Does Nintendo just have inferior programmers?

I'm not trying to diss Nintendo. I've tried to defend them for years, but even with an console that's stronger than the PS3, their games are lacking in online and graphics. I used to say "they could make a gorgeous multiplayer if they wanted to". But honestly, I don't even think they could.

Halo 3 is an 8 years old last-gen game. It had a more robust and functional online than ANY Nintendo game. And it also somehow manages to look better than Pikmin 3 and Star Fox Zero.

At some point, you just have to admit, their creative vision aside, they just can't program as well as most studios.

You have zero idea about programming or have any experience with any game programmer in general, yet you're being and asking us to be an armchair critic about programmers, especially ones in places like Japan when most of us are in the west.

Shitty thread.

I'd say they have some of the best programmers out there. They get a lot out of the hardware and the games almost always run flawlessly.

Okay, I'm not a programmer. I admit.

But why is every other major studio able to make games with consistently detailed visuals and big online experiences on a PS3, and Nintendo can't do it on a console that's stronger?

Seriously, tell me.

Online is a problem for all companies. Nintendo is actually not bad at all on online, it all depends on the users internet connection. Bout every other game though has online problems. GTA5 had server problems, Fifa had server problems, Madden has lag problems, MLB the show has lag problems some, Planetside 2 has server issues, NBA2K online has bout always had issues, Dark Souls has lag and online problems, i could list games all day.

Question is, why do these games have servers issues when yall pay to play online?

As in coders? I wouldn't know. Their games aren't exactly demanding but they sure are nice to look at.

I stopped reading right there

These guys can only do so much with the technology available. Don't forget they have to do what the shot callers tell them. Blame Iwata and the rest of the gang who continue living in the past.

I'm not a huge fan of Nintendo anymore but they don't have inferior programmers. If anything they have very skilled programmers that are hindered by the scope of the company.

I've never played a Nintendo game or heard anyone complain of a Nintendo game being a complete glitch fest like so many other titles I've seen through the years.

You shouldn't reply to him, now he's going to spam you, and this thread with more nonsensical bullshit because you didn't praise his god the WiiU or Nintendo.

Yeah because Nintendo games never really push the tech of a console. There isn't a single Wii U game that is more technically impressive than God of War 3 on the PS3. Bayonetta 2 still doesn't come close.

More like some of the best. They make games that run flawlessly on their hardware and the games look beautiful considering the hardware.

Mario Kart 8 is some of the best online I've ever experienced on a console.

A better question to ask is when other developers will catch up to nintendo in terms of development skills. All these adventure games like GTA5 and Witcher 3 feel clunky in comparison to games like Mario 64 or Sunshine. Uncharted 4 is the first game I've seen even appear to make an attempt at creating a connection between the game character and game world. Typically all these games have clunky controls with with buggy flat surface gameplay.

Their programmers and level designers are probably their biggest assets. If you look at how a lot of their games introduce something that changes everything. Implementing second screens, motion controls, stereoscopic graphics, portable water physics in a platformer, turning 2D franchises into 3D, smart load screens (that almost no developer uses), almost no need for patches, a new type of moderated online community, earning things in games that can be used in that community, etc. They consistently do things that are right outside of a programmer's comfort zone so I wouldn't call them bad at all.

Graphically we've seen them create the prettiest games on almost all of their platforms, but of course they know their platform best, and there are the rumours about not sharing details with third party. They haven't done a high end PC game, or an open world game. But I don't know that I want their games to be in development for over 8 years. I like that they are not all about graphics.

You can theoretically have both but that takes so much money and time and talent, I don't think gamers in general care enough about things that are not MOBA's and FPS games to support franchises that are both beautiful and good for many years. Like Star Citizen looks great and looks to be great but I can't see any company consistently develop a few of those games per year without support from a large group of gamers. The new Batman game looks visually impressive, but does it offer some substance? Some I-don't-want-to-put-this-down fun gameplay? I kinda doubt it. And in terms of programming that game sounds buggy as hell, like pretty much every (non-Nintendo) console-centric game lately. I'm more interested in Rare's Sea of Thieves and that was not a graphical masterpiece and I'm sure it won't sell as much because the masses don't look past the 'looks so cool' factor.

Holy crap, i never thought of it all together like that. Pretty amazing when you sit back and look at what theyve created.

From what I have played of Bayonetta it is a much smoother experience than God of War 3. People are obsessed with what something looks like on the service vs what is going on underneath. Outside of that Nintendo pushed the creation of the gpu through starfox and introduced the analog stick in a practical sense. Mario 64 left everything in the dust. Everything else felt like it was from a past era by comparison, and even to this day other developers are not able to measure up to Nintendos technical wizardry of Mario 64.

Because it's running at double the framerate.

I don't own a Wii U so I can't say I speak from experience, but I would attribute it to the fact that they just don't have the same years of experience working on HD games as most other developers do. They've only been doing it like 3 years now. That said, don't bring up Halo 3 to make your point. They just took Halo 2 and made things shinier. Mario Kart 8 has way more effects going on.

