What makes Nintendo's first party so great?

  • 62 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by AugustEvans (116 posts) -

I would really like to know. I always see sheep say that Nintendo has the best franchises and makes the best software, but most of their games are average. Yea over the course of 30 years they made some of the highest rated games but to be honest, most of their games are just average rehashes. I think it stems from the fact that because Nintendo been using the same franchises for 30 years, it gives the impression that the games must be high quality when in reality, it's because Nintendo is too cheap and sorry to come up with new content. So, what makes Nintendo's rehashes better than other games?

#2 Posted by MonsieurX (31552 posts) -

Average rehash?

They renew themselves with each games

#3 Posted by AugustEvans (116 posts) -

@MonsieurX said:

Average rehash?

They renew themselves with each games

......lol

#4 Posted by speedfreak48t5p (9262 posts) -

I agree. Nintendo is nothing but rehashes and sheep keep defending them.

Unlike Sony, who continues to innovate and provide gamers with world class exclusives.

#5 Posted by AugustEvans (116 posts) -

@speedfreak48t5p said:

I agree. Nintendo is nothing but rehashes and sheep keep defending them.

Unlike Sony, who continues to innovate and provide gamers with world class exclusives.

I wouldn't say "world class" but certainly better than mario and zelda

#7 Posted by AugustEvans (116 posts) -

@farrell2k said:

If microsoft and sony even manage to last as long as nintendo, do you think they won't do the same?

But at least sony and even ms mix it up a little. Nintendo's main IPs since the nes are zelda and mario. Anything else is a rare surprise.

#8 Posted by Shinobishyguy (22576 posts) -

Not sure if this is a troll thread or if posters here really are that stupid. If it's the latter I fear for humanity

#9 Posted by treedoor (7648 posts) -

I don't agree with the idea that Nintendo knows gameplay, but regardless they make great games that are pretty unique. That's what keeps players playing.

I do wish they'd branch out, and apply their gameplay ideas from games like Zelda and metroid to other genres of games.

#11 Posted by lundy86_4 (44154 posts) -

Check Metacritic, and see your dipshittery.

#12 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (7817 posts) -

Their games are just fun.

#13 Posted by MonsieurX (31552 posts) -

@augustevans said:

@MonsieurX said:

Average rehash?

They renew themselves with each games

......lol

Super Mario Galaxy played just like every other Mario game before.

Super Mario 3d World played just like every other Mario game before

#14 Posted by bbkkristian (14967 posts) -

@augustevans: why don't you read the reviews of current Nintendo games? There is no general answer.

#15 Edited by Pikminmaniac (9345 posts) -

They focus almost solely on gameplay and level design. Two aspects that are exclusive to this medium. Nintendo are masters of these two aspects. So much so that they make a lot of genre leading games. It's really hard to say that about the other two 1st party developers.

I also enjoy the fact that a lot of their games (especially lately) are easy to get into, but nearly impossible to 100% due to extremely high difficulty. There's something fro everyone in terms of challenge and you can just decide to relax and play them, or really push your gaming skills if you want to.

They also manage to keep themselves fresh and creative in franchises that have existed for over two decades.

#16 Edited by no-scope-AK47 (3050 posts) -

Nintendo has good gameplay

#17 Edited by jg4xchamp (49888 posts) -

They get more credit for pedigree than recent excellent.

That's not to say their stuff hasn't been good. Plenty of their stuff is good, but the notion that they are consistently pumping out greatness(even among their A list franchises) is more myth than reality. They are just superior to their competitors in that regard, which frankly isn't saying a lot to begin with.

#18 Posted by curono (7710 posts) -

Nintendo exclusives have 2 words that the HARDCORZ GAMURZ don't remember: FUN and ENJOYABLE.

#19 Posted by nintendoboy16 (27887 posts) -

@bbkkristian said:

@augustevans: why don't you read the reviews of current Nintendo games? There is no general answer.

Buh... buh... nostalgia.

Sorry, but that's going to be at least one of the excuses.

#20 Edited by trugs26 (5827 posts) -

I don't know, because they are fun? The gameplay is enjoyable? I don't know how to answer that question.

