylines. (I don't know if Quantum Break has a great storyline, but I'm using it as an example of games going after that movie/TV vibe). Does the Wii U have this area covered well? I can't find any game like that. And where's the cutting edge technology with CG-like characters on the Wii U? People want to be in awe once in a while with how far performance technology has come, and the human characters of Bayo 2 and The Devil's Third are not exactly doing that.

I haven't even gotten to many more examples of game genres the Wii U is completely deficient in. But the point is, these glaring holes in their overall library (and a too-high concentration of colorful and cartoony games) will further hurt the perception of the console and the sales, which further alienates more third-parties.

@PurpleMan5000 said:

This year Nintendo has published Donkey Kong: Tropical Freeze, Mario Kart 8, Wii Sports Club, Professor Layton and the Azran Legacy, Yoshi's New Island, Mario Gold: World Tour, Kirby: Triple Deluxe, and Tomodachi Life. Before the year is over, they will also publish Bayonetta 2, Smash, Professor Layton vs Phoenix Wright, Pokemon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire, and Hyrule Warriors. That is a lot more than 6-7 games. It's 13.

I'm not denying Nintendo doesn't have a full plate (between Wii U and 3DS development), but you said that people aren't buying the Wii U third-party games because they are too busy buying Nintendo 1st party games (you also used Naughty Dog as an example of a company not making 6-7 games per console/per year, but neither does Nintendo, if we're strictly talking about actual development and not publishing).

But I don't see what 3DS games like Professor Layton and Tomodachi Life have to do with the spending decisions of Wii U owners. If you're saying that Wii U owners have a set, limited budget, and it's primarily devoted to those games above (and there is no money left to buy COD, AC and Batman on the Wii U), then okay....I guess, but I don't think that explains why third-party is wildly underselling in sales, by hundreds of thousands to millions short. So is this the objective of millions of Wii U owner out there - to buy a $300-$350 console and choose to ignore games like COD, AC and Batman? And to be honest, the 1st party sales are kind of all over the place too on the Wii U. Only MK8, SMBU and possibly SMW3D had incredible sales and attach rates. Wonderful 101, Pikmin 3, Donkey Kong Country: TF and other Nintendo exclusives did not have great sales or attach rates, so it's not like every Wii U owner is getting drowned in games, because the numbers show that not enough even bought those latter games.

Also, the Wii U software sales are far lower than Wii, GCN and N64 anyways (in proportion to their install bases). So are you saying gamers are getting poorer and buying less games in general? It almost sounds like gamers are disappearing or losing money right when the Wii U arrived. Feels like something scary has occurred and people are missing since November 2013.

#150 Edited by Big_Pecks (5431 posts) -

Meh. SSB4 is what we really need. Zelda and Xenoblade have to build on it.