-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Would the gaming industry be different without Nintendo?
- Thread starter Coolwhip
- Start date
radioheadrule83
Banned
Even if you tried to imagine all of their talent just working at other companies, it's their employee retention, their philosophy and their management approach that makes them unique. Barcelona are a team of amazing football players, but only with those players assembled and working together do we get the quality we've seen from them in recent years.
in short... Yes it would be different.
in short... Yes it would be different.
Supermanisdead
Member
Only on GAF. Skyward Sword is worse than 3rd party shovelware drivel.
In North America.
Japan was booming at the time while Europe was too busy playing C64 or Speccy.
Yea
We wouldn't have Kinect
Thanks Nintendo
Something that entertains other people and that you dont have to buy to play most 360 games bothers you?
Really? "Most people who actually played it." That's an extremely loaded statement, and I think you realize that. Wii Music is, to me, a disastrous mess of convergent ideas that simply don't work well, from the ear-shatteringly bad midi sound effects to the no-point-why-even-bother garbage track list, so it's hardly "WELL IF U PLAYED IT U WOULD UNDERSTAND HOW GREAT IT IS." As a lover of music games, it couldn't have been more of a disappointment.
TheGreatDivide
Banned
Except that's not what I said. I said those aspects I listed are indisputably worse than third party shovelware garbage. Most shovelware devs know how to program something as basic as "you experience an item once, and don't have to keep re-reading item descriptions every time you turn back on the game." Most shovelware devs know to put text speed if the game has a lot of text in the options.
Skyward Sword, overall, is just a sad disappointment in the Zelda franchise, but there's no contest it's better than shovelware garbage. But those aspects, and many others internal to the game, absolutely are.
AuthenticM
Member
I wonder if Sony would have entered the market at all had Nintendo not been there for them to approach. Maybe Sega would be King.
I'm pretty sure Microsoft started forcing Kinect development on them after their traditional gaming output failed to perform.
Yea
We wouldn't have Kinect
Thanks Nintendo
And no XBOX and no third parties for XBOX and not the "original" XBOX-controller.
This is not directed at you specifically (unless it applies to you, I don't know) but I don't like the conflation of saying a game has some really annoying and dumb design decisions (which is true of Skyward Sword) to saying a game is bad (which isn't true of Skyward Sword). The last time I remember that happening was when Deus Ex first came out.
Yes there would. The video game crash didn't affect the whole world, and games were being designed and played throughout the crash and on into Nintendo's entrance and beyond.
The world carried on gaming. It never stopped.
I agree with you. If you list individual problems with a game, and that's what I prefer to do because it's far more interesting that just hand shaking over a job well done, it doesn't necessarily mean I don't like the game.
Skyward Sword still has some stellar dungeon designs, and some great ideas. But it also has these problems I listed, which really are from a game design perspective some really basic sins.
That said, in the case of Skyward Sword, I would ultimately call it mediocre. It has some ideas I want adopted, but I need the control scheme changed fundamentally and the hand-holding and such to be fixed. It's enough Zelda games where this is the case, we don't need your help anymore Nintendo. Just have a special "Help Rock" for those stuck... oh wait, there is a help rock
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
It's like asking where would we be without Henry Ford, Walt Disney, or Steven Speilburg?
The assertions made in the OP about nintendo are rather dubious and the truth is if Nintendo wasn't there we have no idea what the industry would be like so it's rather pointless to speculate. They were instrumental after atari in terms of picking up the pieces but beyond that I don't think they've been all that magical.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
Before the GameCube - Yes
After the GameCube - No
After the GameCube - No
We would have an industry. Someone else would have entered and filled the gap. It just would have been a markedly different one from the one we have today.
Well this isn't a thread about Wii Music so I'm not going to try and change your mind. I'll just say most people assumed it was meant to be a rhythm game and thus went in with the wrong mindset. Also the E3 showing was terrible and did the game no favours whatsoever and thus a lot of people wrote it off then and there and never gave it a fair chance.
