Is Nintendo unknowingly held to higher standards?

Mai Valentine

Mai Valentine

Joined Jun 2004
11K Posts | 0+
Georgia
^
I ask because it seems like people want Nintendo to reinvent the wheel with every game they make. People want Nintendo to stop using their old franchises and make new ones, or to at least do different things with the old franchises.

The problem with that is, when Nintendo actually does try new stuff with their old franchises, people tend to label it as a gimmick and/or refuse to give it a try.

Cases in point:

1) Wind Waker's cel-shading - not quite a gimmick, but people still complained and a lot of so-called "hardcore" Zelda fans (IMO if you didn't at least give WW a try, you're not a hardcore Zelda fan) still haven't even played it.

2) Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventure's connectivity - I'm sure you all know the problems people had with this issue, so I'm not going to go into detail. Suffice it to say that people still complain about this, too.

3) Donkey Konga - Everyone who has played it at least likes it, and most love it. But many people are turned off that it's a music game instead of a platformer.

4) Donkey Kong Jungle Beat - So it's a platformer with Donkey Kong, but now people have to complain about it because it uses the bongos instead of a controller.

5) Super Mario Sunshine's F.L.U.D.D - A lot of people wondered what the heck a water gun was doing in a Mario game, and wondered why SMS wasn't more like SM64.

How can we, as gamers, really expect Nintendo to keep going out on limbs to make their games fresh and exciting if we refuse to try what they've already offered us?

For every one of you who has at some point wished Nintendo would try something different, how many of the above games did you try (not counting DK Jungle Beat, since it's not out yet). How many of the above games did you not even bother with because you "didn't like the changes"? How about people you know?

I'm not singling out anyone here. I'm just hoping to get some good conversation on the subject. :)
 
WW, I honestly didn't give a **** about the new graphics style, music is generally my second set :).  Aside from that, If you're too "mature" to play it, maybe you should stop altogether.  The only real difference between it and the others were these three:

1.  Easier
2.  Shorter
3.  Different graphics.

Four Swords and/or FF: CC

I honestly don't see why everyone got so unhappy about this.  GBA is one of the highest selling systems in the U.S. right?  So then why does everybody that got FF: CC complain about it?  It even tells you on the package that you need them. And for those who've played LoZ FSA, it won't work any other way, peroid.

Super Mario Sunshine:

All I can say is this, the general video game audience of the U.S. apparently dislikes things that have been changed, or are different.  I saw it as a new idea.  Nintendo has made plenty of innovative games (as well as ports too, but that's besides the point) that stray from everything else, yet the general audience won't give any of it a chance.  One of my pet-peeves.

Haven't played Donkey Konga, and Jungle beat doesn't sound half bad, though I'll probably prefer DDR over it.  Which also bugs me, why is it out for both Xbox and PS2, but not for GC?  Isn't that one of your peeves Mai? :lol
 
I think you are somewhat right mai.... and I think Nintendo is on the right track.

I REALLY REALLY liked mario sunshine... the game was amazingly fun.
I cannot say I really dislike any of Nintendo's games that I have played.

BUT I wouldn't call it a higher standard.... because what these people are looking for is not "higher" by any means. They are trying to find something wrong with innovation and some change. I hate change as well... but NIntendo (IMO) has done it well.

These people look at other systems and say "I want NIntendo to be like that." I mean ... not so much incorporate ideals like the other companies... BUT "to be exactly the same." Nintendo won't do this... and Nintendo has always been about breaking the mold... doing something new, WHILE remembering their roots. Nintendo is one of the only companies that venture into the new void while keeping 1 foot in the old ways of their company.

If people want to complain about these fun games... then let them. At least we get to enjoy!

At the same time.... I think its crazy that people sell their Gamecubes because "there is nothing to play on them."

†B†V† :hat
 
It may be that I was thinking of something else and couldn't come up with the words for it.

Maybe it's that Nintendo is held to a double-standard.

There was a thread on IGN about a similar topic (which is where I got the idea for this post) and here's a quote that I find particularly relevant:

You've all seen the complaints. According to some, Nintendo never listens to its fans. Nintendo makes a lot of weird decisions. Nintendo just keeps milking their franchises. Nintendo won't change to keep with the times.

When Nintendo changes something, though, it's different. Nintendo suddenly "is making all the wrong decisions." They're fixing what wasn't broken in the first place. They're ignoring their loyal customers.

Obviously, the consumer is the wrong person to listen to. The consumer doesn't know what he/she wants. The consumer wants radical change that's more of the same. The consumer is always right in the end, but the consumer is never right in the beginning. Why is that?
Click to expand...

The simple fact is that games with brand recognition sell better, so companies can take chances with old franchises and still know that they will make money, and they would rather do this than try the concept on a new franchise. Look at Star Fox Adventures. It was supposed to be Dinosaur Planet, but Nintendo decided to tak on the Star Fox name at the last minute so that it would have more brand recognition. Neph said that is what Capcom is doing with Resident Evil 4, and he's right. But who can blame Capcom? These days, most games in the survival horror genre don't sell very well unless they are Resident Evil, Silent Hill, or Fatal Frame. Midway's The Suffering was critically acclaimed but because it did not carry a well recognized title, it didn't do as well as it should have. The same can be said of Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem. Fantastic game, one of the best on the GC, in fact. But it did horrible in sales.

