Support NeoGAF

[kiguel182]

I think most people are talking about Nintendo EAD not second-party studios or third party exclusives.

 

[LegendofLex]

Are you sure?

Given that consumers don't give a shit about Nintendo's "new IP with old characters," yes.

I don't see an original setting or character in sight when I look over the top games on the market now, Nintendo excluded. It's all the same water being treaded over and over again.

Please point me to the "original" settings and [main] characters in Nintendo's recent games. Also, most AAA franchises aren't going on 30 years old.

 

[A Link to the Past]

thats nice and all but all you literally gave me was an explanation that contradicted itself. What people want to say is that nintendo doesn't treat all their new ips equally to their existing ips, however Thats what's not being said. What's being said is that nintendo has no new ips. Adding a new goal post to an initial discussion doesn't do anything to change the initial viewpoint. It just makes people look sillier than they did before. You don't need to interpret for any other poster. We have people in this thread literally saying xenoblade isn't a new nintendo ip. People saying wonderful 101 isn't and by the same merit they're saying Pokemon and smash weren't either. It's laughable.

The first point is usually fatigue at the same theme and characters used (in their opinion) too often. The second point is a desire by all people to have the most interesting games possible. The third point is that, if Nintendo doesn't care, gamers run the risk of not being able to play a game. For example, I cannot play Disaster: Day of Crisis, I cannot play Kiki Trick.

Not the best example but many times popular Nintendo characters are feature in new IP so that it sells.

What would sell better? Hank's Mansion or Luigi's Mansion. If a generic cowardly character named Hank was the hero of the game it still would be the same game and people would more likely consider it new IP (which is silly IMO) It is new IP because the gameplay is different. They characters don;t matter.

Dinosaur Planet is another example. It was an original IP that they threw Fox in so that it would sell better and they renamed it Star Fox Adventures. Still was a new IP even with Fox in it IMO

The issue is that while it makes a lot of business sense to make it Mario themed (and Luigi's cowardice was established in Luigi's Mansion, unless you count non-canon, non-game materials), it can still be criticized as business decisions are not always to the benefit of the consumer. Discussing the matter of new gameplay being more important, I would agree definitely, but think of the desire for a new IP to be on the same level as the Bechdel Test. Not every new IP is original, not every sequel or spin-off is unoriginal. Not every movie that passes the Bechdel Test successfully depicts women, but also, some movies that don't pass the test are not problematic. Except with the case of new IPs, the desire for new IPs ("new IPs" in this context meaning original content that isn't derived from other IPs) comes from fatigue for the old IPs.

 

[cheesekao]

Are you sure? I don't see an original setting or character in sight when I look over the top games on the market now, Nintendo excluded. It's all the same water being treaded over and over again.

This is highly subjective but Gravity Rush, Tearaway and Freedom Wars have pretty unique settings.

 

[Hiltz]

I find it amusing that we do see a lot of original IPs in the market that play similarly to each other. In addition, some while story-driven, are typically mediocre and convoluted, and not surprisingly, make for the low points of the game. A lot of these games are mature by definition, but amateurish and immature in their content and execution. There's nothing wrong with enjoying mindless entertainment, but when so many of these mature games are lacking in good storytelling, interesting characters and good dialogue (when such titles are being marketed as an important focus of these games being about their story) , then something's just wrong. A lot of consumers just play them because their simply violent and fun (which is okay) , but it does reveal how superficially shallow such games are with the depth of a Legend of Zelda or Super Mario story. A good story doesn't consist of just a good intro and/or ending with flashy cut scenes to watch.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I find it amusing that we do see a lot of original IPs in the market that play similar and/or look fairly similarly to each other. In addition, .some of these games are story-driven and yet the stories are typically mediocre and convoluted, and not surprisingly, make for the low points of the game overall , and often with dull protagonists and other forgettable characters.

A lot of these games are mature but amateurish and immature in their content and execution. There's nothing wrong with enjoying mindless entertainment, but when so many of these mature games are lacking in good storytelling, interesting characters, something's just wrong and yet a lot of consumer just play them because their simply violent and fun to them when these games can be superficially shallow with the depth of a Legend of Zelda or Super Mario story. A good story doesn't consist of just a good intro and/or ending with flashy cut scenes to watch.

