Every decade, Nintendo produces a top selling franchise

I'd call this the epitome of Nintendomination.

The top 3 selling franchises of all time:

1. Mario (1981 or 1983)

2. Pokemon (1996)

3. Wii (2006)

For each decade, Nintendo has produced a top selling franchise. Continuing this trend, Nintendo could produce another franchise that will take the world by storm in the next few years.

Will it be S.T.E.A.M? A new NFC IP? Something else? Or are you in the Nintendoomed camp?

I made this thread a few months ago :P

And yes, I think they will do something this year as well, and as with every other time, it will be something we could never have seen coming.

Wii series? So now we add together distinct franchises just because Nintendo doesn't have very creative naming conventions?

Seems like quite a stretch, but why not. If they bring out a new winner I'll play along. Now let's see it, because this decade ain't getting any younger.

I have hopes for STEAM. Don't let it be like Steel DIver.

Lol yeah, not to mention the first game was a pack-in. And that the whole "series" is just a tech demo of mini games.

Dont expect to much from WiiU

True enough, it was a pack in. But to be fair, the entire reason the Wii sold the way it did was because of that game and Wiimote. Everyone wanted to waggle to Wii Sports. You could argue either way - the hardware was packed in with the software, or the software was packed in with the hardware. Bottom line is that Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Wii Play, etc. were all really successful. Even if you like to think of it as tech demos, a lot of families had fun with the games.

That is great news for everyone.

it also produces some of the biggest flops in gaming too. see how easy that was?

People forget the downhills because of fanboyism or nostalgia etc...

After SNES era , which i think was the best Nintendo era console wise ( not sales alone , overall ) .. What Nintendo really achieved ? Lets see with facts not hate or fanboyism

1) N64 ---- 32M worldwide sales with 20M of them being in NA !!! Is that a success because of 2-3 crazy games ? Not even close ... Lacking 3rd party support , expensive , really complicated architecture , expensive games , lack of cutscenes in games , graphic limitations because of cartridge , lost massive exclusives to competition and many more issues. Far from a really successful console product.

2) GC ---- despite the fact that i really liked GC and 2 of my best games were GC exclusives ... Console didnt deliver..period. Really bad third party support , first party support wasnt that great like N64s was , sales were soooo low worldwide like 20M ? Nintendo couldnt deliver once again despite the right moves hardware wise and exclusive wise ( RE remake / RE4 etc )

3) Wii .. aside the amazing sales that even Nintendo couldnt beleive .. I mean , we cant just bypass all the facts and say "" Wii sales were phenomenal " and call it a success. No we cant , it wasnt. 3rd party support no existant , shovelware everywhere, premature death let 100M million people with no support at all , prior ( around 2 years !! ) to its death no games to play ( only Zelda SS worth mention ).. Now if we add the fact that million of Wii owners stated again and again that their Wii became a dust collector somewhere in their house ...pfff , well sorry guys but THAT product is not successful product despite its sales in my eyes.

And now Wii U continues this cycle of bad decisions , bad support etc etc ... I dont see how you think Nintendo can save the day for Wii U just because 1-2-3 awesome games might release soon or later. Those exactly same games released for N64 , GC and they didnt save anything. As for Wii , it sold for entirly different reasons than Nintendos first party titles and we all know what that is.

I lost faith with Nintendo after SNES era and im not expecting anything major anymore , im telling you. Just wait for their next console that will be announced in 1-2 years. ( my speculation ) or move on to their amazing handhelds.

Inb4 butthurt sheep.

But what you say is the simple truth. Nintendo hasn't been relevant (for real gamers) in the console industry since the N64. (despite Wii being a sales "success")

N64 games with 80% average or above - 74 games, 40 exclusive

Gamecube games with 80% average or above - 127 games, 31 exclusives

Wii games with 80% or above - 114 games, 30 exclusives

Wii U games with 80% or above - 31 games so far, 7 exclusive so far (Xbox One only has 8 games total above 80% and PS4 only has 2 that can't be played on another platform)

Source: Gamerankings.com

So unless you want to exclude the 108 exclusive games (roughly one every 2 months) since 1996, or the 346 total games games since 1996 (about 19 per year) that have, with consensus from most gaming sources, scored 80% or higher then yeah you're right about Nintendo being irrelevant for real gamers.

