Only Nintendo Understands Handheld Gaming

Doing its own thing is something Nintendo has always understood, and why it has utterly dominated the handheld gaming sector. There were certainly other companies vying for a portion of the market when portable electronic games first started appearing in the late seventies, but it was Nintendo – or more specifically legendary industrial designer Gunpei Yokoi – that realised form factor, price, battery life and cuteness were going to be the defining features of a successful product.

Nintendo knew almost instinctively that we can think of miniature games as something endearing. There is something about the reduced form factor that allows us to enjoy ostensibly limited and child-like experiences. The industrial design legend Donald Norman talks about how humans project a series of expectations onto objects, and how designers need to understand these in order to make successful products. In short: we kind of want small things to be cute – and Nintendo gets that.

But Nintendo’s rivals have usually made the error of thinking that to compete with Nintendo they had to beat it in terms of technology. The Neo Geo Pocket and Bandai Wonderswan totally understood the appeal of the cute, but they were largely restricted to the Japanese market. In terms of global competitors – from the Sega Game Gear, through the Atari Lynx to the PlayStation Portable and Vita – the philosophy has been “bringing the home console experience to your pocket”. Not only has that proved costly to the consumer in terms of retail price and battery life, it grates against what a lot of people want from a portable experience.

The PlayStation Portable wasn’t cute. Vita isn’t cute. Both tried to compete, in industrial design terms, with home consoles and with smartphones, dropping into an awkward aesthetic space between the two. When gamers first saw Ridge Racer on the Sony PSP they gasped in wonder – a true console experience on the go – but it turned out that not many people wanted that; not just because PSP was more expensive, but because (to a lot of people) it just felt weird to sit on a bus with this ostentatious piece of cold, sleek gaming technology.

The idea of the Vita as a mini PlayStation 3 or 4 has stifled the creativity of developers. Stunted compromised spin-offs of major console titles like Uncharted and Call of Duty have done very little except underline the differences between a home machine and a portable gadget. They didn’t work. It’s no coincidence that the most successful series on Sony’s handheld machines – Monster Hunter – is very much in the Nintendo mould of highly sociable titles with childlike collection systems.

The GameBoy, the DS and the 3DS haven’t just dominated this sector because they got the basics right – battery life, cost and sturdiness – they dominated because Nintendo understands that small things are cute and that cuteness pervades the whole experience. This is exactly what’s going on in the smartphone sector with Candy Crush, Fruit Ninja and Angry Birds. Bringing a game like Animal Crossing: Happy Home Designer into work or school is a very specific experience that has nothing to do with technology or gadgetry.

The Vita hasn’t really struggled because of mobile games, it has struggled because people don’t want to hug it.

Source

I mean, I'm not sure I agree with the specifics- they seem to be a bit too simplified (to claim that Sony's games like Patapon or Locoroco for PSP didn't understand handheld game design, for example, would be disingenuous), but on the whole, I think the piece is right- the reason Nintendo has stayed at the top of the handheld game market for three decades now is because they, and apparently they alone, actually understand what makes for a good handheld, and for a good handheld game.

Thoughts, System Wars?

The 3ds lineup is a bunch of home console like experiences(and remasters of previous home consoles, go figure). Just terrible article. Home console on the go isn't the problem here.

I really just think it is down to the price of the system and its games.

Absolutely! Everything, from Mario 3D Land, Fire Emblem, Kid Icarus Uprising, Mario Kart 7, A Link Between Worlds, and Smash Bros., to the actual console ports that litter the system (Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Xenoblade, Hyrule Warriors, Donkey Kong, Star Fox) speaks to Nintendo not necessarily going out of their way to make a 'mobile game' any more. I mean, sure there is Animal Crossing and Pokemon, but the bulk of the 3DS library is console like- which is exactly why the Wii U is in trouble.

Like I said, I am not sure I agree with the specifics in the article, but it is a question worth asking- how is it that Nintendo properties translate fine to handhelds and find acceptance, where Sony properties generally do not?

I think its Nintendo focusing on so many little things that it builds up this experience that makes it acceptable. People can come together and game on it, so many different genres to choose from, so many different experiences. It form is cute, its cutting edge and modern looking, which is how people like things.

The Wii U is misunderstood, it should be selling better, but it seems some of its features are not as acceptable. Your kid wants a 3DS, tablet, phone and a Wii U now.

Yet Nintendo sucks at consoles and Sony doesn't. Each one has it's strength.

Of course, but my question here is more to do with software- Nintendo can make effective home console software, but Sony generally cannot make effective handheld software, at least not within the confines of their traditional studios and games. I am just wondering why that is, is all.

yup.

Vita would have been fine if it was accessible as PSP. But instead, they priced it too high, made proprietary memory cards, and charged a ransom for them. Your average gamer isn't going to buy something like this.

I feel like the Vita would have done much better if there was much more advertisement and was much more cost effective.

Oh yeah, and it also needed games. With only a handful of games I saw myself playing, versus the PSP days where I would have played at least 20 different games, I didn't see much point in buying a Vita.

Nintendo 3ds has more than enough games and is getting more .... That's why it sells

I don't think Nintendo understands anything about anything to be honest. That's why their consoles fail and the only time they had any success they did not even understood why it was because it was just luck.

If Nintendo handhelds are more well received I think it has to do more with the fact that it has no competition and because of tradition. Their handhelds have been on top for so long that most of that market could not be bothered with change, and dude, people hate change so much even if they don't realize it. And not to mention that even popular games that were born on a Sony platform, like Monster Hunter, are now exclusive to Nintendo because it's basically a monopoly at this point.