I always find it interesting that in most cases, the people who complain about the "terrible" state of the industry and such are the same people who are out buying Zelda, Mario, GTA, Madden, Halo, FF, etc. instead of trying new games like Katamari Damacy, Baten Kaitos, Shin Megami Tensei, Beyond Good & Evil, Otogi, Viewtiful Joe, etc. It's like... If you want new franchises, you have to show that you are willing to support them.
 
Personally, I love rehashes and carbon-copy remakes. I didn't like WW for the GC at first because of the graphics. I wanted OOT in GC form, which WW certainly wasn't. I wanted a DK platformer, not a rhythm game. I wanted the exact same view for Starfox, with different levels and better graphics. I know money's always important, but if Nintendo wants to make a rhythm game, go ahead, I don't care, it might be great, but don't tak on some bongo gimmick and then make that the DK game for GC. That is not Donkey Kong, they should create a new mascot and new gimmick and use that. If they really want to try something new then make a cel-shaded game, with a new character/weapons/items/story, hell, that would be great, but don't pass it off as a Zelda...
 
Silent Hill 4 had Silent hill tacked on near the end of the project and a few things tweaked for the purpose of brand recognition.
 
stealth toilet said:
Personally, I love rehashes and carbon-copy remakes.
Click to expand...

I like them too. To a point. I liked how the classic NES Zelda for GBA had slowdown, just like the NES original. But at the same time, it would have been cool if they had upgraded it the way they did with making Pokemon Red/Blue into Pokemon FireRed/LeafGreen. Something to make it more worth the $20 for those who had a problem with that price point.

Nintendo wouldn't really be Nintendo without its franchises though, so I don't mind the constant updates of the franchises (which some call rehashes, but I would beg to differ).
 
All of the older Zeldas had kind of "cartoony" graphics, and all of the artwork for them was pretty "kiddie" as well (just look at the drawings of Link in the original Zelda's manual); and, there was actually an animated Zelda cartoon series as well (it aired on the Super Mario Bros Super Show I believe), so I don't see why the "cartoony cell shaded" look isn't something that should be used in a Zelda game. It seems to fit perfectly... Especially when you think that Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask were the only Zelda games to go for a more realistic look, and every other Zelda game is "cartoonish." Sure, Nintendo was limited by the hardware capabilities of the past systems, and couldn't have made a "very realistic" looking Zelda then, but they could have went with that style of art regardless... And we would have ended up with an overhead perspective Castlevania game.

If Zelda has to have realistic graphics to qualify as "a Zelda game," then why not say the same about Mario games?

Luckily Zelda is the type of game where the graphics can be either realistic or cartoony and still work just as well.
 
Zelda is a little more "mature" than Mario though. I think a lot of the fans that grew up with Zelda had, well, grown up, and were expecting a more mature, darker, story driven Zelda game. I thought WW was good in it's own respect, but after having seen the Spaceworld 2000 demo and having bought my GC thinking that's where the franchise was headed, I was very dissapointed to see them scrap that style for the cel-shaded one.

I want my Zeldas to be epic and engrossing, WW didn't have a hope of doing that with the graphics it did.
 
I have to admit the new Zelda (whatever Nintendo is calling it) is looking very awesome. If the core of a game is good though, I don't think graphical style matters that much. But, it does change the "atmosphere" of a game dramaticaly. Like with Ocarina of Time, the game does feel very "epic," whereas with Wind Waker it seems like more of a "care free" adventure. I personaly like both directions.
 
Haven't played Donkey Konga, and Jungle beat doesn't sound half bad, though I'll probably prefer DDR over it. Which also bugs me, why is it out for both Xbox and PS2, but not for GC? Isn't that one of your peeves Mai?
Click to expand...

Not really. My issue was that people were complaining about having to use bongos for Donkey Konga but no one complains about using dance pads for DDR. I mean you can use controllers either way, but who wants a watered-down experience? Donkey Konga has a MSRP of $49.99 and that includes the game AND one set of bongos. The DDR games, when bundled with a dance pad, carry a MSRP of $59.99. It's a $10 price difference but people are more willing to buy DDR than Donkey Konga because people are familiar with DDR. That ties into the initial post I made about people not willing to try new things. They would rather go with something familiar (even if, like DDR Extreme, it doesn't quite match up to the older games) than try something new.

But yeah, I do have to wonder why Konami won't put a DDR game on the Gamecube. I bet it would sell massively.
 
Hmmm... I wonder how well an arcade version of Donkey Konga would do. Or was there on in Japan already? That would at least contribute to the game's "familiarity" to people.
 
Well F-Zero went for an arcade version, but so far I haven't heard any hype about it.
 
I agree with Mai about fans moaning no matter what Nintendo does. To repeat basically what she said: If Nintendo don't change the formula, people say that their game is just a rehash. On the other side if they change something, or try to do something new, people start saying how they liked the previous one better. It's a hard situation for them, and as the saying goes, "You can't please everyone."