Real gamers don't judge games based on what is "trendy" or in style. Real gamers play games across ALL platforms and genres and judge a game based on the amount of enjoyment they gained from playing the game.

You guys are right about a couple of things though. A Nintendo system can no longer really be looked upon as a primary machine, there are too many amazing 3rd party games not on the Wii U. Also, Nintendo has made many questionable decisions, and their reputation is, deservedly, taking a hit because of those decisions, but if you think Nintendo hasn't been relevant since the N64 era, then you are sadly mistaken. You want to talk facts, let's talk facts, not fanboy nonsense.

@AzatiS: No one is forgetting the downhills. There are plenty of other Nintendo threads based on the things you've stated. No one is denying this here. You're simply going off topic. This isn't about Nintendo's achievements in general, and how they're currently failing with their hardware. This thread is about Nintendo producing top selling franchises. Whether or not this is a negative in other respects, or if Nintendo is failing as a hardware manufacturer, is irrelevant.

So a console's success is only based on some good exclusives for that system? (And IMO, these "great" exclusives have been milked for generations by nintendo...but that's just my opinion) A couple of good exclusives do not make a console a good console.

You say we should talk facts,...well Azatis did. Try to read his post again.

There are many reasons for Nintendo's (console) decline. And yes since the N64 there have always been (much) better alternatives for Nintendo consoles. So despite having some good exclusives, Nintendo hasn't been relevant in the console industry since N64.

I buy a console for games. So for me the success is solely based on the games it delivers. And whether or not they have been milked (like you said it's your opinion and one that isn't shared by a large amount of gaming media) 30-40 games is NOT a handful.

After going back, at your suggestion, to that post I came away with the following:

1.) "32M worldwide sales with 20M of them being in NA !!! Is that a success because of 2-3 crazy games?" - I don't play sales, I play games. It seems to him that there were only 2-3 crazy games. Again proven false by my original post

2.) "lack of cutscenes in games" - So basically nothing to do with actual gameplay? Adds to the game to an extent, but this was the dawn of presentation counting more than gameplay to many gamers. Not a great thing in my opinion.

3.) "graphic limitations because of cartridge" - for its day N64 had some great looking games

4.) "Console didnt deliver..period. Really bad third party support , first party support wasnt that great like N64s was , sales were soooo low worldwide like 20M ?" - A console delivers based on the games it produces. Argument is already null and void based on my first posts. First party support wasn't as great as N64? Metroid Prime 1 and 2, Eternal Darkness, Sunshine, Melee, F-Zero GX, Pikmin, Double Dash, Paper Mario Thousand Year Door...yeaup he was right no 1st party support. Again with sales...he must be a Nintendo stock owner.

5.) Most of the statements made about the Wii were accurate, but if we can't call something a success because of sales we can't say it isn't a success because of lack of sales. You can't use an argument only when it's convenient and ditch it when it doesn't support your agenda. There was tons of shovel ware, but again that poor software does not make the great software available for a console not exist.

Better alternatives...probably, it greatly depends on your taste in games, but I never said a Nintendo system should be your primary console. Much better would be your opinion. Irrelevant...ridiculous. I'll take Mario, Zelda and Metroid any day of the week over Sony and Microsofts top three franchises.

Very good post, telling the truth :D

However I have to say, I think that the exclusive numbers are a bit closer to the consoles performance, than the multiplatform games. Too often, even the well reviewed multiplatform games on Nintendo consoles have been the worst version, or delayed, or miss features standard in the other versions, or be one just part of a greater series, or be last gen ports.

I don't know many gamers that wanted to play Resident Evil 2 on their N64, while missing 1 and 3, or Mass Effect 3 on their WiiU but not 1 or 2, or play COD on their Wii with no 4 player split screen, or play Pro Evolution Soccer without the Master League, or play Assassin's Creed 4 without it's DLC, or play years late PS2 and Xbox ports like Scarface and Sid Meier's Pirates, or play the only SD version of a gorgeous HD game, etc. There were earlier and/or superior ways to play all of these (and many more) games.

