http://www.industrygamers.com/news/nintendo-to-third-parties-weve-done-our-job/ http://www.industrygamers.com/news/nintendos-reggie-on-wii-core-games-wii-hd-shortages--more/ "One of the things I find very interesting about this industry is that people don't seem to want to look at propositions from the consumer viewpoint. And I think that's very troubling. We're constantly thinking about how the consumer is thinking about the product. How do they approach it? What's in it for them? Why should I as a consumer open my wallet or pocketbook to buy product X? We constantly think about that, because in the end, if the experience isn't compelling enough, if the value isn't strong enough – and value meaning what you get for what you pay – then there's nothing in it for the consumer. And a product will die. I can look back over the last 2-3 years with products that have died in the marketplace, because they were not thought of from the consumer point of view." reggie fils-aime this is one of the key factors as to why nintendo games sell very well on the wii and why third party games aren't doing so well. games like guitar hero and rock band are good third party examples because people get to pretend their famous guitarist or rock band groups.
this is a very interesting topic, wii music. it is definitely crap but it is crap for a reason and a very good reason why game developers should never make a stand alone game that follows a similar idea. you should google why wii music fail, but make sure you're reading the right information because there's a lot of crap out there. the biggest problem with nintendo is nintendo themselves. they don't compete with themselves. it's a problem because they will never beat their best and it's something that they'll be able to make games that no one would or could ever imagine. there is also in-house problems. you have nintendo developers that are making games but they are games that they think is good. for instance, miyamoto keeps making 3d mario, but people don't really care for it as the people weren't going nuts for mario galaxy as opposed to mario wii. it took nearly 20 years for nintendo to make a mario game that people actually wanted to play.
What. Super Mario 64 and New Super Mario Bros did exceptionally well when they came out. Galaxy did well, too. Mario has been iconic ever since his debut in 1981 in Donkey Kong. Get your facts straight.
"And we also recognize that we don't create that type of content ourselves. We're not good at it and it's not a key focus area" sound like "we are too lazy to make anything other then italian plumber, gay elf, armored lesbian and yellow mouse"
Too lazy? Have you seen how well "mature" games sell on Nintendo hardware? Not very. As a developer and as a business, Nintendo would be wasting money on developing a "mature" game for the kiddies that need their blood, gore, tits, and cursing to feel like grown-ups. One of the ways to do business is to accentuate your strengths and cover up or avoid your weaknesses. Nintendo's designers are surely capable of a "mature" type game, but would they put as much effort and vision into those games as they do their core franchises? I would guess not, since "mature" games are generally limited by a realistic style... and you cannot do what Mario and Zelda do in a realistic game. It just won't work. It sounds like someone is upset that Nintendo isn't "growing up with them", when in fact their taste has simply changed. Why would you want a company to focus on what they're not good at?
the sales of mario galaxy shows that it was not a good game, all those wii owners and the game only sold about 9 million. but the sales of new mario wii shows it's a good game as it's over 12million and will continue. the sales of mario 64 on the n64 showed that it was luke warm because if it was not as successful, it would have won over ps1, but it did not. what pushed snes sales was not a mario game but donkey kong country. donkey kong country was a must own and a system seller for the snes. it took nintendo nearly 20 years to make a mario successor that pushed hardware sales. there were other mario games released in the past but they did not push hardware sales as much as how new mario wii has. this means people wanted a new 2d mario and no one cared about 3d mario. yet nintendo keeps making more 3d mario and other crap games. it's hard for nintendo to make new intellectual property games. this is why they keep using old intellectual properties over and over. nintendo isn't simply making mature games for simply of mature games. they make games to sell their hardware and that is where they put their efforts on. this is where nintendo needs third parties, but third parties are stupid. third parties say, everyone buys nintendo games and they sell, but as mentioned before, how would they explain games like wii music, and animal crossing, which are not doing so well. as mentioned over and over again, there is a market for people who would have like to have resident evil 5 on wii as well as street fighter 4, but third parties they have their reasons for not making those games on the wii. it's a missed opportunity for them. who's fault is that, nintendo?! btw, it's not hardware limitation either so you can't use that arguement because street fighter 4 and the unreal engine 3 is on the iphone, so why are third parties neglecting the wii?! ask them! i was really hoping electronic arts would have made dead space like resident evil but they really screwed up. i played wii sports resort and now i'm hoping some developer would make a freelancer like game with the remote. but they'll probably think i'm a retarded gamer and make it a rail shooter.