Well yeah, but those new IPs that use dull themes or gameplay get criticized for it.

 

[Hiltz]

Well yeah, but those new IPs that use dull themes or gameplay get criticized for it.

Yes, that is true. Still, I just find it funny how people ask for story-driven games, but we often see a contradiction between how a character is initially portrayed and how they undergo a quick and dramatic change into violent killers. From what I hear, Tomb Raider and Uncharted are among such games.

 

[4Tran]

I definitely agree, but what you call a technicality I would call a very real issue: "core" gamers in general operate as if the games they don't personally care about don't exist.

To a degree, everyone ignores things that don't interest them. It's not what they're really talking about, and so Nintendo fans and non-Nintendo fans end up talking past each other over the subject.

Nintendo has heavily promoted new IP: sometimes it's not successful (e.g. Nintendoland) but sometimes it's very much so (e.g. Wii Fit, Nintendogs). We're really looking at a two-pronged problem; people don't just want new major, well publicized IPs, but specifically "core" IPs.

Nintendo makes new "core" IPs, but most are lower profile. Nintendo makes new major IPs, but most are casual. For a lot of people on GAF, if a game isn't a major new "core" property, that game effectively doesn't exist.

My point was mostly made with regards to Disney. They are constantly changing the face of their company and reaching out to new markets. Nobody else in the entertainment industries are as good as Disney at bringing in new fans though, so it's not a point of criticism.

However, I do perceive an issue of Nintendo never trying to reach the core gamers. Most notably, they seem to outright disdain dudebro gamers, which leads to the further isolation of their user base. And this leads us back to the issue in this thread.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Yes, that is true. Still, I just find it funny how people ask for story-driven games, but we often see a contradiction between a character is initially portrayed and how they undergo a quick and dramatic change into violent killers. From what I hear, Tomb Raider and Uncharted are among such games.

Well, the new Tomb Raider game definitely has a lot of problems in addition to that.

 

[Cipherr]

Do people really even say that any more? I haven't heard that argument in years.

Oh no they most definitely still say it. Ignorant as hell.

I think most people are talking about Nintendo EAD not second-party studios or third party exclusives.

No they aren't because the majority of those lists ARE FIRST PARTY. Nintendo is more than EAD.... so they are either stupid or using some sort of weird qualifier so they don't have to count all the new IP.

I repeat, Nintendo first party is larger than JUST EAD. I have no idea where this misconception came from that EAD is all there is to Nintendos fully 100% owned studios.

 

[OtakuReborn124]

I feel like "Nintendo has no new IP" suffers from a similar problem as "XB1/PS4 has no games" in that both of them are bastardized versions of their initial intent.

"Nintendo has no new IP that I like/want"
"XB1/PS4 has no games that I like/want"

People are trying to take what was initially an opinion and trying to state it as fact, or people are trying to interpret it like fact when it's not.

In both cases, the "fact" can be proven wrong by somebody who has gone through and compiled a list of the games/IPs that exist, and in both cases, there's a knee-jerk response that calls the validity of the list into question from further conflation of opinion and fact (or in the case of new IP, the definition of a new IP).

 

[tuxfool]

Yes, that is true. Still, I just find it funny how people ask for story-driven games, but we often see a contradiction between how a character is initially portrayed and how they undergo a quick and dramatic change into violent killers. From what I hear, Tomb Raider and Uncharted are among such games.

Tomb Raider to a greater degree than Uncharted. Uncharted is going for Indiana Jones pulp.

Tomb Raider is going for a serious survival story but the characterization and gameplay sometimes feel very much at odds. But doesn't have to be that way, of which the most immediate example is The Last of Us.

However, I do perceive an issue of Nintendo never trying to reach the core gamers. Most notably, they seem to outright disdain dudebro gamers, which leads to the further isolation of their user base. And this leads us back to the issue in this thread.