#21 Posted by ConanTheStoner (7206 posts) -

They're well designed? Creative? Fun? Approachable, yet challenging? They've re-written the book on expert level design over and over again?

I dunno man, tons of reasons really. Nintendo doesn't hit a home run with every game they drop (no company does), but they consistently put out at least one masterpiece each gen, sometimes two or even more. That's a pretty solid track record. And that's on top of all the games they put out that are simply good.

They have the quality. They have the quantity. When they play it safe they put out good games. When they decide to say fuck the bullshit they put out gold.

When compared to all other devs they're still pretty great. When compared to other 1st party camps, they're gods.... not that that's saying too much, but still.

#22 Edited by MirkoS77 (8149 posts) -

To even ask such a question makes me wonder if someone has even PLAYED Nintendo's finest work.

I can't speak for any of the U's efforts as I don't own one and haven't played a single U game (from what I've heard many of them, even titles such as SM3DW are beginning to feel routine and uninspired, even though it's well-made), but when Nintendo truly puts effort and passion into their software they're simply unmatched. They're exceptionally well-designed, clever in their level design, immensely creative, they control flawlessly and are heavily polished experiences that don't suffer from any bugs. Their best games feel downright magical and give a heavy feeling of wonder. I love Nintendo games because they really are able to hit that "childhood" note of pure fun to me, and I'm not speaking of nostalgia.

I'm thinking mostly of the Galaxy games here as an example. Nintendo has talent like none other when they put their minds to it and take risks. Which makes their incompetence and extreme conservatism at the business level all the more infuriating and worrisome because losing such a company like Nintendo would be an immense loss to this industry.

#23 Posted by DocSanchez (2241 posts) -

Its a mix of certain franchises being finely crafted and others being sacred cows people are afraid to criticise.

Mario 3D stands on its own. If you take Mario out, it's still a great game by the best at pure 3D platforms in the business.

Zelda? Not so much. Skyward Sword for example is something that was so precious to people at the time yet now gets nothing but scorn by fans of the series. The problem is they are completely locked on the conventions of the franchise. Instead of true exploration the likes of which you see in Dark Souls and Elder Scrolls you get the very same formula you've always had. One hub town and a few dungeons. It's a sacred cow, and if Brandnewsoft brought it out with a different character in this day and age people wouldn't be so kind towards it. It's the exact same place it was in the days of the N64, which was the last time any progress was made to the series.

Mario kart is exactly the same. As far as racers go, it's nothing. As far as kart games go, it's been done so many times before at this point that they can phone it in and people act like it's too big to miss. I've played many of them at some point, over familiarity is an understatement.

There have been so many trips to the mushroom kingdom that even the 2D platformers are designed with tracing paper and have been consistently outdone in recent years. Rayman games are the standard bearer and indie games like Spelunky kick New Super Mario into touch.

I'm not saying they are bad, but the name in many cases carries a lot of weight and people need them to be more than they are because without the majority of the third party they are carrying a whole console. Which is Nintendo's way, and seemingly the way their own die hard fans like it.

#24 Posted by ConanTheStoner (7206 posts) -

@DocSanchez:

I find myself agreeing with you a bit more every day.

#25 Posted by DocSanchez (2241 posts) -

@ConanTheStoner: Thank you.

#26 Posted by foxhound_fox (90520 posts) -

Nintendo's games do more with the same IP over each iteration than Sony or Microsoft does with brand new IP over the course of 3-4 games. Being the same game on the surface doesn't mean they are mechanically similar. Just look at Mario 64 v. Mario Sunshine v. Mario Galaxy v. Mario 3D World. They are all Mario games and 3D platformers, but the method in which you play them is incredibly different and all incredibly creative (despite what people say about Sunshine, it was a good game for it's time and had some great levels).