I do also agree that Nintendo are held to high standards, but they are standards that Nintendo themselves have made. Nintendo are one of the (if not the) best developers in the world and overall their output is of a higher quality than most, imo.

With regards to the Zelda discussion, there are both pros and cons to it, of course. Wind Waker has the best controls in a Zelda game, imo. The combat and camera are much improved from WW, as is the storyline and graphics (Read: character design, animation and art style). Of course, the negatives are that the main quest is too short and the game in general is too easy. But despite it's shortcomings, the game still eclipses most other games I've played and is a testament to just how good Nintendo really are.

In some way I'm glad that Nintendo are held to higher standards because it will probably motivate them to make the best game they can, money and time permitting. At the same time though, I get disappointed at how eager some of the gaming press is to slate Nintendo. I think that sometimes they are treated unfairly by people rating their games based on their previous creations, rather than looking at the game as a standalone piece of software.

Although this is slightly off-topic, I'll add it anyway...

One way to get a balanced view (and this is useful for fanboys) is to pretend the game is made by someone else. See what you think of the game as if it was made by a company you hate, or if it was made by a company you've never heard of. If you're honest, and notice that your view of it changes, then you can get rid of your bias and maybe appreciate it more. Maybe some reviewers could take note.
 
Mai Valentine said:
^
I ask because it seems like people want Nintendo to reinvent the wheel with every game they make. People want Nintendo to stop using their old franchises and make new ones, or to at least do different things with the old franchises.

The problem with that is, when Nintendo actually does try new stuff with their old franchises, people tend to label it as a gimmick and/or refuse to give it a try.
Click to expand...

I think I'm the only one here who hasn't whined about Wind Waker's graphics. Therefore I am the only true Nintendo fan.

Nintendo fans have no idea what they want.

As far as reinventing the wheel.....more like rehashing it.
 
Nintendo fans have no idea what they want.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware you were speaking on behalf of millions of people, I must have missed the memo. Apparently all you want to do is antagonise Nintendo fans, and I'll admit, it's beginning to work.

I think I'm the only one here who hasn't whined about Wind Waker's graphics.
Click to expand...

No, but you seem to whine about everything else.

Therefore I am the only true Nintendo fan.
Click to expand...

Let's not say things we both know are obvious fabrications.

As far as reinventing the wheel.....more like rehashing it.
Click to expand...

Well that is the arguement we are discussing. It would be nice if you could back that up with a little more insight on your opinion, as everyone else has, but you seem pretty content with just throwing that out there and letting people like me try and disect some kind of reason or logic out of it. Once again, your plan seems to be beginning to work. Frankly I don't know what's worse, the fact that you take time out of your day to post these illogical and uncalled for statements, or the fact that I waste my time trying to take them seriously.


Anyway...

Beanie mentioned something about how to get an unbiased view of a game, i.e. WW, by pretending it was made by another company. Sorry, but for me that isn't gonna work. I bought WW because of the experience that Nintendo gave me with OOT, and I was expecting WW to provide something along those lines. I couldn't play WW pretending that I never played OOT, simply because I bought my GC with the Zelda franchise as one of my reasons for doing so. In a way I guess you could say I felt as though Nintendo owed me for investing in them. I dunno, whatever the reason, I do hold Nintendo to higher standards, and I expect them to cater to what I want, even if it's unrealistic.
 
please do not bash Neph, stealth.... and the same for everyone else.

Just keep making good discussion.

†B†V† :hat
 
Beanie mentioned something about how to get an unbiased view of a game, i.e. WW, by pretending it was made by another company. Sorry, but for me that isn't gonna work. I bought WW because of the experience that Nintendo gave me with OOT, and I was expecting WW to provide something along those lines. I couldn't play WW pretending that I never played OOT, simply because I bought my GC with the Zelda franchise as one of my reasons for doing so. In a way I guess you could say I felt as though Nintendo owed me for investing in them. I dunno, whatever the reason, I do hold Nintendo to higher standards, and I expect them to cater to what I want, even if it's unrealistic.
Click to expand...

Ok, see, this is more what I meant. Are games this generation like Wind Waker and SMS truly lacking or do they just seem that way because we hold them up to the standards of Super Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time? I love the cel-shading of Wind Waker but I agree with something stealth said in another post about it feeling more like a fetch-quest than OoT did.

But imagine if someone was just starting to play games and they picked up WW and had never played a Zelda game before. Would they enjoy it more than we did because they don't have any expectations?
 
They probably would, and, dammit, that's a good point. Maybe I need to review my game-playing philosophy and try to look at new games for what they independently represent, and appreciate them for what they are, and not what I want them to be. But that would require change, and probably some kind of effort, so I'm just gonna sit back, criticise what I want, when I want, and blame someone else. It's the Canadian way.
 
Login or Register • Reply

Similar Discussions

T
Metroid Samus Returns
Replies
4
Views
4K
targetrasp
T
The current state of gaming
Replies
14
Views
3K
targetrasp
retro junkie
Unholy Night Review
Replies
0
Views
7K
retro junkie
T
New Legend of Zelda
Replies
22
Views
13K
targetrasp