What The Forest Taught Me
Member
You do realize NOA can't make any decisions of that level of significance without NCL's approval?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
What do you consider Nintendo's most illogical or baffling decision?
- Thread starter Version 3.0
- Start date
You do realize NOA can't make any decisions of that level of significance without NCL's approval?
I've suspected the same.
Really, the only talent that I'm aware of that left Rare before the buyout was members of the Goldeneye team. They went on to make Timesplitters. The DKC and Banjo teams were still there. People should definitely give Eurogamers article "Who Killed Rare?" a read. It details how Microsoft's mismanagement changed the studio for the worst.
Using a last-gem semiconductor process for the Switch makes no sense. The new technology would have allowed them to double the processing power, lower the power requirements (and extend the battery life), and is cheaper due to better yields.
This would have allowed the Switch to play 3rd party ports of PS4 games, which would have drastically increased its value as a console hybrid. right now it'll end up suffering from the same issue as the Wii U - an eventual lack of content as developers choose to focus on the larger ecosystem that PS4/XBONE/PC affords. This was avoidable with no downsides.
This would have allowed the Switch to play 3rd party ports of PS4 games, which would have drastically increased its value as a console hybrid. right now it'll end up suffering from the same issue as the Wii U - an eventual lack of content as developers choose to focus on the larger ecosystem that PS4/XBONE/PC affords. This was avoidable with no downsides.
I definitely think the most consequential was going with cartridges for the N64. As OP states, there were reasons they did it, but in hindsight it's easy to see how terrible that was for them long-term, and set up the current landscape where Nintendo is always taking a back seat technically.
Personally, I'd say their issues with a unified online service and emulation has been their weakest area, considering that Nintendo's greatest strength is their deep portfolio of treasured games and they've generally been pretty good about backwards compatibility (moving to a GBA I didn't lose my GBC games, Wii running the minidiscs, et al.)
I assume they just weren't interested in eating additional costs up front, or in delaying the product any longer. I agree that they would be much better off had they waited, but who knows what kind of pressure they were operating on. They certainly weren't going to run out of money but it's not like shareholders would particularly understand or approve a more long-term view like that.
Personally, I'd say their issues with a unified online service and emulation has been their weakest area, considering that Nintendo's greatest strength is their deep portfolio of treasured games and they've generally been pretty good about backwards compatibility (moving to a GBA I didn't lose my GBC games, Wii running the minidiscs, et al.)
I assume they just weren't interested in eating additional costs up front, or in delaying the product any longer. I agree that they would be much better off had they waited, but who knows what kind of pressure they were operating on. They certainly weren't going to run out of money but it's not like shareholders would particularly understand or approve a more long-term view like that.
Garou
Member
No downsides except completely missing the 299 pricepoint.
That's the problem.
There's a "sweet spot" for consumers with retail prices. If it's too expensive, it won't sell enough.
The Horror the horror
Banned
The Goldeneye team provided Nintendo its first person shooters and set the N64 as the quintessential platform for the genre. Without that team, Rare was another platformer factory among the many housed in Nintendo. In other words, they became what Retro has turned into now.
I'd be inclined to agree if Retro could pump out games as fast as Rare could. Development cost had risen, so that plays a factor into it. I just think it's crazy that Retro hasn't been expanded yet.
What The Forest Taught Me
Member
Wow. I had no idea about this.
gunstarhero
Member
No HD support on the Wii.
Two different screen widths in the 3DS.
Naming the WiiU the WiiU.
Two different screen widths in the 3DS.
Naming the WiiU the WiiU.
The Horror the horror
Banned
I suppose you don't need a big team if developing throwback platformers fulfills the extent of your goals and ambition.
The fact that they didn't get a comprehensive Virtual Console library ready for the Switch launch. It's almost literally money for old rope, is great for filling in gaps during possible droughts, comes at a time when the NES mini has proven once again the real thirst for Nintendo classics, and should be especially popular when adding portability and multiplayer-out-of-the-box.
True, however we have Metroid and DK fans at eachothers throats because of it. This problem could be easily fixed if the studio could work on both.
epeternally
Member
My theory - and this is pure speculation - is that the no new characters mandate is Miyamoto's response to Rosalina. There's been fairly strong rumors that Miyamoto cut down the more detailed story intended for Mario Galaxy because of his own personal distaste for story in games. Rosalina somehow made it into the final cut but with whatever explanation there was for why she looks like a tall Princess Peach missing. So Nintendo are now stuck with this character that they can't drop because she's hugely popular, and her entire appearance immediately gives the impression that she is the child of Mario and Peach. Nintendo is basically Disney, the last thing they want is for people to be thinking about their characters having sex. After this debacle Miyamoto put his foot down about adding new characters to the Mario canon, thus destroying the Paper Mario series.