#27 Posted by beerm_basic (2488 posts) -

Why is rehash used when it comes to mario/zelda etc but these same people buy games like cod and battlefield etc :/

To me each mario and zelda has been different for example the difference between twlight princess and wind waker is easy to see. Also galaxy and sunshine

#28 Posted by DocSanchez (2241 posts) -

@beerm_basic: the word rehash is used for those games frequently. I think the word is used far more for them in general than with Nintendo. Nintendo is simply accused of over relying on the same franchises over and over every generation. The consoles that Battlefield and COD appear on don't have that problem. They have a gigantic third party library which contains many old and new games.

#29 Posted by hiphops_savior (8039 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:

Nintendo's games do more with the same IP over each iteration than Sony or Microsoft does with brand new IP over the course of 3-4 games. Being the same game on the surface doesn't mean they are mechanically similar. Just look at Mario 64 v. Mario Sunshine v. Mario Galaxy v. Mario 3D World. They are all Mario games and 3D platformers, but the method in which you play them is incredibly different and all incredibly creative (despite what people say about Sunshine, it was a good game for it's time and had some great levels).

There is a reason why Mario and Zelda is still here while other IPs of their time die off.

#30 Posted by HarlockJC (25546 posts) -

It's always so easy to see when people have never played Nintendo games, sad really

#32 Posted by AugustEvans (116 posts) -


I still have yet to get an answer from you sheep. What makes mario and zelda better than any other game? Yall are blind fools if yall really think that mario and zelda are more fun than any other game. It's an ignorant thought to think that only nintendo games focus on gameplay and fun.

#33 Edited by cain006 (8625 posts) -

Wii easily had the best exclusives of the consoles last generation. Looking to be that way this generation as well. You really have to like platformers to really get to their meat and potatoes though.

Super Mario Galaxy 1/2 are easily the best 3D platformers ever made if you ask me. Solid mechanics, great levels, and just the right challenge. DKCR is one of the best 2D platformers of last gen and while the New Super Mario Bros. games aren't that great, the mechanics are very good so they're still enjoyable even though the level design is pretty bad.

#34 Edited by Maroxad (8663 posts) -

What makes nintendo first party great? Multiple answers.

  1. Little focus on Story, stories are usually minimalistic and dont get in the way of gameplay.
  2. Far more variety between each sequel than say... Sony's first party
  3. Each Nintendo game tends to have you fight more than the same 3 enemies over and over.
  4. Little of the BS that plagues modern gaming, set pieces are few and far between, no health regeneration, they are not focused on aping Hollywood, little to no shoehorned in RPG elements.
  5. Superb Level design.
  6. Constantly introducing new elements within their games to keep them from getting stale
  7. High polish in their games.
  8. Varied difficulties in most of their games (zelda excluded) meaning that anyone can see the credits screen but there is enough challenging content in there to keep me satisfied.
  9. No focus on this edgy crap, their games are usually quite happy so to speak.
  10. None of their characters makes me want to punch the screen like Nathan Dweeb does.
  11. Colour
  12. Superb amounts of creativity in their games. Their games are usually not grounded by reality in any form and are just an expression of what the devs think would provide the most entertaining experience for their fans.

None of these are exclusive to Nintendo, BUT it is a combination of all of these that make nintendo games so good. Are they the top of the line? Not anymore. But they certainly are better than most AAA devs, they are top tier compared to Sony's and Microsoft's efforts. Nintendo are closer to good than great, but considering how awful the competition is now days I can see how people consider them great.

#35 Edited by LJS9502_basic (152275 posts) -

Nintendo makes good games...the quality is there. That does not mean you will enjoy them.

#36 Posted by PrincessGomez92 (3767 posts) -

Obvious troll thread.

#37 Posted by Boddicker (3029 posts) -

They make kid friendly games that actually have good GAMEPLAY.

/thread

#38 Posted by AugustEvans (116 posts) -

@Boddicker said:

They make kid friendly games that actually have good GAMEPLAY.

/thread

That's what make their games better than other games? Kid friendliness?

#39 Posted by timbers_WSU (6076 posts) -

First of all it isn't really great.

They are pretty consistent being good but they great titles only come by every once in a while. The Wii U only has one great tile and that in Wind Waker. A remake. Mario 3-D is very good but I wouldn't say it's great. It's close though.
The only great Wii titles were SSBB which hardcore fans were disappointed with for some reason and Galaxy.