Of course, these games absolutely still exist, still count, were sometimes even the better versions available (often on Gamecube, when compared to PS2 for example), and Nintendo fans are right to mention them, play them and enjoy them. But going through Metacritic and my own memory (:P) I think those numbers are a little inflated, and are a case of awesome/great games on another system being reviewed as a great/good game on a Nintendo console, sometimes years after everyone else played it. The WiiU's selling point is games like Mario 3D World, Wonderful 101, Pikmin, Donkey Kong etc. Not the worst versions Mass Effect 3 and Assassin's Creed 4.

When talking about "relevance" to the gamer, I think these are important things to keep in mind. However, that aside, Nintendo exclusives will ALWAYS make their systems worthwhile to gamers :)

That streak will end with the WiiU.

True

Completely agree with every point you make. That's precisely why I think that owning only a Nintendo console during any cycle since the N64 period and on is shortsighted.

I could never only own a Nintendo consoles, but I couldn't consider myself a true gamer if I didn't own any either.

How could I go without Arkham Knight AND Smash Bros U?!?!?

I agree with everything said. I just wouldn't group Wii Sports, Wii Fit, and Wii Music (for example) all together to begin with. Wii Sports and Wii Sports Resort? Sure. But not every game which starts it's name with "Wii".

Well it's branding, which is what this thread is about. They're selling a brand. There were plenty of other mini and fitness games on the Wii, and while some of them did sell well, none of them sold as well as the "Wii" ones. My point is that Nintendo created a software brand that is a top selling video game franchise. Similarly, Halo Wars counts towards the Halo brand, even though Halo is known for being a FPS.

I'm with you on Halo Wars, but still don't agree with the "Wii" thing being a brand. To me, it's the same as putting "Super" in front of loads of disparate games during the SNES era. It relates several distinct franchises to the console, not to each other.

But hey, like I said in my first post, I'll go along with it - if only for the sake of a good story - as soon as Nintendo makes good with another new all time best selling type of IP.

I see what you mean. I guess the difference with "Super" and "Wii" is that there was an on-going theme between each of the games (similarly to Mario appearing in Mario Kart or Mario World), is published by the same company and is trade marked, where as "Super" or "64" was used on any arbitrary game by any developer - merely as a word. According to the Wiki, they all followed the theme of "physical simulation". Personally, I buy the argument - the Wii series clearly was a branded franchise, opposed to a word appended to the front to show what system it's on.

@sHaDyCuBe321: Go PC, bro. League of Legends and Starcraft 2 awaits you. Civ 5 will kill what remains of your social life, and you'll get the definitive multiplats on the PC (aka Tomb Raider: Definitive Version released in 2011).

PC-Wii U, the best of both worlds if you can care less about Microsoft or Sony IPs.

@sHaDyCuBe321: too much logic for the some of these system warriors and i completely agree with you.

Sony and MSFT also produced top sellers, so did some 3rd parties.

You're right for the most part, but this nugget here looks awfully skewed. The WiiU's library has had more than a year to flourish, meanwhile the Xbox,and PS4 have been in the market for 6 months. The WiiU's first six months weren't peachy from what I remember.

lol i like how both of you tried to define what a gamer is...lol a fanboy is a gamer just as much as a manticore is a gamer.

The Wii U is much more of a 'proper gamer-focused console' than Wii ever was yet it is selling terribly.

Cows getting btfo as usual with their typical ignoring of facts and their "b-but for ME kidtendo iz not relevent"

True, but that nugget was more for people that like to pretend that the Wii U has no games. People rag on the Wii U often, sometimes with valid reasons, but one of those reasons can't be lack of games. Honestly the 3rd party games will be very few and far between, but I think as a supplementary console it will be more than serviceable.

You clearly can say hes in dmg control ... dont even bother ... you cant win vs a fan

@AzatiS: you must have difficulty reading. The first line of his post is "you're right for the most part" lmao