Jubenhimer
Member
Iwata made mistakes in the Wii U era no doubt, but much of Nintendo's current rebounding was put forth by him. He was the kind of guy who knew how to bail games and even companies out of a jam. Not to mention, you're forgetting he led Nintendo through their most successful and profitable generation with the Wii and DS.
The entire point of the Wii was to address the issue that gaming was becoming too exclusive. At the time, games were becoming more complex, more demanding, more intimidating, and more expensive to make. Nintendo wanted to address that. The Wii was created as a user-friendly alternative for people who never really played games before, to show the joy of this medium, and to expand the demographics and people who played games, and destroy the negative connotations associated with the term "gamer". Many hardcore gamers didn't like this, as they felt Nintendo was trying to destroy their precious hobby by making it cool to old people. Many of these people completely missed the entire point of Nintendo's philosophy with the Wii. Deliberately going against conventional wisdom address a problem the industry was ignoring was a ballsy move and should be commended.
Also Nintendo wasn't doing "just fine" with 3rd party support on the N64 or GameCube. Both systems were panned by developers for their limited storage mediums and Nintendo's draconian control at the time. They weren't as rich in 3rd party support as you think.
Mostly a lack of IP leveraging. There's a lot of bad decisions they've made over the years, but all of that could've been cushioned if they had gotten serious about pushing more of their IP behemoths in the 2000s. I kind of get why they got scared off of that, because of the changing structure that made NoA more subservient to NCL, they weren't going to license stuff to American production companies willy-nilly like the old 80s and early 90s cartoons based on Nintendo properties, but something more carefully centrally managed like Pokemon for other franchises would've been a good way to give them a stronger financial engine, which would have helped them in other sectors.
Boy Wander
Member
Remember the fucking confusing Wii U reveal where everyone thought it was a new controller for the Wii?
SonicMegaDrive
Member
NES Classic is up there. What should have brought a lot of goodwill and renewed interest in their classic catalog of games instead resulted in a lot of frustration and spurned would-be customers.
Not making a Luigi's Mansion game for the Wii. They had the install base and a remote that could replicate the vacuum cleaner game mechanic. Such a missed opportunity.
Similarly, not developing a Metroid Prime game on the Wii U. The Gamepad could have acted as the scanning visor, for one thing, which could have really promoted the second screen gameplay idea.
The 3DS launch - poor line-up, high price and subsequent strategy re-think - was one candidate but the way they turned it around was phenomenal. Price drop, Super Mario 3D Land and Mario Kart 8 turned the device from joke to success in such a short space of time.
Similarly, not developing a Metroid Prime game on the Wii U. The Gamepad could have acted as the scanning visor, for one thing, which could have really promoted the second screen gameplay idea.
The 3DS launch - poor line-up, high price and subsequent strategy re-think - was one candidate but the way they turned it around was phenomenal. Price drop, Super Mario 3D Land and Mario Kart 8 turned the device from joke to success in such a short space of time.
Father_Brain
Banned
It's true that Iwata led Nintendo to spectacular success with Wii and DS, and that he spearheaded the Switch (which is at the very least a vastly better-conceived product than their previous two platforms, though it's much too early to really judge its performance).
It's also, however, true that 3DS and (especially) Wii U were conceived entirely under his watch, and that until the scope of their failings started to become apparent, he did little to nothing to fix the underlying cultural and structural problems (Japan-centrism, excessive conservatism, overall insularity) that had plagued the company since well before he took over. In fact, he made the Japan-centrism much worse by turning NoA and NoE into marketing/localization arms for NCL, which looks particularly bad in hindsight since this was done at the beginning of the generation when Western devs started to really conquer the console market.
And N64 and GC had much better third-party support than what you're suggesting here. GC was still getting a large percentage of Western multiplatform titles as late as 2005.
daTRUballin
Member
I also remember reading that a group of people left Rare before the Free Radical split happened and formed a company called Eighth Wonder to develop PlayStation games. Although it amounted to nothing since the company was later closed with having released no games at all. I think they were a couple members from the DKR and Goldeneye teams, but I'm not sure.
Perfect Dark still turned out great even after the Free Radical devs left in the middle of development. Also, we don't know how Perfect Dark Zero would've turned out on the GameCube, so don't play the "Oh, but PDZ sucked" card.