As for online, all I can say is Motorstorm Apocalypse disconnects on me way more often than ExiteBots ever did.

Have you ever heard of art design before? You're comparing completely different art styles here. Halo 3 was designed to look somewhat realistic, whereas Pikmin 3 and Star Fox Zero were designed to look creative and cartoony. It has nothing to do with programming, but has everything to do with art design.

i don't know, super smash bros is good.

I'm saying the reason why Nintendo games usually run at a smoother framerate is because they lack the technical prowess of other AAA games like God of War 3 and Uncharted 3 for example. It is much easier to make a Mario game run smooth when the hardware isn't being pushed to its limits.

Also, Mario 64 wasn't technical wizardry. The N64 was a good bit more powerful than the PS1. Now if a PS1 game looked like Mario 64 then we can talk about technical wizardry.

Conker's Bad Fur Day pushed the N64 way more than Mario 64 or StarFox 64 ever did.

It averages in the 40's.

The online is mess simply because Ninty didn't build the hardware nor the OS with a proper, focused approach on it. Thus each game has to make it's own "online system", regardless of whatever corpse of a standard system there is in place.

The next platforms won't have any of those issues. It's not due to bad programmers (companies like Ninty can easily afford great engineers and programmers), it was just badly planned from day 1. Simple as that.

Just like the PS2, despite having online capabilities, didn't really have any proper online system and thus was pretty much pointless for 95% of it's games.

The world of Xenoblade X looks more technically impressive than anything on the PS3.

Source?

Also, it certainly doesn't hurt that GoW uses a fixed camera, as opposed to Bayonetta 2, where the player is in full control.

Well let's wait until it gets released before we can do a proper comparison. IMHO, from what I've seen so far the world looks pretty empty.

If I were Hideki Kamiya I'd ask TC: Do you have an inferior mother?

Where in that video does it conclude that on average, it runs at 40FPS? The game isn't silky smooth, but the framerate is higher than God of War 3, and the already mentioned fixed camera.

Fucking SSB4 is 1080p and 60fps with eight players at the same time, and it's free of glitches on top of it!

Also, Xenoblade.

This thread is another example of how many gamers have no idea how things really work.

If by "inferior programmers" you mean bug free games, with flawless control implementation you are right.

The frame rate varies through out the duration of the game. Overall the average frame rate is somewhere in the 40's with spikes up to 60fps and drops down to the low 30's.

Not denying that. Merely saying that it's not hard for GoW3 to look better when it's running at 30FPS with a fixed camera.

Sorry to inform you but SSB4 is 720p 60fps.

It's not the programmers fault they can't do online very well, that's more of an issue with Nintendo's higher ups (I.e. it was a company decision to be limited with Splatoon's online feature set, rather than a limitation of their programmers).

I feel sorry for people that are so obsessed with graphics. Thinking about the amount of games some of you skip out on because of graphics is saddening. The fun that could of been had.

Bayonetta 2 would still look the same regardless if the camera was fixed or not because of the art style it utilizes. The main character doesn't have any detail in her skin. She looks like a mannequin, or basically a 3D anime character.

Huh, that's not what I read.

Considering it's easier to render stuff. Decide what can be shown on screen or not with a fixed camera as opposed to being in total control, would totally make Bayonetta 2 a better looking game.

Well, Bayonetta is literally perfect. She doesn't have scars or any of the like.

Better hardware doesn't just mean better graphics. It is ignorant to think better hardware doesn't open up new possibilities outside visuals. There is no excuse for why the Wii U wasn't at least on par with the XB1 in terms of hardware.

You know what I'm an idiot. I got it confused with Mario Kart 8. You were right. It is actually one of the few Wii U games that actually hits native 1080p.

Mario Kart 8, SSB for Wii U and Splatoon exist. /thread

It would most likely run smoother, but the art style it utilizes can only look so good until you have to change it completely.

I'm not the most well informed gamer, but there is a difference between programmers and art direction. Your complaint is about a games art direction and not programmers. Nintendo is going in a different art direction. Heck if anything Nintendo programmers are the standard bearers for talented programming. You ought to write a letter of apology to Nintendo for your bad thread and terrible thinking.

I seriously doubt Ninty has inferior programmers; I think they do a great job and it depends more on the policies Nintendo has than with their skill, they have to work with what the company gives them.

@emgesp:

You are overlooking the technical side of what the actual game does. Nobody has been able to replicate Nintendos ability for movement within a 3d world.

Nope, it's 1080p.

Also bayonetta 2 is more impressive than gow 3, there's more going on under the hood mechanically and still manages to have better lighting and effects. It's not locked 60fps but at least it hits it during small battles, gow 3 is lucky to see 38fps.

What are you talking about? Are you seriously telling me you don't think there is another game that controls as well as Mario 64? I don't know if you're being serious or trolling now.

Sonic Adventure for the Dreamcast says Hi.

I corrected my mistake earlier.

Bayonetta 2 doesn't look more impressive to me. I guarantee if you started a poll most would agree that overall God of War 3 looks more impressive. I'm not saying Bayonetta 2 doesn't have any superior graphical effects, but as a whole it isn't as impressive visually.