And the point I was addressing was it was worse than third party shovelware. To say it is worse than say Ninjabread Man is rather outrageous seeing as Nintendo did actually put some effort into Wii Music despite what many people think.
I'd say the industry changed quite a bit because of Nintendo post GameCube. I mean if it wasn't for the Wii we wouldn't have to suffer from this terrible them and us stigma from the "hardcore" gamers towards the casual gamers. Not even the PSX had it so bad. Who knew the concept of niche markets could be so evil.
I would agree that it is not worse than every piece of shovelware (I don't know if people remember that Trucking racing game or Fantastic Four PSOne, mother of God..), but I definitely think Wii Music has problems commensurate with some shovelware titles. I have seen shovelware titles with better music quality and a better track list
OldJadedGamer
Banned
Casuals would have just went to the iPad/iPhone/whatever Apple was doing. Some company would be catering to them.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
I've thought before that perhaps the biggest difference in an industry without Nintendo, would be something subtle to many or most people. Nothing as vulgar as "would we have invented lock on?"
Nintendo, is a toy company. They are an old one, with a long lineage and a complex mixture of company culture due to the influence of key individuals in the second half of the 20th century. Because of their genetic makeup, they are perhaps the only big company in the traditional gaming world that truly, deeply, places full importance on video games as playthings for a universal audience.
Nearly all other companies see chasing the video game market as chasing the generalized consumer electronics and entertainment market, with a bias towards customers who spend their own money (not children), have lots of disposable income, and inhabit a age range of 20 - 35 years old, largely male. As the game industry expanded and aged, and games became more mainstream, the importance of this audience seems to have become paramount to the gaming industry.
Which is all well and good. Nintendo though, is the only major company that sees their audience as fully inclusive and to a degree built on, formative members: kids, people who aren't familiar with video games, people for whom video games may not be their primary form of entertainment. Because of this, Nintendo is built on some core values that don't change with fashion and trends in pop culture, because there's always a new generation of kids, there's always a new uninitiated audience.
This is a big part of what makes Nintendo perpetually "uncool" to people in a certain age range, because Nintendo doesn't remake their entire image to serve the hottest trends only*. Thus they are dorky, fall out of fashion (in the eyes of certain people) and will always be behind the times in some way. By some set of goal posts. The tradeoff for Nintendo being uncool to the hip kids, is that Nintendo offers foundational experiences in gaming, and they continually try to reinvent what gaming may be predicated on for a new generation, ahead of the curve - which gets called "gimmicks" by some, because again, Nintendo isn't doing exactly what everyone else is doing and sophisticate young adult to middle aged enthusiasts consider current standards. But children and people who aren't a part of the inside club don't know what's "right" or "wrong" yet - they only know what's interesting and inventively entertaining.
In this sense, I wonder if Iwata's original explanation of the Wii, and the purpose behind it, wasn't more disingenuous than it appeared. Because really, there was nothing "strange" about the Wii from Nintendo's perspective. It was strange, it was batshit insane, to an adult, core gaming audience that no longer seeks a reason to be entertained by video games, only more content in a style similar enough to what it knows to be appealing. So the whole pitch about "expanding video gaming" and "finding new audiences", was pretty much just explaining the obvious to an industry that was inward focused and perhaps not really thinking of sustainability, and a future. The problem with Nintendo being the only real toy company in the industry, is that everyone else is largely a bunch of toaster men selling packaged goods (at the corporate level). They don't ask why people should play video games, or video games should remain relevant or profitable. They know only that a lot of these young guys are buying something called Call of Duty, or Grand Theft Auto, so they need some of that action.
Then all of a sudden this stupid "gimmick" product sells silly numbers and everyone looks around in confusion, wondering what is going on. This probably was a demonstration of what the industry would be like without Nintendo: it's not that it'd be different. Rather, it would always be the same.
The odd part is it's not that Nintendo is that special; that's what always gets confused in conversations like this, with a bunch of people claiming Nintendo is being put on a pedestal. The way to look at it is this: how is it that an industry full of billion dollar publishers, media giants, and hardware makers tends to get spun around by a toy company? That, while a very fine toy company, is not really any more special than a number of other quality companies around the world?
