Why is Nintendo so much better at handling their franchises than everyone else?

[KevinCow]

*removed preemptive attack blather* ~Admin

It's about how Nintendo's franchises, years after their creation, often still sell well, still get great reviews, are just genrally still relevant.

Mario, Zelda, Metroid? 25 years old. What about other games from that era? Contra? Castlevania? Mega Man? They've seen their ups and downs, their reboots and rereboots, but it would be hard to argue that they maintained their relevance in the same way as Nintendo's stuff.

Pokemon? 15 years old. And a new release is still a big deal. Entire franchises have risen and fallen in that time. Tony Hawk, Tomb Raider, Spyro, Crash Bandicoot. Popular at the time, but where are they now?

It's not just because they keep making the same game over and over, contrary to what I'm sure some replies in this thread will say. If there's one thing sure to kill interest in a series, it's flooding the market with content. Just ask Ratchet & Clank. Those guys were hot shit just a generation ago, yet you probably didn't even realize they had new game come out last month. Or Tony Hawk, or Guitar Hero, both of which Activision managed to bring from BIGGEST THING EVER to basically dead in the span of a few years.

Other publishers have trouble keeping their games relevant for five years, much less a decade, much less multiple decades. But Nintendo's stuff keeps rolling along, even during the times when the company itself is having problems.


I guess the question is twofold:

1) What does Nintendo do to keep its franchises relevant?

2) Why don't other companies do it too?

 

[Duki]

they make better games than everybody else

it helps

 

[Criminal Upper]

I may be mistaken, but weren't you banned like a week ago?

 

[Ushojax]

 

[Ninja Scooter]

because Nintendo's franchises were always bigger than the rest. It's like asking why Mickey Mouse is more popular than Woody Woodpecker.

 

[Cow Mengde]

Nintendo doesn't count, so you are incorrect.

 

[Postman]

It also helps when those franchises are the inspirations for most of the video games ever made.

 

[Forkball]

F-Zero and Pikmin would like to have a word with you.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

Because they don't do yearly releases and have good quality control. It also seems that they don't do focus tests which can kill a good game.

 

[TheChaos]

You do realize that Nintendo has other franchises than Mario, Zelda, and Metroid, right? Do I really need to mention Nintendo's handling of the Star Fox franchise?

 

[DonMigs85]

IMHO, they haven't been doing too good a job with Metroid's marketing, and some Mario releases tend to play it too safe. But I think the fact that their releases are pretty spaced out helps a bit.
Also, I really hope we get a new F-Zero soon.

 

[badcrumble]

Metroid has been handled fucking horribly dude.

 

[Postman]

F-Zero and Pikmin would like to have a word with you.

Last time I checked the last f zero and last pikmin were highly regarded.

 

[Orayn]

Because they don't do yearly releases and have good quality control. It also seems that they don't do focus tests which can kill a good game.

"What the hell, Nintendo, the guys don't even bleed when I cut them with the sword. Also, why don't I get to rip off their heads like in God of War? Also, the main dude is, like, wearing a dress. This shit's for babies."

 

[Tashi]

I think it's because their games really are for everyone. Gamers of all ages have fun with their games.

 

[Cerebral Assassin]

F-Zero and Pikmin would like to have a word with you.

I don't think that there has been a bad home console game in either of those franchises.

 

[GCX]

because Nintendo's franchises were always bigger than the rest. It's like asking why Mickey Mouse is more popular than Woody Woodpecker.

Sonic and Mario were once pretty equal in popularity.

 

[Postman]

Metroid has been handled fucking horribly dude.

I agree. The games have not been horrible but they could be so much more than what we have been getting. I think anyone who is contracted to make a new Metroid game needs to be locked in a room until they play through super metroid 200 times.

 

[hatchx]

Pokemon? 15 years old. And a new release is still a big deal. Entire franchises have risen and fallen in that time. Tony Hawk, Tomb Raider, Spyro, Crash Bandicoot. Popular at the time, but where are they now?

New Tomb Raider looks great.

 

[TheChaos]

Last time I checked the last f zero and last pikmin were highly regarded.

You mean the GBA F-Zero games? Those were definitely not highly regarded.

 

[Grisby]

Nintendo's franchises appeal to a younger market more than say, something like Halo I would imagine. That and some of their games, like pokemon, foster a more community and interaction aspect between fellow peers ranging from a school ground to a college dorm.