I'm totally not a dudebro gamer. But Nintendo is losing me, precisely because I no longer care for Mario. And despite its attempt to appeal to all ages, they are not gaining new fans because they're not developing with the ages. Mario has some lasting appeal but despite their best efforts it still remains a product of time (like all things).

 

[TheSlySoul]

Yes, that is true. Still, I just find it funny how people ask for story-driven games, but we often see a contradiction between how a character is initially portrayed and how they undergo a quick and dramatic change into violent killers. From what I hear, Tomb Raider and Uncharted are among such games.

I just find it funny people ask for story-driven games and then stuff like Heavy Rain or Gone Home come out and get heavily criticized since they are story-driven.

 

[AniHawk]

We are back to semantics I see. When I say Nintendo isn't trying to create new franchises, I mean the studios that Nintendo owns aren't making new franchises. Whether are not Nintendo owns the IP and a third party studio is developing the game or Nintendo is just publishing the game, all of that is superfluous to what I've been saying.

Nintendo did not make W101. Platinum, the studio, made W101. That is not to be confused with me saying W101 isn't a Nintendo game - it is. But I don't understand the confusion when I say Nintendo didn't make W101. Microsoft owns the rights to TitanFall and published the game, does that mean Microsoft MADE TitanFall? No, a third party developer named Respawn did.

I want Nintendo, as in their studios, to try to make some new franchises. When people say Nintendo doesn't make new IP, the probably mean the studios Nintendo owns generally works on the same existing franchises instead of trying to make a new one.

microsoft does not own the rights to titanfall. titanfall is an intellectual property of respawn. the trademark belongs to them as shown on the back of the box. the wonderful 101 is a nintendo game in that they actually own the intellectual property.

tell me, if hal lab, sora ltd, or game freak would make a new franchise for nintendo, would that not count for you because they're third-parties?

 

[NickFire]

And these are just the high-profile games.

Those really aren't what I consider high profile. In my mind, most of the high profile games have a Mario here, Link there, Kong over there, etc., and I think that's why people say Nintendo doesn't make new IP's.

 

[Opiate]

To a degree, everyone ignores things that don't interest them. It's not what they're really talking about, and so Nintendo fans and non-Nintendo fans end up talking past each other over the subject.

I agree to an extent, but I think the degree matters. I think "core" gamers are particularly likely to ignore the things they don't like. Not always, of course; but more often, in my experience.

My point was mostly made with regards to Disney. They are constantly changing the face of their company and reaching out to new markets. Nobody else in the entertainment industries are as good as Disney at bringing in new fans though, so it's not a point of criticism.

Yes, I definitely agree that Nintendo is no Disney. Disney has proven much more adept at handling their brand. They are more flexible and more capable of marketing a variety of products with different pedigrees.

 

[Ridley327]

I think most people are talking about Nintendo EAD not second-party studios or third party exclusives.

I'm not sure why people dismiss the second-party stuff, given how hands on Nintendo is with them and that they're funding them in the first place. That something like Eternal Darkness didn't originate from a bad dream Miyamoto had seems inconsequential in the face of Nintendo being confident enough to make a game like that happen for Silicon Knights.

 

[Hiltz]

Tomb Raider to a greater degree than Uncharted. Uncharted is going for Indiana Jones pulp.

Tomb Raider is going for a serious survival story but the characterization and gameplay sometimes feel very much at odds. But doesn't have to be that way, of which the most immediate example is The Last of Us.

I haven't experienced The Last of Us, but based on what a lot of people have said about it, it seems like one of the better examples of mature storytelling and characterization. It may have its flaws, but I'd like to see more studios try to do better when it comes to taking story-driven games more seriously. Even genres in film, such as action, have movies that are well made.It's not just about the flashy action scenes that carry the weight of these films, but the characters, the relationships and dialogue among other things.

 

[EloquentM]

I'm not sure why people dismiss the second-party stuff, given how hands on Nintendo is with them and that they're funding them in the first place. That something like Eternal Darkness didn't originate from a bad dream Miyamoto had seems inconsequential in the face of Nintendo being confident enough to make a game like that happen for Silicon Knights.