*contrary to modern gaming mythology, Nintendo didn't "sell out" with the Wii, though they went further in one direction, which even Iwata later admitted. They made some of their best traditional products during the Wii era, they made some of their best software by traditional standards. The Wii was outrageous to observers whose definition of what video games where, perpetually rolls forward with the current fashionable image of the enthusiast oriented electronics world. But every Nintendo product had always been at odds with what others were making to appeal to an upscale audience. You didn't see that when you were kid because surprise: you were a kid, and Nintendo was cool to you then. The Wii was merely a little more at odds than usual.
Nintendo, is a toy company. They are an old one, with a long lineage and a complex mixture of company culture due to the influence of key individuals in the second half of the 20th century. Because of their genetic makeup, they are perhaps the only big company in the traditional gaming world that truly, deeply, places full importance on video games as playthings for a universal audience.
Nearly all other companies see chasing the video game market as chasing the generalized consumer electronics and entertainment market, with a bias towards customers who spend their own money (not children), have lots of disposable income, and inhabit a age range of 20 - 35 years old, largely male. As the game industry expanded and aged, and games became more mainstream, the importance of this audience seems to have become paramount to the gaming industry.
Which is all well and good. Nintendo though, is the only major company that sees their audience as fully inclusive and to a degree built on, formative members: kids, people who aren't familiar with video games, people for whom video games may not be their primary form of entertainment. Because of this, Nintendo is built on some core values that don't change with fashion and trends in pop culture, because there's always a new generation of kids, there's always a new uninitiated audience.
This is a big part of what makes Nintendo perpetually "uncool" to people in a certain age range, because Nintendo doesn't remake their entire image to serve the hottest trends only*. Thus they are dorky, fall out of fashion (in the eyes of certain people) and will always be behind the times in some way. By some set of goal posts. The tradeoff for Nintendo being uncool to the hip kids, is that Nintendo offers foundational experiences in gaming, and they continually try to reinvent what gaming may be predicated on for a new generation, ahead of the curve - which gets called "gimmicks" by some, because again, Nintendo isn't doing exactly what everyone else is doing and sophisticate young adult to middle aged enthusiasts consider current standards. But children and people who aren't a part of the inside club don't know what's "right" or "wrong" yet - they only know what's interesting and inventively entertaining.
In this sense, I wonder if Iwata's original explanation of the Wii, and the purpose behind it, wasn't more disingenuous than it appeared. Because really, there was nothing "strange" about the Wii from Nintendo's perspective. It was strange, it was batshit insane, to an adult, core gaming audience that no longer seeks a reason to be entertained by video games, only more content in a style similar enough to what it knows to be appealing. So the whole pitch about "expanding video gaming" and "finding new audiences", was pretty much just explaining the obvious to an industry that was inward focused and perhaps not really thinking of sustainability, and a future. The problem with Nintendo being the only real toy company in the industry, is that everyone else is largely a bunch of toaster men selling packaged goods (at the corporate level). They don't ask why people should play video games, or video games should remain relevant or profitable. They know only that a lot of these young guys are buying something called Call of Duty, or Grand Theft Auto, so they need some of that action.
Then all of a sudden this stupid "gimmick" product sells silly numbers and everyone looks around in confusion, wondering what is going on. This probably was a demonstration of what the industry would be like without Nintendo: it's not that it'd be different. Rather, it would always be the same.
The odd part is it's not that Nintendo is that special; that's what always gets confused in conversations like this, with a bunch of people claiming Nintendo is being put on a pedestal. The way to look at it is this: how is it that an industry full of billion dollar publishers, media giants, and hardware makers tends to get spun around by a toy company? That, while a very fine toy company, is not really any more special than a number of other quality companies around the world?
*contrary to modern gaming mythology, Nintendo didn't "sell out" with the Wii, though they went further in one direction, which even Iwata later admitted. They made some of their best traditional products during the Wii era, they made some of their best software by traditional standards. The Wii was outrageous to observers whose definition of what video games where, perpetually rolls forward with the current fashionable image of the enthusiast oriented electronics world. But every Nintendo product had always been at odds with what others were making to appeal to an upscale audience. You didn't see that when you were kid because surprise: you were a kid, and Nintendo was cool to you then. The Wii was merely a little more at odds than usual.