I have to stop you right there ultra, your first sentence basically ruins your entire point you're trying to make. Metacritic gogogo. You still have the ridiculous idea that sales =/= quality. Wow, just wow. I don't know how many times Hypr and I have told you otherwise. May I point you to Dead Space, Mirror's Edge, MadWorld, No More Heroes etc etc. Here's a whole article on great Wii games that bombed, they were great, if not good, but didn't sell. Mario 64 didn't sell as well since the N64 didn't sell that great as a whole system, along with the late release of the N64 after the Playstation. I bet a lot of people bought a PSX and thought, why would I need another console when I already have a great one? Along with Mario 64, Mario 64 introduced a lot of things that platformers didn't have before, which was total camera control. I can say that I don't like it more than other Mario games, but I can say that it's pretty damn good despite not selling that great. Donkey Kong Country sold hardware because of the graphics, it's faux 3d enticed the people at the time, it was impressive and not many people were aware of that level of fidelity. Would you say that DKC was better than Super Mario World? I sure as hell wouldn't, I'm sure that a majority agree with me. People wanted a 2d Mario due to it's familiarity. I know many people that are my parent's age have NEVER touched a 3D console with the exception of the Wii, they played a NES and played Mario though. What looks more familiar, Mario running along planets, or a 2D Mario game in the vein of the older ones? I personally like Mario Galaxy better than New Super Mario Bros. The multiplayer on NSMB loses it's value over time and beating the game maybe, twice (to collect the coins) and then it gets boring. Mario Galaxy lasted me a lot longer than NSMB. Look at the sales from most mature games on the Wii, you have the reason why. There's a market there, yes, but it's not a good selling one. With the exception obviously given to CoD since it's a household name now. Visceral Games made Extraction. I'm glad they made Extraction like they did, if they made it a FPS with would've made the game less of a.. I don't know, rush? If you've played through the game, you would know that it has a feeling that you have to find a way out of the station quick before the necromorphs get you. And if they made it a shooter like RE or like the first, it would of felt like some pivotal moments of the game are more distant from the player. The part where Spoiler the main character takes off his arm , it would've been incredibly less epic or important to the player if it were third person. I'm probably a minority here but I don't like the Motion Plus that much, I feel like it should of had it before and I hate that I have to calibrate it every 10 minutes or so whenever I pick up Wii Sports Resort. Ultra, I seriously don't even know what you're trying to convey in this post. At all, you're all over the place. I buy Nintendo consoles for Nintendo's games, I usually never expect great games outside of Nintendo, and if there are, great. But it doesn't happen as often as say anything from the 360 or PS3. The few games I can say that excite me on the Wii as of now and later are Nintendo's games (Zelda/Metroid/Mario/Pikmen), I don't know anything else. I do know that the PS3/Xbox 360 have a couple good games coming out next month, the month after there's Alan Wake which looks pretty cool, and I think a game in the summer. Then there's the holidays where it gets a bit hazy as I don't remember what's coming, although Nintendo is going to sell a lot of Mario and Metroid. I have to disagree with your point xelados, that mature games have to adhere somewhat to reality for violence. I don't really think so, although violence doesn't have a place in Pikmen, Animal Crossing, Mario, or Donkey Kong. I can see a bit in Zelda though (look at the blood in OoT), but not gratuitous amounts like No More Heroes or Fallout or any game made by Unreal.
Since when have sales ever even suggested the quality of a game? If that were the case, then all those casual non-games and licensed movie games would surely be some of the best games ever, rite? A game's quality is usually dictated by the talent behind its design and the amount of time spent on it, among other factors. It's not something that you can judge objectively, because games are an art form. I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post because I can't make any sense of it. If Nintendo were to get into the "mature" space, they'd be torn apart by the 360 and PS3, which already have plenty of experience in appealing to that market. They know what those gamers go for and know exactly how to get them to spend their money. The whole concept just doesn't gel well with Nintendo's current or past methodology. I hate to compare Nintendo to Apple here, but it's a similar case; people buy Nintendo because they want experiences that only Nintendo can offer. No other game maker can deliver an experience like Mario, Zelda, or Metroid. They are old, established, unforgettable, and often-mimicked franchises that aren't going anywhere anytime soon. If faced with the decision between appealing to low-loyalty, appearance-oriented gamers (the "mature" crowd) or longtime fans of core franchises, which do you think Nintendo will care more about? Nintendo's focus this generation has been to convert non-gamers into gamers. This is known in the business world as "expanding the market". It starts with casual, easily-played games, and then it expands into core gaming through the use of assistive technology such as the Super Guide or Mega Man 10's Easy mode; two concepts that help non-gamers get into it while still allowing the seasoned ones to enjoy themselves. By the end of the next generation of consoles, Nintendo may be satisfied with its expanded audience and cut down on the casual game output, since the casuals will have either stopped gaming or turned into core gamers by then. But I digress... as Natalie's already outlined, there are already games on the Wii that are thought of as "mature" and yet they don't sell well. Is that indicative of their quality? Probably not. It has to do with their content. The fact is that most Nintendo fans are not into blood, gore, heavy violence, or hyper-realism. Much like it's smart to choose to right tool to finish a job, you must also choose the right console for the content. If you want shooters and lots of 'mature' content, get a 360. If you want old, well-established franchises, go with Nintendo. If you want a good mix of things + a little emphasis on RPGs, go Sony. Re: violence and realism - Most action games have plenty of violence, yeah, but the type that the 'mature' gamer goes for practically requires realism since they will nitpick things that cannot happen in the real world unless it's something incredibly useful in-game. I'd say that "high-detail" would be more suitable for me to use than "realism"; the two just happen to go hand-in-hand very often. All I was saying with my comment is that a lot of the concepts present in Mario, Zelda, et al. would not hold up in a game designed for the 'mature' crowd because it would venture too far from reality and break the suspension of disbelief. That demographic wants games that are immersive and feel as close to real life as you can get. That means that most concepts you add in need to look or seem realistic in order to keep the gamer interested. I imagine such gamers wouldn't appreciate games which break or lampshade the 4th wall, either. It's just the nature of the beast. *shrugs*