Second party is just another arbitrary title. For all intents and purposes it's still considered first party since the main corp owns the IP. The thing is we don't even have to go that deep. EAD isn't the only in-house studio from nintendo.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

I just find it funny people ask for story-driven games and then stuff like Heavy Rain or Gone Home come out and get heavily criticized since they are story-driven.

Can you prove that the people who asked for story-driven content are the same as those who complained about Heavy Rain? Or do you just like to paint broad, silly strokes?

 

[BGBW]

"I didn't succeed at trying to derail the thread, so I didn't try to derail the thread." Impeccable logic. Basic common sense dictates that the discussion happening right now is centering on games that aren't just Mario or Zelda or Pokemon or something, so what point is there to try and complain about how people don't use the phrase "new IP" correctly? It's just tone/wording policing that has no benefit to actual constructive discussion.

Please stop. You are now talking absolute bollocks.
1. My original "They are new trademarks" was clearly a tongue in cheek comment you took far too seriously which started your policing of what one must talk about in this thread. Pro Tip: you're not the thread dictator, you're not in charge.
2. Someone did write a completely false statement to educate me that new trademarks are not a new intellectual property (note they didn't say new IP like the rest of the thread, but the full term) and even gave a non videogame example to back up this lesson. It was completely false so I felt I had to correct them because they tried to correct me. This unfortunately happened after you're first warning so I had to suffer a repeat of this because I dared to disobey you.
3. Then you start insisting my secret mission was to derail the thread with no proof whatsoever. The irony being that if you hadn't gone on and on about these rules you made this whole back and forth wouldn't have started. If anyone tried to derail things it was you.

I probably should not have posted this response but honestly the sheer lunacy on display here got to me. Discussing the term IP is important in a thread about IPs, just because you don't want to talk about it doesn't mean we all have to obey. You're not the NeoGAF Police, stop trying to act like it.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Heavy Rain was criticized not because it had an emphasis on story (some people criticized that, but people who wanted a game in the vein of Heavy Rain weren't those people), but because it did it poorly. It's implied that the people who ask for a story-focused game are asking for it to be done well, too!

As for Gone Home, while people criticized it for being a walking simulator (again, not the people who wanted more games like it), a ton of its criticism relates to the subject matter and how well it was received.

 

[PooBone]

This is kind of a spin-off thread from the Nintendo-Mario vs. Sega-Sonic treatment comparison thread. It got me wondering about why people think Nintendo doesn't make new IPs. In recent years, they've put out...

- Xenoblade Chronicles (Wii, 2012): A badass JRPG so far & hailed as one of the best JRPGs in recent years. Hell, Shulk got in Smash & Xenoblade is getting a Wii U sequel this year. I'm pretty sure Xenoblade is a franchise on the rise. Okay sure, I just started, but I'm loving what I'm playing so far. You guys can argue that Xenoblade is just a continuation of the Xeno franchise that Monolith Soft made under Namco, but the fact that Nintendo is continuing with the Xenoblade brand does help it earn its IP stripes in its own regard.
- The Wonderful 101 (Wii U, 2013): Easily one of my favorite games of last year. It was an insane experience & quite the rewarding one too with its deep combat. It may be a tough nut to crack in terms of the learning curve, but damn is that nut delicious. A shame more people didn't buy it.
- Splatoon (Wii U, 2015): Okay, so Splatoon isn't out yet, but it's already looking to be a creative spin on the first person shooter genre. One that I can't wait to dive into. Plus Splatoon is actually from Nintendo EAD, which is apparently part of the complaints of Nintendo's apparent lack of new IPs.
- Code Name S.T.E.A.M. (3DS, 2015): Another game that's not out yet but it has potential, more so given that Intelligent Systems is behind it (the guys who gave us Fire Emblem, but I don't really need to say that on GAF). I'm growing more curious about this game by the day & look forward to playing it.
- Rhythm Heaven (DS, 2009): I vaguely remember playing Rhythm Heaven, but I do remember all the fun I had with this game. It was probably one of my favorite rhythm-based games in recent years.