Nealand Liquor
Member
I'd say that's a bit of a stretch. Sure the NES & Wii made such an impact but the SNES & N64 did not 'change the whole way of gaming'.
Now the arguement could be made that Nintendo innovated controllers with the N64, but that arguement could be easily disputed as analog controllers had been around in gaming since the late 70s.
For the weird, PC-extremist viewpoint, I say yeah, it would have been different, and better. The number of people who have said things to me like "Ocarina of Time is the game that Skyrim is based on!" or "Nintendo is incredibly innovative because they invented lock-on!" is absurd.
I'm a PC gamer. One of the first video games I ever played literally had the entire planet Earth as a map. PC gaming had these insanely ambitious games like Ultima VII, System Shock, Darklands, and Elite.
By saving console games, Nintendo helped establish a world where limited console experiences (and the public/market's concept of games-as-toys) dominated the industry. This led to the existence of the PS2 and the launch of GTAIII, which basically guaranteed that PC developers, who were busy making some of the greatest video games of all time would graduate towards that larger gaming populace, dumbing their games down in the process.
Look at all the anger in the Hitman thread. Those games were awesome because of their ambition and intelligence. Absolution looks to be less ambitious or intelligent because it's trying to appeal to the giant console market.
So yeah, without Nintendo, there might be fewer gamers, but we'd be better off. Harumph. I am grumpy.
I'm a PC gamer. One of the first video games I ever played literally had the entire planet Earth as a map. PC gaming had these insanely ambitious games like Ultima VII, System Shock, Darklands, and Elite.
By saving console games, Nintendo helped establish a world where limited console experiences (and the public/market's concept of games-as-toys) dominated the industry. This led to the existence of the PS2 and the launch of GTAIII, which basically guaranteed that PC developers, who were busy making some of the greatest video games of all time would graduate towards that larger gaming populace, dumbing their games down in the process.
Look at all the anger in the Hitman thread. Those games were awesome because of their ambition and intelligence. Absolution looks to be less ambitious or intelligent because it's trying to appeal to the giant console market.
So yeah, without Nintendo, there might be fewer gamers, but we'd be better off. Harumph. I am grumpy.
somewhat tongue-in-cheek, here; this is a thought exercise more than anything else
But still Skyrim kind of... blows
I mean not totally, there's a lot to love, but kinda.Regarding the actual question, I imagine due to the emergence of PCs and other similar devices that video games would have carved out for itself a pretty substantial niche. One of the biggest impacts Nintendo had on the industry, even ignoring the innovation on the hardware and software side, was their making video games a staple of children's entertainment. That's where the real growth lied back then, and continues to lie to this day from my view. One of the reasons I think Nintendo will maintain their core business regardless of what happens is because they continue to develop a core children's audience, and once you do that you've more or less already won.
So the question is, if Nintendo weren't around would video games have become a central component of children's entertainment to the extent that it is now? I can't say for sure, but I have a hard time thinking of many other companies at that time that could have filled that role. I guess you could say Bushnell tried with Atari but they mostly failed due to reasons that are well documented. Pretty much all the other companies dabbling with video games in the home at the time were personal electronics companies attempting to use video games as a gateway to expand their own core electronics business (does this sound familiar to anyone?), which would be at odds with trying to market them as a toy for children. I imagine that if not Nintendo, perhaps another foreign software developer operating centrally in arcades would have broken through with their own home solution catered to kids eventually. Perhaps Sega? Maybe Namco? No way to know after all...
