Well I suppose the data don't lie. It's an issue that is continually being cultivated by the very narrow dominate focus of Nintendo's overall game lineup - that is, the games they develop and publish - as family-friendly titles for all ages. The exceptions such as them publishing Fatal Frame don't even make sense when they're not going to publish it in Europe or the USA. They need to aggressively expand the percentage of risk taking titles where they leave their comfort zone. And they can do this while retaining the very personality that makes them so charming in the first place.
So for me the problem remains Nintendo's fault. It's necessary imo to start with a primer on Wii for illustrative purposes, so bare with me if you plan on wasting any time reading my post (I apologize in advance, and every shred of this post is just
my opinion. Nothing is meant as me thinking it's a fact):
Nintendo's consoles have traditionally been more fun-for-all-ages oriented, not that there's anything wrong with that. The problem is as demographics continue to shift, it's not possible to be able to razor focus on one group 90% of the time and still expect mass market penetration. As a console manufacturer, it is your job to create an environment conducive to the type of experiences you most want on your platforms and perhaps encourage gaps to be filled by being willing to spend some cash to get third parties to create in the genres/themes you're not comfortable with (Note:
Iwata has continually said they don't pay third parties like MS and Sony do. So hey if you don't compete, you automatically lose. Don't complain later Iwata!).
Some companies try to cast a wide net, others a more nuanced approach. People always tried to say developers didn't try on Wii, but the truth is many did try. They just didn't try with what people in the hardcore gaming community wanted them to. Stuff like Just Dance, Carnival Games, Boom Blox, Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games, Michael Jackson: The Experience, Sonic and the Secret Rings, Deca Sports, Game Party, EA Sports Active, We Skit, etc. represented many developers grasping what the Wii market was about, and making millions because of it. But how many forum members would say that was 'no effort' at all? I can tell you it's tons of people, because I've discussed this subject on many occasions in the past. They always blamed developers, when it was clear developers were just following Nintendo's leads (and being rather successful primarily only when they did, unless a major franchise name was attached to the title).
The disconnect exists imo because there is some stigma associated with these types of titles in hardcore gaming community. I personally feel because most of these games are shallow low-effort cash grabs (my personal view makes me feel perfectly comfortable including Wii Sports/Resorts in this group, as I've detailed at length before how problematic they were as quality sports games), but whatever I feel they weren't always well received, and they usually came with a hefty dose of associated traits that people generally assumed came along for the ride. It didn't matter that these games represented developers "trying" by responding to the
actual market as it existed on Wii due to Nintendo's efforts. It just wasn't the latest Metal Gear or the new iteration of Final Fantasy, so obviously devs weren't trying in the eyes of many gamers.
Nintendo fostered an environment on the Wii that was illustrated by their casual fare, and supplemented by the hundredth version of Mario, Zelda, Metroid and Donkey Kong. Those franchise always come, so the differetiation is emphasized in the new approaches NIntendo takes. And as they 'led the way', the developed a consumer base that hungered for that very same (in my view garbage bin) mini-game compilation gimmickry parade. I disliked them from the second I tried Wii Sports. I tried too - got my whole family together, they laughed and seemed to adore it and played it for about a week and never touched the Wii again, emblematic of many people's experiences. (As an aside: In general, you can't turn people who do not have an interest in gaming into long-term gamers; they're more for the quick fix, and the emergent mobile gaming market covers much of that.) And those games sold extremely well, customers wanted them, The ones I listed above sold millions a piece! The few exceptions to the rule on Wii were generally those in well established franchises that typically sell anywhere, like Call or Duty or Resident Evil. But everybody knew what the focus of the platform was.
What did NIntendo choose to illustrate for the Wii U? Their advertisements once again focused on fun-for-all concepts that people were fast getting tired of by that point (and because Nintendo all but completely abandoned Wii in the last years of its life, so they felt forgotten and many moved on). They at least tried a little bit more obviously by helping push ZombiU, but the systems were packed in with
NintendoLand with commercials like this - yet another mini-game compilation - another New Super Mario Bros. title, and
Sing Party with commercials like this. They had Rabbids Party from Ubi, Scribblenauts, Skylanders, Your Shape Fitness Evolved, Sonic All-Star Racing, Game Party Champions.