And these are just the high-profile games. There are others like Dillon's Rolling Western, Pushmo, HarmoKnight, & a few others are also noteworthy IPs Nintendo has established recently. So what do you guys think, GAF? Is this enough, is the criticism for the supposed lack of new IPs justified (& why, of course)?

You've got two games that aren't made by Nintendo's first party, two games that aren't out yet, and a game you vaguely remember playing from 2009.

Not making much of an argument here.

 

[Oersted]

You've got two games that aren't made by Nintendo's first party, two games that aren't out yet, and a game you vaguely remember playing from 2009.

Not making much of an argument here.

Let me guess, you think Monolith is not first party?

 

[Robin64]

Let me guess, you think Monolith is not first party?

It's the assumption of the day.

 

[Oersted]

It's the assumption of the day.

Uncharted and TLoU weren't Sony games after all.

 

[Cipherr]

You've got two games that aren't made by Nintendo's first party, two games that aren't out yet, and a game you vaguely remember playing from 2009.

Not making much of an argument here.

The irony of you calling HIS argument into question when you don't even know which studios are Nintendos first party and which aren't is absolutely hilarious.

I'm telling you, ignorance is at the root of this ridiculous argument in nearly every case.

 

[Vlade]

I could go for Odama wii u.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

You've got two games that aren't made by Nintendo's first party, two games that aren't out yet, and a game you vaguely remember playing from 2009.

Not making much of an argument here.

The team that made the game is meaningless, Nintendo owns the IP. Heck, Nintendo owns Monolith 100%. It's their developers, on their payroll working on their IP. Nintendo owns 100% of Monolith, this can't be stated enough. Monolith is as much of Nintendo as EAD lol.

I mean what you're saying is an IP has to be hand created by Miyamoto in the bowels of Nintendo's corporate HQ and developed 100% in that HQ to be a "new IP by Nintendo." Making such a ridiculous argument eliminates characters like Diddy Kong and Kirby as Nintendo characters lol. Pokemon, Kirby, and Donkey Kong Country aren't Nintendo IPs, guys. Smash Bros isn't "Nintendo All Stars" it's random unrelated characters Nintendo has no involvement with and Mario. /s.

 

[Mauricio_Magus]

It's just ignorance, it's amusing when you tell them hard facts and then they answer with "baw baw but that's not the games I want or that's not first party".

 

[4Tran]

I feel like "Nintendo has no new IP" suffers from a similar problem as "XB1/PS4 has no games" in that both of them are bastardized versions of their initial intent.

"Nintendo has no new IP that I like/want"
"XB1/PS4 has no games that I like/want"

For the Xbone/PS4, it's closer to "Microsoft/Sony don't have the exclusives that interest me." It's a statement that may make sense on a personal level, but it's meaningless when applied to business because exclusives tend to be relatively unimportant selling factors.

I'm totally not a dudebro gamer. But Nintendo is losing me, precisely because I no longer care for Mario. And despite its attempt to appeal to all ages, they are not gaining new fans because they're not developing with the ages. Mario has some lasting appeal but despite their best efforts it still remains a product of time (like all things).

The thing about dudebro gamers is that the games that appeal to them will appeal to a lot of other gamers as well. I dont' even play dudebro games, but it's still obvious that they're an extremely important market segment.

I agree to an extent, but I think the degree matters. I think "core" gamers are particularly likely to ignore the things they don't like. Not always, of course; but more often, in my experience.

I won't dispute that. I find that that narrowness of focus is a major reason I don't like reading articles from the gaming press.

Yes, I definitely agree that Nintendo is no Disney. Disney has proven much more adept at handling their brand. They are more flexible and more capable of marketing a variety of products with different pedigrees.

Nintendo could stand to learn a lot from Disney. Then again, so can everyone else.

 

[PKrockin]

The team that made the game is meaningless, Nintendo owns the IP. Heck, Nintendo owns Monolith 100%. It's their developers, on their payroll working on their IP. Nintendo owns 100% of Monolith, this can't be stated enough. Monolith is as much of Nintendo as EAD lol.

