If you really think someone that loves Smash Bros. will REPLACE it with Street Fighter IV, you are wrong.
It's as stupid as thinking someone that loves Gran Turismo won't buy the next PS4 to play it because they can play Need for Speed on PC.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
How can people not like 'Nintendo Games'?
- Thread starter Jamix012
- Start date
If you really think someone that loves Smash Bros. will REPLACE it with Street Fighter IV, you are wrong.
It's as stupid as thinking someone that loves Gran Turismo won't buy the next PS4 to play it because they can play Need for Speed on PC.
vasametropolis
Member
Has never played a Nintendo game. Is wrong.
They were good, but gotten stale over the generations.
I outgrew them. Even Mario Galaxy didn't do anything for me. I just wasn't interested in playing it.
Edit: Ugh, the smash argument again? It's not a fighting game. It's its own genre that I'd call Party Platformer. There's nothing wrong with not calling it a fighting game. Any game can be considered competitive.
I outgrew them. Even Mario Galaxy didn't do anything for me. I just wasn't interested in playing it.
Edit: Ugh, the smash argument again? It's not a fighting game. It's its own genre that I'd call Party Platformer. There's nothing wrong with not calling it a fighting game. Any game can be considered competitive.
Mr.Squirrel
Tom
This. A lot of people will say they don't like a certain game and yet haven't even played it.
neverknowsbest
Member
Right and then wraps all of those interesting game mechanics in a grade-school story.
outunderthestars
Banned
Your analogy is faulty because you don't have to invest an additional $170 - $350 in order to watch a Universal picture.
Nintendo games being exclusive makes it more difficult for a gamer who is only interested in a few Nintendo franchises to play them.
Agreed. It is my game of the year thus far.
And that in my opinion is way over simplifying things. Every company on that list has a much larger library of games to choose from than that - and most of the people posting in here are talking about Nintendo's games which are not necessarily considered among their "killer IPs" - things like Fire Emblem, Golden Sun, Xenoblade, and F-Zero.
I don't want to play games designed for everyone, I want games that were designed to appeal to a smaller but dedicated crowd of long time gamers. Because that is what's going to challenge me and keep me satisfied at this point.
Boom, there you have it.
revolverjgw
Member
I'm no hero, I'm no diplomat, and I look down my nose at anybody who can't enjoy Mario Galaxy, these people get my scorn. I'm a bad person, so what
Tathanen
Get Inside Her!
I'd love to agree with you OP, but doing so is not good for my sanity. Some people are just sandboxed into certain segments of taste, and Nintendo as a whole generally does not intersect with them. Like a guy who is all about Madden and COD, the stereotypical dudebro gamer, there is nothing WRONG about his taste, he just occupies a completely different sphere of taste reality than I do. I have no interest in his games, he has no interest in mine. People are different, sometimes that's just the way it's gotta be. And not just stereotypes of people, normal people too! Someone who mainly got into gaming in college playing Counter Strike at LAN parties is gonna have a WILDLY different set of interests than someone who grew up with an SNES.
I know a big part of your point is that "Nintendo" is such a wide-spanning term that it could certainly include at least a game or two that pretty much anyone could enjoy, but ehh.. there are undertones. You can usually tell when a game is a Nintendo game. I wouldn't be so into "Nintendo games" if there wasn't something that linked them all together. The game design philosophies are pretty consistent overall, and they just won't appeal to some people.
Sure, there can be plenty of ignorance when a person writes off an entire company's output, and plenty of people probably make their claims from that kind of place (a few in this thread even). But a reasonable person can arrive at the same conclusion, it's certainly not impossible.
I know a big part of your point is that "Nintendo" is such a wide-spanning term that it could certainly include at least a game or two that pretty much anyone could enjoy, but ehh.. there are undertones. You can usually tell when a game is a Nintendo game. I wouldn't be so into "Nintendo games" if there wasn't something that linked them all together. The game design philosophies are pretty consistent overall, and they just won't appeal to some people.