They can get a wider fanbase.

 

[sakipon]

It also seems that they don't do focus tests which can kill a good game.

Yeah, it seems Nintendo isn't hasty to go with the latest trends - but nevertheless their games do evolve. (Whether they change a bit too slowly is debatable, though.)

 

[Reuenthal]

They have created huge, popular franchises that became sensations and they keep on creating great games. So their already popular franchises remain popular.

This would change if the quality of their newer games was bad and they kept on making games of lesser quality. It is a part of Nintendo's strategy to keep providing the best quality with their franchises so that they can make the most money.

Of course one of the reasons great quality of their games has to be because they have people who know what they are doing and also they seem to be able to understand what made the games originally good. That means that the franchises don't change in ways that would make the newer edition of their games, bad. That makes the new Pokemon, Mario games relevant even today.

But as I have said above the fact that they have created franchises that are immensely popular and that they are known for quality, is another intensive for them to focus on quality more so than some other developers who might have some different strategies for making the most money. Some other developers might care more at creating as many games at the least possible time because quality declines can be in some cases less important in terms of sales when your franchise is one of 2 or 3 games rather than one of many more.

 

[Postman]

You mean the GBA F-Zero games? Those were definitely not highly regarded.

Didn't GX come out after the GBA fzero games? and I never count Hand Held games. That is just me though.

 

[SolarPowered]

1) What does Nintendo do to keep its franchises relevant?

Well... they tend to space them out and they do have a ton of IP and franchises that help fill the down time in between their larger games.

It doesn't always work out so well since they have problems courting third parties which can lead to droughts, but that is the cost they pay for working on new games, ideas and interfaces at a measured pace.

2) Why don't other companies do it too?

Other companies cave in to the demands of the almighty dollar too quickly to realize that they may be doing harm to their franchises and IP in the long haul. Why worry about your company's health thirty or forty years down the road when you will probably retire before then? This is the pitfall of companies that have not existed for as long a time as Nintendo.

 

[ksamedi]

Because they are the lifelines of their platforms.

 

[TheChaos]

Didn't GX come out after the GBA fzero games? and I never count Hand Held games. That is just me though.

GX came out in 2003. GP Legend came out in 2004.

 

[Cow Mengde]

They have created huge, popular franchises that became sensations and they keep on creating great games. So their already popular franchises remain popular.

This would change if the quality of their newer games was bad and they kept on making games of lesser quality.

Sonic seems to still be doing pretty good. I'm not even joking. Look at all the shitty Sonic games over the years and how people still hold out for that 1 good Sonic game. I know Colors was pretty good, but beyond that, I have no idea about Generations. If Generations is good, it shows that even after Sonic 2006, it still didn't kill Sonic.

 

[RaidenZR]

You mean the GBA F-Zero games? Those were definitely not highly regarded.

Most people haven't played the 2nd and 3rd GBA F-Zero games, and while GP Legend was crap, F-Zero Climax (the one that didn't come stateside) was really engaging and had some good track designs.

 

[KevinCow]

You do realize that Nintendo has other franchises than Mario, Zelda, and Metroid, right? Do I really need to mention Nintendo's handling of the Star Fox franchise?

Yes, I realize that this doesn't apply to all their franchises. But it applies to a fair number of them, which is a fair number more than most companies.

I may be mistaken, but weren't you banned like a week ago?

If I was then I didn't notice.

 

[Murrah]

I think it's because their big franchise games aren't released every year or even every other year (disregarding Pokemon and the fact that we've had a main entry in the Mario series every year since 2009), which is also why other publishers don't follow that route

That's not always necessarily the wrong decision though. As mentioned, Tony Hawk may be the scorched earth of video games, but even if the releases had been more spaced out and the quality had remained, I highly doubt the franchise would be much more relevant than it is now

 

[The Main Event]

The obvious answer.

 

[Gianni Merryman]

Because they don't do yearly releases and have good quality control. It also seems that they don't do focus tests which can kill a good game.

This, and also because some Nintendo franchises(Mario, Metroid, Zelda, Donkey Kong) had been proved to have simply much potential to develop from the start, whereas other glorious early franchises simply had no way to evolve to survive throughout decades.

 

[scitek]

Mario and Zelda are still a huge deal because there are a few years between releases. Just enough to feel like a new new one won't be a waste of money, and you may see some significant technical improvements due to them having more experience with the hardware.