If Sony games don't do well that's probably because they are just too ambitious for handhelds. Nintendo IP's translate well because their focus is not graphics or story but gameplay. And their gameplay tends to not be that complex either, which is good to play on a mobile device and it caters to a wider audience too, especially children and women.

It launched with the same price as the psp, & 3ds. Though the system had a hidden cost.

So many factors play into this, from hidden costs (required memory), to sony trying to sell the vita to a demo that has no interest in playing handheld, all the way to completely ignoring the system in gaming events(including the biggest, e3), & failing to address the concerns of those that bought into the system, but most importantly, developers.

The 3DS' late 2015/2016 lineup alone would be enough to revitalize the Vita. That's how strong it's going to be.

I remember some third-parties going full berserk mode on the PSP. Square Enix in particular was just releasing great games left and right. I actually had a backlog. But now they seem busy producing shit for iOS and Android, so yeah, good times.

PSP was an awesome handheld, the Vita ? quite expensive and when you had to purchase a 100 bucks SD ----> I´ll pass !

Fact. Sony think putting neutered console games on a handheld is the way forward. Nintendo redesign their games from the ground up for their handhelds. I mean there were some great games on the PSP, but there were more realized versions on it's console counterpart in most cases.

hardware wise i think sony got it very close to spot on this time. the PSP was a badly designed, half thought out mess and the UMD media was a joke. just more trojan horse nonsense from them. but the vita is, without exception, the finest mobile device to play games on in existence. they absolutely nailed it. its developer friendly, sensible hardware, built like a tank, comfy to use on long sessions and it can just deliver excellent games. cost of developing high end games on it probably didnt help much but as a piece of gaming hardware it has few faults. hell its even more innovative than the 3DS (which, as a piece of mobile gaming hardware, is quite poor by nintendos standards.

the memory cards were a bitter pill to swallow, no question. sony really should have handled it better.

plenty of companies know how to make games suitable for a handheld and, as nintendo show, console games can be just fine on a handheld with a few tweaks. so i dont agree with this assessment either. anything from COD to an elder scrolls game can be great on a handheld with a few tweaks.

the problem for the vita goes back to sony just not pushing the system. very few of the top teams at sony worked on vita projects. sony didnt do a lot to get 3rd parties involved. they didnt push the system at events. momentum is a big thing in this business and sony did very very little to try and get some momentum for the vita.

ports of console games is pointless, late ports even more so. it needed more games like creed or uncharted (its own games in a big franchise). if it had its own diablo (that type of game is great on a handheld), borderlands (also great on a handheld), dark souls (with tweaks could be a sweet handheld title), elder scrolls (same as dark souls), GT (seriously how is it the vita doesnt have a GT?), god of war (a poor port of old games doesnt count), COD and so on it would have been in far better shape. it would mean sony would have to splash some cash but remember, its a handheld. AAA title development still wouldnt get close to that of a PS3 title. you would probably be looking at the average cost of a PS2 title for these games. the likes of killzone and terawawy were the right idea but they came too late and were too few.

this is in complete contrast to nintendo. nintendos best developers also work on 3DS games. the 3DS gets as much time as the wiiu at big events, sometimes even more so. the 3DS is very much a first class citizen at nintendo HQ and it shows.

While their recent home consoles have been questionable (I personally like Wii and WiiU but they have a lot of issues) their handhelds have always been nothing less than stellar. The GBA had just so many great games, ports, remakes and new ones that made it a must own system, and the DS expanded on that even more. I think the great thing about them is that all kinds of developers see potential in handheld gaming, because their third party support on handhelds has always been great (as awesome as many of Nintendo's DS games were, the system wouldn't be half as good without the stellar third party titles it had). And since handhelds are becoming stronger and stronger in terms of processing, the types of games that can be played on them is only growing. Their handheld games tend to be no bullshit, no fuss gameplay driven experiences, and I don't care who you are, it's tough to resist a lot of them. Plus, they really do know the difference between a handheld game and a console game- how to structure it in different ways for the system.

Plus, the designs of them are just awesome. GBASP still has my personal favorite handheld design ever- big enough to be comfortable but small enough to perfectly fit in one's pocket or other carrying method.

I think Nintendo is just the go to name for handhelds to the point where they don't have to particularly try in order to effectively wipe out the competition.

It's certainly true that Sony doesn't fully understand handheld gaming, and neither did Sega. It's sad because Sony don't know what they have. I have had a lot of use out of the vita, but it's not the likes of Killzone and Uncharted which I've been playing. It's games I already had in many cases, and games I got free with PSN. Indie titles and classics. I played Symphony of the Night and Streetfighter Alpha 3 more than the new titles with the exception of Persona which was a last gen port. Spelunky, La Mulana Ex, Race the Sun, much more suited to handhelds. Didn't pay for one of them.

They take the base of a home console and scale it down and don't take into account the on the go aspect. That is where the focus should have been.

If we're talking about software, ok. Hardware? They've got some work to do.

@charizard1605:

Looking at Sony PS3 flagships like GoW, KZ, GT, UC, they're more on pushing the latest console visuals with their main studios and perhaps with MP/servers to back them up.

Some seem also to mechanically benefit with the complete L2/R2/L3/R3 w/c the VITA lacks (if backpad/front screen's used, might feel gimmicky). It's probably harder to cram those "less stylized/cartoony" well done looks while having large MP, etc. on a device with no cheap optical media and weaker hardware and mechanics would be affected with the lack of physical controls. I do know there was a 32MP game on the PSP tho.

Understands handhelds but completely out of their f*cking mind when it comes to consoles.

Char is back. Wonder where he went.

Nintendo understands handheld gaming, yet it remains to be seen with the NX handheld if they will continue to do so in light of mobile dominance.