Sure, there can be plenty of ignorance when a person writes off an entire company's output, and plenty of people probably make their claims from that kind of place (a few in this thread even). But a reasonable person can arrive at the same conclusion, it's certainly not impossible.
vasametropolis
Member
It's much more fair to say you are uninterested. If someone in your position were to say they don't "like" them, for example, they are quite frankly full of shit. In general, a person can't dislike something they've never tried.
Metroid Prime.
Huh? I'm not trolling.
Ratatouille and Wall E are the only things that I can say I enjoyed in any meaningful fashion, and even then I'm kind of ambivalent towards them. That's it. Pretty much don't care about any of their other output or actively dislike what else I've seen, and I've seen much of their output. I tend to lean towards actively disliking most of their work. Hated Up, really didn't like Incredibles, didn't like Monsters Inc, etc.
neverknowsbest
Member
Do give me more details.
Your analogy is faulty because you don't have to invest an additional $170 - $350 in order to watch a Universal picture.
Nintendo games being exclusive makes it more difficult for a gamer who is only interested in a few Nintendo franchises to play them.
Agreed. It is my game of the year thus far.
Does it really matter if they can't afford it? If they can't afford a Nintendo console and don't play their games shouldn't the statement be "I can't really comment on Nintendo's output" not "I don't like Nintendo games."
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
While this is understandable, it still doesn't change the fact that "I don't like Nintendo games" is a pretty ridiculous statement. Because what you're saying falls closer to a more general "I don't like Nintendo/Nintendo's general philosophy" since you admit that there are games that fall outside that description.
When people say they "don't like Nintendo games", they're probably not saying "I've tried all Nintendo games, and didn't like any of them." More likely, they actually mean "while I've enjoyed some Nintendo games in the past, their current output is less exciting to me than the output of other developers, so I play those games instead". Put that way, it doesn't seem unreasonable.
Most of Nintendo's titles are aimed at an extremely broad audience. Lots of people will naturally find that less exciting than titles aimed at their more specific tastes.
Most of Nintendo's titles are aimed at an extremely broad audience. Lots of people will naturally find that less exciting than titles aimed at their more specific tastes.
vasametropolis
Member
nah.
I don't play Luigi's Mansion for the story.
While I just spent two posts defending those who don't really like many Nintendo games, I will rebut this particular concept.
Nintendo has published literally thousands of games at this point, ranging from big epic games like Zelda to quirky downloadable titles or retail releases like Rhythm Heaven.
If you honestly dislike the whole of them, then frankly that represents a mental block which cannot possibly be reasonable. It would be like me saying I dislike every single movie Columbia/Tristar pictures has ever produced; there are so many movies spanning so many genres with everything from wide critical acclaim to huge popular reception to everything in between, that no reasonable movie lover could ever say such a thing without exhibiting some form of bias.
If I said, "I generally don't like the stuff Columbia/Tristar produces?" Sure, that's possible. Maybe they produce significantly fewer films I'm interested in than does, say, Warner Brothers, and given limited time to watch movies I pretty much always watch other films. But if you simply cannot find a single one that interests you -- be that a Columbia/Tristar film or a Nintendo game -- that represents a mental block that is very unlikely to be based on sound reason.
Who said anything about replacing it?
It's about being better and there are better fighting games than Smash.
And you can't compare GT and NFS, because they are on opposite sides of the racing spectrum. One is in-depth sim and the other is arcadey, they both handle racing VERY differently.
djplaeskool
Member
This is probably as well put as it can be.
Exactly, thats why I also said this
But none of this excuses going out and claiming you hate everything they do. Thats just a stupid thing to say when you can just as easily justify your desinterest in lack of funds, time or having your gaming needs completely fulfilled by someone else
katsubento
Member
I never really got into their franchises like Mario and Zelda. They are fine games, but I never cared for them myself. I liked Starfox on SNES and Metroid GameCube though.
Better/more eloquent way of saying what I was feeling and seeing. Good post.
MegaKungFuRadio
Member
I actually found Galaxy to be pretty joyless, but I could never put my finger on why. I was even more confused when I played Galaxy 2 and loved it to death, since they're basically the same game.