The thing is Nintendo has made so many of these games (With the same characters and gameplay) there is no reason they shouldn't be great every time. So in a way when a title ends up with an 8 rating it is actually kind of disappointing.

#40 Posted by iambatman7986 (690 posts) -

Paper Mario, Mario 2d and 3d games, Pikmin, Zelda, Pokemon, Metroid, Mario and Luigi, Wii Sports, Mario Kart, SSB, Mario Party, Donkey Kong, Yoshi, and Kirby games to name a few of their franchises that I have always enjoyed. There are a lot I'm leaving out.

#41 Posted by stuff238 (925 posts) -

What makes their games supposedly "great"? Very simple. Nintendo fanboys do! Nintendo fanboys will praise nintendo games 11/10.

Truthfully, If nintendo games were released on a Sony/Microsoft console they would be measured by higher standards. So pretty much every nintendo game would fall in the 5-7/10 range with the rare 8/10. Sony and microsoft have higher standards.

Nintendo consoles have no standards and massive game droughts. So when a Mario game finally comes along after people waiting for 12 months with no games to play of course it's going to look like a 10/10 game. When in reality it is 8/10 at best. If it were up to me, no nintendo game would ever score higher than an 8/10. Every time I see a nintendo game reviewed on any website I just minus 2 whole points to get the true score. Been doing it for years and it makes sense.

Nintendo has not made a 10/10 game since the SNES. I played SM64 and Zelda OOT when they first came out and even then I thought they fell in 7-8 range. Games can be fun like nintendo fans say, but fun does not equal 10/10 masterful/super amazing/zomg like those fanboys would have you believe.

Also reviewers have this mindset that since nintendo sucks at making games, they feel bad for them and give them high scores. Nostalgia also plays a part.

#42 Edited by Suppaman100 (4324 posts) -

Implying Nintendo's first-party is great.

Well, if you call rehashes great then yes!

#43 Edited by Shinobishyguy (22576 posts) -

@DocSanchez: you zelda example is out of date. A Link Between Worlds is excellent, even when you take nostalgia out of the picture and as far as reception goes almost everyone loves it

#44 Posted by charizard1605 (60817 posts) -

@DocSanchez said:

Its a mix of certain franchises being finely crafted and others being sacred cows people are afraid to criticise.

Mario 3D stands on its own. If you take Mario out, it's still a great game by the best at pure 3D platforms in the business.

Zelda? Not so much. Skyward Sword for example is something that was so precious to people at the time yet now gets nothing but scorn by fans of the series. The problem is they are completely locked on the conventions of the franchise. Instead of true exploration the likes of which you see in Dark Souls and Elder Scrolls you get the very same formula you've always had. One hub town and a few dungeons. It's a sacred cow, and if Brandnewsoft brought it out with a different character in this day and age people wouldn't be so kind towards it. It's the exact same place it was in the days of the N64, which was the last time any progress was made to the series.

Mario kart is exactly the same. As far as racers go, it's nothing. As far as kart games go, it's been done so many times before at this point that they can phone it in and people act like it's too big to miss. I've played many of them at some point, over familiarity is an understatement.

There have been so many trips to the mushroom kingdom that even the 2D platformers are designed with tracing paper and have been consistently outdone in recent years. Rayman games are the standard bearer and indie games like Spelunky kick New Super Mario into touch.

I'm not saying they are bad, but the name in many cases carries a lot of weight and people need them to be more than they are because without the majority of the third party they are carrying a whole console. Which is Nintendo's way, and seemingly the way their own die hard fans like it.

This is actually a really great post, and I agree with a large part of it, but as far as Zelda goes, I would say that A Link Between Worlds renders that section of the argument obsolete (Skyward Sword was legit average, though). I think you should play it, it's an amazing game.

#45 Edited by Pikminmaniac (9345 posts) -

@stuff238 said:

What makes their games supposedly "great"? Very simple. Nintendo fanboys do! Nintendo fanboys will praise nintendo games 11/10.