Every major videogame system always gets the sports releases like FIFA and Madden (although not much longer for Wii U, illustrating how dire things are), so that's not going to demonstrate the system was going to be focused on more than the traditional Nintendo console content. They had way past relevancy ports of Batman and Mass Effect 3. a late port of Darksiders II, and a few other niche titles that were also old news by the time they hit Wii U. If it weren't for Zombie U, people were to get the impression that the system consisted of old ports that were either better elsewhere or so ancient that few cared to play a version with upgrades so infinitesimal that they barely registered.
Then we got many many more months of the same type of casual fare mixed with more ancient ports, and the next big title was Lego City Underground - yet another fun-for-all-ages romp that continued to fine tradition of the console being exactly what everyone expects, and were frankly bored with by that point. At least Wii, many thought, had a gimmick that could spice these experiences up. On my Wii U I mostly get map/inventory screens and lame off screen mini-games that I would rather have died than play anyway. Not exactly a compelling reason to jump on board here versus the other platforms.
And it's not like Nintendo shouldn't have realized the problem. They have reams of colorful platforms on Wii U. Endless family friendly outings. There's nothing wrong with those types of games, but diversification is the key. But Hell, even a year after Wii U was out they were saying they were having trouble figuring out compelling ways to sell the Gamepad concept! This is insanity! You can't simply keep coming up with a new gameplay idea and then yet again stick fuckin' Mario in it because you're so risk averse you believe that's the only way it'll sell. They should have confidence that the ideas themselves would sell the product, but they don't. For me this very frequently means the ideas themselves simply aren't particularly compelling, and many times this is correct as far as I'm concerned.
Yarn Kirby was disastrously easy, a glorified collection game without a single bit of compelling level design, obstacle navigation or enemy progression. It was cloying to the extreme. They probably realized nobody wanted to play this gameplay, and that it'd be even harder to sell if it was headed by a no-name character like "Prince Fluff." But then they added Kirby, and voila! Your game sells, despite the quality of the actual content which might as well have played itself for how insultingly easy it was. Shit, it wasn't even a decent scavenger hunt. It's not like they were trying to sell some impressive story. These games live and die on their gameplay, and the gameplay was a mind numbing cake walk surrounded by a gorgeous art style. I'm surprised I even lasted as long as I did without falling asleep at the wheel. Point is, you can insert your own view on many of their concepts, but they keep diluting the strength of their brands by continually thinking the way to success is to make a cool new gameplay idea (or sometimes not-so-cool) and then bury it beneath Yoshi's asscrack.
I like my Wii U a fair amount now. It came into its own a year after its launch, delivered Pikmin 3, Wonderful 101 and a slew of really good indie titles. I'm getting Splatoon, Xenoblade Chronciles X, Bayonetta 2. Super Mario 3D World was pretty good. Zelda U in the future looks mouthwatering. They are going to get some great titles.
But it's too little too late at this point to meaningfully change the systems trajectory, and that's a shame. It's a system that had a lot of potential to bring back Nintendo at their most boldly focused, hardcore gamers once again taking center stage in their productions.
The essential point to this long-winded narrative about what I feel keeps happening is that Nintendo has got to start leading the way. It is time they cast off all preconceived notions about they
must do as a company who has always done this or that, and started diving headfirst out of their comfort zone. They have to make partnerships with third parties willing to create games that are not "mature" in the sense of blood and gore and sex (although if appropriate, they should), but 'mature' in terms of the careful handling of adult themes and experimental gameplay that speaks to the importance of sometimes focusing more directly on specific niche demographics.
Their ideas keep getting more and more like they just want to double down. Amiibos for example do not change Nintendo's reputation in this regard, if anything they reinforce it. Splatoon looks like a heck of a lot of fun and I want it, but thematically and artistically it eschews anything but the same fun-for-all-ages vibes the vast majority of all their releases have. I'm not asking them to stop making those, because I love those games more often than not. But I am saying that if Nintendo means to be relevant into the future, they have to be willing to change the focus a bit. Maybe push a larger fraction of their overall game releases to be a bit more risky and focusing on the 18-32 male demographic. Perhaps if they're too scared of that, they can form more meaningful partnerships. They are trying now a little bit, but Wii U is clearly too late to salvage. So I hope they begin to apply lessons learned in things like Bayonetta 2 partnership and Devil's Third agreement that they need to have these titles available on day one, they need to push them just as hard as any Mario game, and they need to be willing to prop up indie devs that cast nets into experimental waters and give them the budgets to make AA titles, like Sony keeps increasingly doing with titles such as The Tomorrow Children and Rime.
I love Nintendo. I want them to maintain the character they have always had