Vampirolol
Member
Level design is probably their greatest ability. There are many people who don't get what Metroid is about, but it's just level design + backtracking. And I think Valve is the only company wich can compete on that side.
I can't compare GT and NFS just like you can't compare Smash with other fighting games.
That was my point.
I totally understand what you are trying to say, but I don't know; personally I think videogame messageboards also have that recurring problem in which they overthink every comment made and make some sort comparison. "Well I never see this stuff happening in the movie industry or the music industry!"
I guess games are even more targeted towards someones tastes.
TreasureHunterG
Banned
You may not like Nintendo games and it's nothing wrong about. The problem are some of the reasons being told here which can be objected. These "kiddy" and "I'm too old" excuses aren't convincig reasons for disliking Nintendo.
Couldn't have said better.
Many of Nintendo's games are cut from a similar aesthetic design. If someone doesn't like the universe of Mario platformers they're not going to like Mario Kart/Mario Party/Mario Sports/Mario RPG even though those are all completely different genres of games. The same overly whimsical aesthetic also gobbles up Kirby, Donkey Kong, Starfy, Wario, etc. That's a huge chunk of Nintendo's output that is very similar in tone, aesthetic and universe. It works well for Nintendo, and it's why their crossover games generally work a lot better than the efforts from other companies but it can be a bit grating on people.
I'm sure someone will reply to me listing Zelda, Metroid, Fire Emblem, Custom Robo, etc. I suspect you'll find a bunch of people who "don't like Nintendo games" but have no problems with the four franchises I mentioned. The problem is that those four+ are pushed a tonne less, and released a lot less often than the games from the whimsical aesthetic.
I'm sure someone will reply to me listing Zelda, Metroid, Fire Emblem, Custom Robo, etc. I suspect you'll find a bunch of people who "don't like Nintendo games" but have no problems with the four franchises I mentioned. The problem is that those four+ are pushed a tonne less, and released a lot less often than the games from the whimsical aesthetic.
Mario games are among the most challenging out there. Mario 64 was a nightmare, some stars were so hard to get.
Uncharted, on the other side, is a super easy game. Same with GTA, CoD, etc.
vasametropolis
Member
I like you.
AZ Greg
Member
My favorite rehashed franchises are better than yours!
FairXchange
Member
Works to my favour because unless it's a remarkably good story, I never pay attention to what the story is in a video game.
The only time I ever cared about a story is Demon's Souls and Dark Souls, and those games don't directly tell a story either. It's told in the items, environments, things that aren't directly spelled out.
So I think Nintendo has it right in that regard as well.
Seventy_X_Seven
Member
This
Most people who ive met that said they do not like Nintendo games have played the super popular games such as 2D and 3D Marios, Mario Kart, Mario Party and recently the Wii _____ titles that, yes technically are also Nintendo games.
This means that they have missed the lesser popular ones, and imo far better games in Super Metroid, Earthbound, WarioWare, Prime, Fusion etc.
It is no different than someone seeing Halo and CoD and instantly dismissing the entire FPS genre as "brown dudebro shotters", because they were not exposed to Half Life 1, System Shock, Deus Ex, Unreal and Quake.
I put a couple of hours into the first one when I had the trilogy collection on Wii but it bored me so heavily that I stopped playing and eventually sold it when I ditched the Wii. Granted it's a pretty old game by now but in this era of the FPS I've played a lot more interesting ones.
you know, nintendo's main games have input from a lot of the same people. the way they're designed is mostly the same as well. there are two camps from what i can tell, and they're either koizumi/aonuma or tezuka/miyamoto.
koizumi and aonuma seem to prefer their games to be larger and sprawling, with focus on atmosphere and storytelling. tezuka and miyamoto prefer focusing much more on game mechanics- to the point where if storytelling gets in the way, then it should get out of the way. when you have two camps, and when one wins out most of the time, it's easy to start feeling like you've seen a certain type of design before. a good recent example is probably luigi's mansion and paper mario. both solved the problem of being handheld version of franchise titles the same way, with levels to be completed in just a few minutes. the gameplay is wildly different, but the design choices are generally the same.