 

[GCX]

I think Nintendo's biggest strength is their ability to market their franchises to new generations again and again.

If Pokemon was handled by any other company it would've been dead a long time ago. It had all the ingredients to be that fad that's a huge thing for one generation but then dies out fast.

 

[Dennis]

Where is my F-Zero?

Also, Zelda games are for babies now. Too easy.

Oh, and lets turn Samus into an emotional mess.

 

[KevinCow]

Metroid has been handled fucking horribly dude.

And yet, when they inevitably announce the next Metroid game, the gaming community as a whole will geek the fuck out.

...Provided it's not Other M 2.

 

[Kuroyume]

Probably because (outside Metroid) they play it incredibly safe whenever making these games. Motion control was risky I guess but that was a move they made with the console not specifically with the games.

 

[TheChaos]

Most people haven't played the 2nd and 3rd GBA F-Zero games, and while GP Legend was crap, F-Zero Climax (the one that didn't come stateside) was really engaging and had some good track designs.

Really? Wow, further proof that Nintendo (mainly NoA) is incompetent. Add it to the list of great Nintendo games that never made it here.

 

[rekameohs]

Metroid? 25 years old.... maintained [it's] relevance

This would have been very true up until that fateful day last year.

 

[Tuck]

I think it helps that many people grew up with those franchises. But other than that, mainline Nintendo franchise games are usually top tier. Nintendo wouldn't release a Mario game that sucked - they make good games and vary things up enough to keep things fresh. I'd argue that varying the art style from game to game (i.e. Zelda) may help do this as well.

 

[SykoTech]

If Nintendo just equals Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon to you, then I can see how you'd think this way.

But in reality, they are no different than any other company. They have plenty of franchises that they have either mishandled or let slide into irrelevancy.

Metroid is far from being in shape as Other M bombed and didn't get the best reception either.
Kirby just had a traditional console platformer come out, but hardly anyone cares (especially on GAF).
F-Zero? Lol.
StarFox? Yikes.
Pikmin? Who?

And that's not even touching more niche stuff like Fire Emblem, Mother, etc.

So yeah, they're not much different than the others. A few franchises that they keep going really strong....and then everything else.

 

[KevinCow]

Also, Zelda games are for babies now. Too easy.

Did you read my OP? Here, let me help you:

Shut the fuck up and go away. I don't care what you think about their games. That's not what this thread is about.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I think it helps that none of their games are really retreads of one another - New Super Mario Bros. Wii and Super Mario Galaxy aren't alike. Even SMG2, which almost everyone in the gaming media dismissed as an expansion pack, sold a good 6 million and is still the second highest reviewed game of the generation (the first is SMG1. see if you can spot a trend).

On the other hand, they don't constantly try to "reinvent" their franchises with tacky shit. Look at the Sonic series. Sonic Unleashed changed the formula by turning him into a werewolf. Mario and Zelda continue to do things that are distinctly, and naturally Mario/Zelda.

 

[RaidenZR]

Really? Wow, further proof that Nintendo (mainly NoA) is incompetent. Add it to the list of great Nintendo games that never made it here.

Yes, missed opportunity to keep the series relevant. It had a lot of the tracks aesthetically reproduced in 16-bit style from the GX/AX games. Music, too. The Lightning tracks in particular were really cool in handheld form. It also had a full-fledged track editor where you could save or password-ify them, and transfer custom-made tracks to friends.

 

[Cow Mengde]

If I was then I didn't notice.

Do you notice it now?

Also, what the heck?

Anyway, I'd also like to see Nintendo bring back some old franchises back. Yeah, a new Star Tropics would rock.

 

[kingkaiser]

Miyamoto Picture

That' s the right answer, and oh boy come to think about it, when Miyamoto retires one day it's going to be one sad day for the whole industry. When that day finally arrives i may consider to quit gaming...

 

[Dennis]

Did you read my OP? Here, let me help you:

Making an OP does not give you dictatorial control over the thread I am afraid.

 

[Medalion]

Well... it's true that for the most part Nintendo makes their games for their core franchises

but lately I have seen a lot of effort to give out their franchises to outsourced companies for remakes of big name games

and even other big Nintendo franchises to people other than Nintendo's first party developers but 2nd party

 

[Postman]

Having one less than stellar game in a big series does not equal to a missguided franchise. Sonic is misshandeled ip not f zero.