I mean what you're saying is an IP has to be hand created by Miyamoto in the bowels of Nintendo's corporate HQ and developed 100% in that HQ to be a "new IP by Nintendo." Making such a ridiculous argument eliminates characters like Diddy Kong and Kirby as Nintendo characters lol. Pokemon, Kirby, and Donkey Kong Country aren't Nintendo IPs, guys /s.

I was about to say something like this. Does a new IP have to be crafted solely by the hands of Yamauchi's blood descendants themselves to count as a Nintendo game? I don't get why people are drawing the line where they are.

 

[4Tran]

The team that made the game is meaningless, Nintendo owns the IP. Heck, Nintendo owns Monolith 100%. It's their developers, on their payroll working on their IP. Nintendo owns 100% of Monolith, this can't be stated enough. Monolith is as much of Nintendo as EAD lol.

The problem with Xenoblade is that non-Nintendo fans barely know it exists much less that it's made by a Nintendo subsidiary. And really, even if people knew the truth, what difference does it make? Nobody really cares whether Nintendo makes a couple of games like that.

 

[MindGamingMantis]

I got the goty version of arkham asylum, but i was trying to buy vanilla. I ain't even mad.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

The problem with Xenoblade is that non-Nintendo fans barely know it exists much less that it's made by a Nintendo subsidiary. And really, even if people knew the truth, what difference does it make? Nobody really cares whether Nintendo makes a couple of games like that.

Xenoblade is more of a Nintendo IP than Kirby, Pokemon, Donkey Kong Country, Smash Bros, Mother, Fire Emblem, Advance Wars, Golden Sun, Sin and Punishment, and many other games people generally associate with Nintendo.

And yet nobody would claim those aren't Nintendo IPs, they'd be laughed out of the thread.

The question and answer are simple. "Does Nintendo own the exclusive rights to this IP" if yes, it's a Nintendo IP, if no, it's not. And that still somewhat eliminates Pokemon, but you won't ever see a Pokemon game on an Xbox, it's a Nintendo IP more or less and I don't think many could argue it isn't.

 

[Oersted]

The problem with Xenoblade is that non-Nintendo fans barely know it exists much less that it's made by a Nintendo subsidiary. And really, even if people knew the truth, what difference does it make? Nobody really cares whether Nintendo makes a couple of games like that.

I don't see the goalposts anymore.

 

[Papacheeks]

Some of the largest system pushers last generation were Nintendogs, Wii Fit, and Wii Sports, all new IP. In fact, all of those IP are bigger than anything Sony has ever created.

Those are new IP'S but let's be honest, they were popular mainly because the hardware behind them showcased the tech and I dare say Gimmicks that made them so sought after for potential buyers.
NINTENDO DOGS used the stylus and touch screens to the fullest to interact with a virtual pet, Wii sports had you using full motion in regular games that anyone could play, and Wii fit was you using a board and Wii motes to lost weight/exercise in a interactive way.
Nintendo-land was trying in a way to get some of those buyer's, but failed because the hardware was not communicated to the correct demo-graphic or simply put the demographic moved on.

If anyone looks in the past they will see that hardware gimmick games that show or utilize the tech and is communicated properly does well. IE:ROCK BAND, DANCE CENTRAL. But outside of those well conveyed gimmicks Nintendo has not tried to go off on new adventures with new characters, or IP's that can be as popular as their legacy IP's.
They have relied too heavily as seen in the past and in the Wii U on a formula that for the most part worked for them in the past. But never tried to do what rare did for them in N64.
This is the main issue with Nintendo, we need more W101, Splatoon games that go outside of Nintendo's legacy character based games. People want new, big, exciting games, regardless if they are digital, indie or whatnot.

Sony, and Microsoft seem to be able to do it, so why not Nintendo.
I almost wasn't going to post as this thread is all over the fucking place. People nitpicking or arguing for the sake of arguing about what constitutes as a New IP, Nintendo FIrst party, blah blah blah.
The just of it is, Nintendo isn't doing well, and people are slowly over time getting sick of them relying on their legacy franchises, and not promoting new ones.