when i played rayman 2, it was my favorite 3d platformer, and it was my favorite 3d platformer for a long time... until mirror's edge, or so. there was just this feeling i had about that game i couldn't put my finger on. when i played beyond good & evil, into the first hour of the credits, that same feeling returned. i even remarked to some people here that the last time a game elicited this weird feeling out of me was rayman 2. at that time, i had no idea michel ancel was the director of both.
and i don't think it's limited to nintendo. i personally don't care for sony franchises. sony has a tendency to push a design philosophy i care very little for, which is making their games as immersive and cinematic as possible. generally, i feel you lose a lot on the game mechanic side when you start pushing the background elements more. they don't make bad games (unless you're david cage), but i don't get excited for god of war or uncharted. despite being in very different genres, they seem so very similar to me, and as a whole, uninteresting. i still buy and enjoy some of their first-party titles like littlebigplanet, and i'm looking forward to the last of us and the last guardian (when i get my ps4 in 2016), but nothing they make will have me rushing out to buy a console. so for me it's easy to see why someone would think the same of another company that dabbles in many different styles and genres.
koizumi and aonuma seem to prefer their games to be larger and sprawling, with focus on atmosphere and storytelling. tezuka and miyamoto prefer focusing much more on game mechanics- to the point where if storytelling gets in the way, then it should get out of the way. when you have two camps, and when one wins out most of the time, it's easy to start feeling like you've seen a certain type of design before. a good recent example is probably luigi's mansion and paper mario. both solved the problem of being handheld version of franchise titles the same way, with levels to be completed in just a few minutes. the gameplay is wildly different, but the design choices are generally the same.
when i played rayman 2, it was my favorite 3d platformer, and it was my favorite 3d platformer for a long time... until mirror's edge, or so. there was just this feeling i had about that game i couldn't put my finger on. when i played beyond good & evil, into the first hour of the credits, that same feeling returned. i even remarked to some people here that the last time a game elicited this weird feeling out of me was rayman 2. at that time, i had no idea michel ancel was the director of both.
and i don't think it's limited to nintendo. i personally don't care for sony franchises. sony has a tendency to push a design philosophy i care very little for, which is making their games as immersive and cinematic as possible. generally, i feel you lose a lot on the game mechanic side when you start pushing the background elements more. they don't make bad games (unless you're david cage), but i don't get excited for god of war or uncharted. despite being in very different genres, they seem so very similar to me, and as a whole, uninteresting. i still buy and enjoy some of their first-party titles like littlebigplanet, and i'm looking forward to the last of us and the last guardian (when i get my ps4 in 2016), but nothing they make will have me rushing out to buy a console. so for me it's easy to see why someone would think the same of another company that dabbles in many different styles and genres.
You mean like Metroid, Earthbound, Mario & Luigi RPGs, Xenoblade, some games of the Zelda Series (for example Majors Mask), Fire Emblem, Sin and Punishment, etc. There are many shades of story depth. Nintendo games balance them self between light and above mediocrity. You don't get the depth of games like Planescape Torment or Baldur's Gate with there thousand layers. But many Nintendo games have some of the best written stories in gaming. Especially because they are not unnecessary complex and very focus (and then there is Metroid other M).
BlazingDarkness
Member
People don't think in specifics though.
And it's not something that only Nintendo suffers from.
Many people would say something like 'I don't like MS games. All there is, is shooters and dudebro shit.' Which is factually incorrect, but when you think 'Microsoft' you relate it to 'Halo' not 'Viva Pinata'. It's ALL about brand identity. (Which Microsoft understands, and is in the process of changing to appeal to a larger demographic.)
The philosophy is reflected in the software and hardware, they're businesses, it's in the products.
Ahh this thread delivers. Nothing cracks me up as much as the pearl-clutching of Nintendo fans panicked to awake a world were not everyone likes what they like.