Jubenhimer
Member
Much of the deeper issues with Nintendo have to do with the company's nature as a Kyoto firm. As Dan Adelman said, Nintendo is conservative even by Japan's standards, and to get anything done at the company, each division and person involved, including the various board members must be on board with an idea, and anyone can shoot down any idea at any time. This was a problem, because at the time, there were still many left-overs from the Yamauchi-era that cut their teeth off at the NES and SNES. Iwata wasn't perfect (His reluctance to embrace smart-device gaming and lack of foresight to plan for a post-Wii generation were his biggest shortcomings) but not everything that went wrong with Wii U/3DS-era Nintendo was his fault, much of it had to do with the old farts who were still at the company with too much power. Towards the end of his tenure, Iwata worked hard to push out Yamauchi's influence as much as possible in order for Nintendo to move forward as a company. From buying back the shares the Yamauchi family had in the company, to retiring many of the aforementioned old farts in-favor of people like Iwata such as Shinya Takahashi. Nintendo is still going to be reluctant in some areas, that's probably never going to change. But Iwata was actually the one trying to modernize Nintendo, especially when the Wii U and 3DS were tanking. It's just that he had to battle constantly with the company's old guard in order to do so.
While Nintendo had decent backing from Western developers in the N64 era, that was only due to their Dream Team. Nintendo's decision to stick with cartridges and their draconian control of 3rd parties at the time were what costed them a ton of support, especially from Japanese developers, nearly all of whom, jumped ship to the PlayStation. And while the GameCube did get some multiplatform titles, it was still an unpopular system with 3rd parties due to it's disc size and lack of online. Multiplatform hadn't become the standard yet, so publishers could still afford to make exclusives, and in terms of exclusives, the GameCube fared even worse, as the PlayStation 2 dominated that aspect.
EatinOlives
Member
Virtual Boy.
Shoving what was clearly a prototype out the door just to have something in the shelves. Just pure, unadulterated idiocy.
Shoving what was clearly a prototype out the door just to have something in the shelves. Just pure, unadulterated idiocy.
Alex_Mexico
Member
Nothing could've saved the WiiU from being a sales disappointment. The name would've helped but not nearly enough.
Soulscribe
Member
Wait, is this real?
Considering I have owned, and invested in, pretty much every Nintendo and Sony console, I can say without a shadow of a doubt that 3rd party support was much better during the N64 and GC days VS the Wii/WiI U era. Also, as I stated previously, I know 3rd party support was not as robust as the Sony/Microsoft platform, however, that does not make it bad. The Wii/Wii U era was bad, and the Switch will not be much better (albeit, a slight improvement) until the industry can fully trust Nintendo products again....that includes the damn power/graphics wars that the industry seems to be fixated on atm.
EDIT: It's easy to compare support that the PS1/PS2 was getting and perceive that the N64 and GC was getting next to nothing, but that's not the case. We wouldn't call a Camaro slow because it's not as fast as a Corvette. However, the Wii/Wii U era was simply a pinto...nothing going for it whatsoever (as far as 3rd party support goes).
That doesn't surprise me. Some of my friends (who have worked on LM
M at Next Level Games) have mentioned something similar to the ghost puppy, the new ghost types, and even the bosses, as they had to fight tooth & nail with keeping those guys in the game. So dumb.
Angel Whispers
Member
AzaK!? Is that YOU!? **Rolls Eyes...**
There's no room for another "Me, too" box. Home consoles are in a declining space, and if anything is baffling here, it's that people still want Nintendo to do this. Nintendo are at their best and most successful when they adopt the "'Gamers' don't have to be THE audience" approach.Rare sale is a good answer. Doesn't matter whether anybody left or not, the seeds were planted, and it had a philosophy. They would fill in the spaces that Nintendo had hardships with. Fighting game? Rare had their backs with Killer Instinct. Shooter? They had Perfect Dark. Non-Mario platform game? They had Banjo Kazooie. Had they still had Rare, they would've been able to use that support on their successive consoles. It could've gone some way to showing (Western) "third-party" publishers that there is a market for certain genres on Nintendo consoles, and in turn, given them some confidence to show support with more retail releases.
People saying "The Wii U" are wrong. Contrary to popular opinion on here, its power wasn't an issue. The GamePad wasn't a problem. Its biggest obstacle to success was the 3DS. Many exclusives were on the 3DS, and some Wii U titles were ported there. So, Nintendo didn't express as much confidence in their product. The other reason why I can't say the Wii U was baffling was because good ideas were born out of it - Miiverse, high performance with energy efficiency, second screen support out of the box, "tangible engagement", improved local multiplayer experience, and the Switch.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
Good point.