The past Exclusives that didn't do well because of mis-conceptions about the system, and non-PR stance on those outside titles like W101 are what is hurting this whole conversation and outlook on Nintendo's Creative output, regardless if they make it or platinum or RARE, or who ever, first, third, I don't care.
People just want new Experiences, that are not tied to an excising character's or franchises.

If they "put" out more new titles regardless of who made them for their system, conversations and thread like these would be much the less on gaf.
Sony is putting out new games ever generation with some of them being sequels to existing franchises like every company does, but also allowing those same developers who make franchise games to create entirely new ones.
Nintendo use to do that, but because of failures in the past on exclusives that don't have a mario,zelda, or what ever attached to it, they have fallen in this funk.

People want New thing's not New thing's tied to something existing.

Uncharted wasn't tied to Jak, The last of Us wasn't tied to Uncharted, Resistance wasn't tied to ratchet, Susnet wasn't tied to anything, Halo wasn't tied to Gears, or Fable or whatever.

Nintendo has tried to tie their franchises together in some way, either it be using similar characters, settings or whatever.

Nintendo needs new Franchises, and it needs to stand behind them 100% like they have for their legacy franchises.

 

[4Tran]

Honestly, I don't think anyone really cares whether a particular game is owned by Nintendo or not. What they're actually talking about is what kinds of games Nintendo seems to promote, and whether those games suit their personal tastes. It'd be one thing if Nintendo were to make a game like, say Portal and promoted it to high heavens, and then supported it with other games that reach the same kind of audience. But they don't do things like that. They'll make games like Xenoblade, barely advertise it, and then have no follow up.

 

[entremet]

We need a list of all on Nintendo's in house named teams. Not all of them are EAD.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

I don't see the goalposts anymore.

You can mock him, but it's an important point and a reality that drags all of the big three down. They create or help create new IPs and leave them to die with no marketing or visibility. Then people say, "LOL SONY?!? It's all Uncharted!" or "LOL MSoft?! It's all Halo and Gears?! or in this case, "LOL Nintendo?! It's all Mario and Zelda!"

The point many of us have been making is that these companies would all do well to learn from the Disney-esque model of adding to their pantheon constantly, rather than relying on the crutch of tried and true characters.

Nintendo needs new Franchises, and it needs to stand behind them 100% like they have for their legacy franchises.

That is to say, they need to add to not merely support titles but also add to their legacy. Add to their brand association. Add to their market mindshare.

 

[Opiate]

I don't see the goalposts anymore.

Xenoblade was not advertised significantly in the west. It was not even distributed significantly in the west, as it had a limited print run. It did not get a lot of pre-release press from major gaming outlets. It did not get a lot of commercials.

This is what people are talking about: a "core" AAA game. That's what the people who are complaining want: a game that is simultaneously 1) made for the "core" audience, and 2) gets a massive budget and 3) gets a huge marketing push the way Halo does or the way Uncharted does, making them "event" titles.

For a large portion of people, those are the games that matter, and other games are of no interest or are effectively invisible. Even here on GAF. Xenosaga fits points 1 and sort of fits point 2, but does not fit 3.

 

[EnergizerFellow]

An IP isn't a "real" IP if it isn't about a badass character in a grim, realistic universe doing cool things.

And here, my friends, is the real reason. Even more specifically, it comes down to one word: "dudebro"

Nothing short of making an outright CoD/Halo clone with a multi-million marketing budget will change things with the dudebros. Having the next CoD release (or three) as a timed exclusive to Nintendo will change people's opinions right fucking quick.

Think the guys who wear Ed Hardy shirts and white sunglasses (or will be when they get older).

This is what people are talking about: a "core" AAA game. That's what the people who are complaining want: a game that is simultaneously 1) made for the "core" audience, and 2) gets a massive budget and 3) gets a huge marketing push the way Halo does or the way Uncharted does, making them "event" titles.

Exactly. People, more specifically dudebros, want "event" titles to play with all their frat buddies.

Splatoon looks like a very fun game but it'd be lucky to cross a million units lifetime and it's probably not going to be Nintendo's next big thing. It'll just be a fun game to hold everyone over until Zelda comes out.