But, to answer the OP question: they don't and have not historically made games I care for. I don't like platformers, and for a time the biggest most popular Nintendo games were exactly that. Since I didn't care for the primary draws of the hardware I never bought any of the hardware, so the wondrous breadth of Nintendo quality - apparently spanning all possible genres! - is naturally lost on me. I get by.
But, to answer the OP question: they don't and have not historically made games I care for. I don't like platformers, and for a time the biggest most popular Nintendo games were exactly that. Since I didn't care for the primary draws of the hardware I never bought any of the hardware, so the wondrous breadth of Nintendo quality - apparently spanning all possible genres! - is naturally lost on me. I get by.
/rips hair out
Canis lupus
Member
It depends on the franchise.
Iorv3th
Member
I used to love nintendo games and although I had both consoles (genesis, snes, playstation, n64) I liked nintendos games the best.
However i think they have done a very poor job of growing with the industry. They don't really have many new ips to offer. I like the rhythm heaven/fever games. But just like modern games like uncharted (which started to feel a little tiresome during 3) I am going to get tired of the same game series after playing it so much.
As the industry changes my taste tends to change somewhat as well as I find new things I enjoy. Mario games (well most platformers) just don't have any appeal to me. While I like Zelda and have always enjoyed zelda (got a wii for TP) I could not bring myself to play past the first dungeon of Skyward Sword. The game felt very tired and unimaginitive (hard to explain this, but it felt like it was too constrained by the zelda theme as almost all zeldas follow a similar story path/progression and gameplay). The motion plus also felt like crap when I played it and it was too bothersome.
Metroid is a series I have always enjoyed, however they stopped after 3 for the prime series and the game also did a lot of things that no other games did at the time that was really fresh. I was really hoping for a new 2d metroid game on ds or 3ds but doesn't look like that's happening (dread never came out).
Pokemon I liked on the original gameboy back in the day, but I can't play that game anymore. I got diamond and it was the exact same game but different names/pokemon but mostly everything else the same... I want new experiences not the exact same game with a new coat of paint.
I want them to succeed and by that, I want them to create games and products that I find appealing. Right now what they have to offer doesn't interest me anymore. After having a 360 and PS3 (and steam) it baffles me how far behind they still are on the online front/technology front.
Basically I feel like Nintendo doesn't want me to play their games as I am not their target demographic. They seem to have lost that push for core games and pushing the power of the systems that they had back in the days of NES/SNES/N64 (even gamecube).
However i think they have done a very poor job of growing with the industry. They don't really have many new ips to offer. I like the rhythm heaven/fever games. But just like modern games like uncharted (which started to feel a little tiresome during 3) I am going to get tired of the same game series after playing it so much.
As the industry changes my taste tends to change somewhat as well as I find new things I enjoy. Mario games (well most platformers) just don't have any appeal to me. While I like Zelda and have always enjoyed zelda (got a wii for TP) I could not bring myself to play past the first dungeon of Skyward Sword. The game felt very tired and unimaginitive (hard to explain this, but it felt like it was too constrained by the zelda theme as almost all zeldas follow a similar story path/progression and gameplay). The motion plus also felt like crap when I played it and it was too bothersome.
Metroid is a series I have always enjoyed, however they stopped after 3 for the prime series and the game also did a lot of things that no other games did at the time that was really fresh. I was really hoping for a new 2d metroid game on ds or 3ds but doesn't look like that's happening (dread never came out).
Pokemon I liked on the original gameboy back in the day, but I can't play that game anymore. I got diamond and it was the exact same game but different names/pokemon but mostly everything else the same... I want new experiences not the exact same game with a new coat of paint.
I want them to succeed and by that, I want them to create games and products that I find appealing. Right now what they have to offer doesn't interest me anymore. After having a 360 and PS3 (and steam) it baffles me how far behind they still are on the online front/technology front.
Basically I feel like Nintendo doesn't want me to play their games as I am not their target demographic. They seem to have lost that push for core games and pushing the power of the systems that they had back in the days of NES/SNES/N64 (even gamecube).