320x240 4:3 lower screen in 2011.
But not that surprising, Nintendo likes to use withered technology, it was one Gunpei Yokoi's big ideas.
Jubenhimer
Member
Actually, not really. In some ways, the Wii actually had better support than those two since while it didn't get many multiplatform titles, developers were at least willing to make exclusives for it sense it was a cheap, and easy system to develop for. Some of the most unique gems of the 7th generation were on the Wii.
* No More Heroes
* Deadly Creatures
* Murumassa
* MadWorld
* Epic Mickey
* Truama Center
* Red Steel 2
Just to name a few. The impression that it lacked 3rd party support stems from the fact that Nintendo's goal with the Wii was to provide a place where developers can make fun unique games, for cheap development costs, and use the Wii as a support pillar to keep them afloat for HD AAA development. The problem was that companies like EA and Ubisoft didn't take advantage of this in any meaningful way. They looked at the Wii, saw it's success and just went
"Hmm, Nintendo is presenting a compelling offer but... Yeah we're just gonna make shoddy ports and poorly made mini-game collections. We're not going to put any effort into it, because god-forbid we step out of our comfort zone and make games not for our main target audience, and we're just going to use the money we make from those games and put them towards real games, for real gamers, on real consoles. Then if the games don't sell well, well we'll just blame the consumers for being Nintendo sheep"
The problems Nintendo had with securing good third party support on Wii wasn't so much Nintendo's fault, it mostly was the arrogance and laziness of the 3rd parties themselves. They misused Nintendo's offer and both Nintendo and 3rd parties suffered as a result.
spons
Gold Member
It's a separate purchase, at least in Europe. Weak as hell but it's the law AFAIK.
Dsyndrome
Member
Dumping dual screen gaming after only 1 generation. A massively successful generation at that! The DS was a huge hit and had many unique game mechanics and game styles not possible before. So what do they do? Go for a 3D gimmick which many of their later titles didn't even use an made the lower screen smaller than the upper one which prohibited many dual screen gameplay features.
Oh and theres also the Fire Emblem bait & switch. They tried many things ta get Awakening to appeal to people such as including dual audio in the western release. It succeeds well beyond any other FE released in the west before then and ensures future FE's get localized. So what do they do with the followup? Drop the dual audio because "the game wasn't programmed with it in mind". Motherfucker neither was Awakening!! They put the money and effort into implimenting it for a game in a series which was absolutely dead in the west but not for any that follow because??
Oh and theres also the Fire Emblem bait & switch. They tried many things ta get Awakening to appeal to people such as including dual audio in the western release. It succeeds well beyond any other FE released in the west before then and ensures future FE's get localized. So what do they do with the followup? Drop the dual audio because "the game wasn't programmed with it in mind". Motherfucker neither was Awakening!! They put the money and effort into implimenting it for a game in a series which was absolutely dead in the west but not for any that follow because??
MegaManTrigger
Banned
No you weren't. Regardless of whether streetpass was on/off, the battery drained faster in sleep mode like a mofo.
potatohead
Member
Staying first party
I'm not trying to be edgy at all I just think it's a bad decision for them and I think they'd be extremely successful just focusing on game development
I'm not trying to be edgy at all I just think it's a bad decision for them and I think they'd be extremely successful just focusing on game development
The Horror the horror
Banned
That mentality hasn't changed much since then.
Nintendo is always playing catch-up with the others, after having initially scoffed at its competitions' features it would decide to adopt them anyway only after the fact:
"CDs? Nonsense. It would never work." --> Go on to use minis for the GC.
"Mature games? They make no sense. No redeeming gameplay value in them." ---> Go on to publish Eternal Darkness and moneyhat Resident Evil exclusives.
"Net games are a fad." --> Trying to develop their online infrastructure.
The point is, Nintendo is perpetually at odds with technological trends and progress. The company is arrogant and short-sighted even when it's losing. It can create the fastest, most future-proof console in the world next generation but it won't make a dent in its relationship with third parties because third parties know from experience once Nintendo assumes a dominant position in the industry it'll resort to its old conservative temperament and hold the industry hostage once again with antiquated policies..
It wouldn't be an issue If the 2D Metroid team didn't drop the ball in the worst way possible.
This 2d version
3ds is one of the best names.
Wiiu not.
What about xbox 1 and xbox one or Playstation.
I think the problem isn't the name, it's their message.
Sword Of Doom
Member
No they didn't which I would be ok with if they at least provided a cable. They don't provide anything
Similar threads
- Locked