Truthfully, If nintendo games were released on a Sony/Microsoft console they would be measured by higher standards. So pretty much every nintendo game would fall in the 5-7/10 range with the rare 8/10. Sony and microsoft have higher standards.

Nintendo consoles have no standards and massive game droughts. So when a Mario game finally comes along after people waiting for 12 months with no games to play of course it's going to look like a 10/10 game. When in reality it is 8/10 at best. If it were up to me, no nintendo game would ever score higher than an 8/10. Every time I see a nintendo game reviewed on any website I just minus 2 whole points to get the true score. Been doing it for years and it makes sense.

Nintendo has not made a 10/10 game since the SNES. I played SM64 and Zelda OOT when they first came out and even then I thought they fell in 7-8 range. Games can be fun like nintendo fans say, but fun does not equal 10/10 masterful/super amazing/zomg like those fanboys would have you believe.

Also reviewers have this mindset that since nintendo sucks at making games, they feel bad for them and give them high scores. Nostalgia also plays a part.

LOL no! Nintendo games focus on the timeless aspects of gaming that don't need to rely on beefy tech. They produce fantastic gameplay and level design and no matter how much later down the line it is, if you pick up a Nintendo game chances are it'll still hold up. I can't say the same for most of the first party titles from the other two companies.

I'd also like to add that if you put a sony exclusive on a Nintendo console and take away the presentation aspects, those games would be considered tremendously mediocre because most of them are lucky to even have passable gameplay (Uncharted, Resistance, God of War, Puppeteer, LittleBigPlanet etc.)

#46 Edited by way2funny (4570 posts) -

polish, creativity, not having DLC that nickle and dime you, no hours of patching, they are simple yet fun, and its something you can't find on other platforms. Of course this isn't for all there franchises and there are a couple exceptions, but the main mario games (64, galaxy, etc), the zelda games and such, think about it, how many times have nintendo created or redefined a genre? Or introduced new input techniques that became standard in the industry? (Dpad, analog stick, shoulder buttons, and recently motion control, while not as huge, the competition quickly jumped on that bandwagon). And I don't even have a wii u yet, I mostly game on PC.

#47 Edited by Blabadon (28212 posts) -

Usual excellence in familiarity. It hurts knowing that for every Super Mario Galaxy there's a New Super Mario Bros. 2, but even that has a shot at revitalization just like Link Between Worlds was.

It's pretty cool knowing that any Nintendo system you get will have a certain staple of games that Nintendo's first party makes, some of them being quite amazing. It's obviously wait-and-see - Super Mario Sunshine is arguably my least favorite game ever - but at least they always want to bring something.

#48 Posted by j2zon2591 (2347 posts) -

Because they're experts mostly with the E for E full retail category?

Probably doesn't invest much in story and cutting edge graphical techniques either. Very focused on gameplay on most titles.

They've done well in establishing the Mario, Pokemon, Zelda, etc. names. Most older people I know don't know Nathan, Kratos and Master Chief but they sure know Mario and "Pokemanz".

#49 Edited by hiphops_savior (8039 posts) -

@j2zon2591 said:

Because they're experts mostly with the E for E full retail category?

Probably doesn't invest much in story and cutting edge graphical techniques either. Very focused on gameplay on most titles.

They've done well in establishing the Mario, Pokemon, Zelda, etc. names. Most older people I know don't know Nathan, Kratos and Master Chief but they sure know Mario and "Pokemanz".

To quote Digital Foundery: "While gameplay reigns supreme in Super Mario 3D World, it also proves that a solid technological base is required for great gameplay."

Pokemon is one of the most addictive series the gaming industry ever devised, Zelda wowed people with its open expanse, and Mario wowed with great platforming and the secret warps in World 1-2. Nintendo is very good at leveraging hardware not to wow with impressive graphics, but with excellent level design, solid game mechanics and great control to provide great fun.

Sony is trying to mimick Square during the PS1 era, where Sakaguchi wants to prove that video games are just as good as telling stories as Hollywood movies. Too bad Sony fails with poor script writing and not using the advantage of video game interactivity for good gameplay.

#50 Edited by Ghost120x (4137 posts) -

Good controls and great level design.