A thousand times this.

Lack of 3rd party support has led to 1st party being scrutinized.

And this as well.

 

[Robin64]

We need a list of all on Nintendo's in house named teams. Not all of them are EAD.

EAD, SPD, NST, 1-UP Studios, Monolith Soft, Intelligent Systems, Nd Cube, and Retro Studios are all the first-party studios that are involved with developing games. There are others of course, but they deal with things like web services, codecs, hardware development, etc.

And even then, some of those are split into multiple groups all working on different things. EAD Kyoto 1 do Mario Kart, while EAD Kyoto 3 do Zelda, for example.

 

[TwEE-N-Toast]

I'm believe the criticism is that Nintendo is not very good at world building anymore and just tossing out "Nintendo doesn't make new IPs" is the first thing that comes to mind when people try to express that.

I love Nintendo but I'm not going to get absorbed into the lore of Pushmo, Dillion or Nintendogs.

 

[gemoran4]

It's a statement that's partially ignorant but also partially true. It's ignorant in that they don't make new IPs. There's a ton of downloadable games they've made, Nintendoland, wii sports, wii fit, wii party, etc etc. They do in fact make new IPs

However, their most notable new IPs that Nintendo have developer and/or published in recent years are niche at best (Xenoblade, W101). If they aren't niche (like some of the games I mentioned above) then they have a clear casual focus. Nothing wrong with that, but it does make sense why people in forums like these that aren't specifically the target audience would feel "no IPs" have come out.

Excluding games with the Wii moniker or a clearly casual market focus, they really haven't had a new IP hit the mainstream the same way 2d/3d mario, mario kart, super smash bros, legend of zelda, donkey kong, etc that attract core gaming audiences in a long time. I think that's more the root of what people mean when they make that statement, and there is definitely a thread of truth to it.

Now Splatoon and some of the new stuff they announced in the last E3 may change people's tunes a bit on it. Hell if they had good 3rd party support i think the complaints would be far less frequent (look at microsoft, they basically get away with Halo and Gears of War being pretty much their only notable exclusive IPs).

 

[Oersted]

Honestly, I don't think anyone really cares whether a particular game is owned by Nintendo or not. What they're actually talking about is what kinds of games Nintendo seems to promote, and whether those games suit their personal tastes. It'd be one thing if Nintendo were to make a game like, say Portal and promoted it to high heavens, and then supported it with other games that reach the same kind of audience. But they don't do things like that. They'll make games like Xenoblade, barely advertise it, and then have no follow up.

Xenoblade is represented in Smash, got an Amiibo, gets rereleased for new 3DS and gets a full blown sequel for WiiU.

No follow up. Just lol

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Xenoblade is represented in Smash, got an Amiibo, gets rereleased for new 3DS and gets a full blown sequel for WiiU.

No follow up. Just lol

And yet...who outside of the core gamers know who he is? He's not a Nintendo associated character yet. The brand isn't seen as a deeply Nintendo one yet because of it's unknown status.

 

[A Link to the Past]

And yet...who outside of the core gamers know who he is? He's not a Nintendo associated character yet. The brand isn't seen as a deeply Nintendo one yet because of it's unknown status.

But it's not unknown, not anymore. Nintendo's putting a lot of push behind the sequel.

 

[Opiate]

I'm believe the criticism is that Nintendo is not very good at world building anymore and just tossing out "Nintendo doesn't make new IPs" is the first thing that comes to mind when people try to express that.

I love Nintendo but I'm not going to get absorbed into the lore of Pushmo, Dillion or Nintendogs.

This is part of what people want as well, I agree. I don't think Nintendo was ever very good at "world building," it's just that their lack has become increasingly apparent over time.

A lot of people seem to want to be immersed in a virtual, fictional world, and Nintendo has made very little attempt to indulge those consumers.

 

[Oersted]

And yet...who outside of the core gamers know who he is? He's not a Nintendo associated character yet. The brand isn't seen as a deeply Nintendo one yet because of it's unknown status.

Who outside coregamers complains that they don't release new IPs?