So the question is, if Nintendo weren't around would video games have become a central component of children's entertainment to the extent that it is now? I can't say for sure, but I have a hard time thinking of many other companies at that time that could have filled that role. I guess you could say Bushnell tried with Atari but they mostly failed due to reasons that are well documented. Pretty much all the other companies dabbling with video games in the home at the time were personal electronics companies attempting to use video games as a gateway to expand their own core electronics business (does this sound familiar to anyone?), which would be at odds with trying to market them as a toy for children. I imagine that if not Nintendo, perhaps another foreign software developer operating centrally in arcades would have broken through with their own home solution catered to kids eventually. Perhaps Sega? Maybe Namco? No way to know after all...
Nintendo saved the indrustry from the crash.
Nintendo was responsable for Sony to create the Playstation
Sonic was a created to be the Anti-Mario
So basicaly, if the industry survived, we would have Sonicless Sega with Microsoft.... both with Master System like controllers with VMUs
Gamecube was Nintendo's way of saying "fuck you loading times"
They popularized the analog.
Snes created shoulder buttons and the X button, wich praticaly every controller has to this day.
Snes was also the first home console to have polygons if my memory does not fail me.
4 player multiplay without aditional acessories beyond 4 controllers and rumble were also created in the n64
Nintendo was responsable for Sony to create the Playstation
Sonic was a created to be the Anti-Mario
So basicaly, if the industry survived, we would have Sonicless Sega with Microsoft.... both with Master System like controllers with VMUs
Gamecube was Nintendo's way of saying "fuck you loading times"
They popularized the analog.
Snes created shoulder buttons and the X button, wich praticaly every controller has to this day.
Snes was also the first home console to have polygons if my memory does not fail me.
4 player multiplay without aditional acessories beyond 4 controllers and rumble were also created in the n64
Well let's not pretend Nintendo was always all about the innovation or something like that. The SNES was very much a response to the success of the Genesis, and had it not been for Sega Nintendo was very likely to just ride the wave of NES success straight through the 90s as long as possible. Hell, that's basically what they did even with the SNES out in the wild...
Bony Manifesto
Member
My word, is there any worthwhile innovation in the video game industry that Nintendo wasn't responsible for?
AgentChris
Member
Things would suck for me. I love me some Nintendo and without them PlayStation wouldn't exist.
TheGreatDivide
Banned
I've explained what I think. Mainly, that where as Nintendo used to be innovators for gaming as a medium, I feel their innovations lately are focused around very specific types of gaming. I'm not some snob saying casual games can't be fun. I also am not the kind of person who plays any AAA games. I have no interested in Halo, Assassin's Creed, COD etc. The only game coming out this year I have any desire to play is actually Mario on Wii U. This isn't some agenda where I feel "my" gaming is under attack. The cloest thing to "my" gaming is Nintendo's first party when they're on top form. Mario Galaxy and Twilight Princess would be in my top 10 of the gen.
The point I'm seemingly failing to make is that I don't feel motion controls are a concept which has improved gaming on the whole. Where as I think previously, their changes in interface have provided unquestionably superior results for all games. NES, N64 and DS all did a lot of things which I think you can argue changed all gaming in a lot of ways. When I look at Wii, Wii U and 3DS, I don't see that same level of impact on a broad scale. Nintendo themselves have moved backwards from the motion controls that defined the Wii. No handheld will ever release without touch screen controls now. That's an example of when you lead the way.
When you look at the major innovations that affect gaming as a whole, rather than specific genres, it's been in the area of online play and, sadly, more cinematic gameplay. So when I look at the industry as a whole today, I certainly acknowledge Nintendo's incredible influence up until now. But I don't see them pushing gaming forward beyond, say, Wii Sports stuff. And I liked Wii Sports, for what it was, but there's no lasting impact beyond Wii Sports clones.
Nintendo might have saved console videogames in North America but certainly not the entire industry.
Dion Blaster
Member
I get the feeling that many people here equate this gen (and possibly last gen) to the history of videogames.
Somehow the impact that Super Mario Bros. had is becoming underrated. Same with the original Zelda.
Interesting video on what Miyamoto alone brought to the industry.
Somehow the impact that Super Mario Bros. had is becoming underrated. Same with the original Zelda.
Interesting video on what Miyamoto alone brought to the industry.
RealDeadOne
Member
Without Nintendo, there never would have been
Donkey Kong
The NES
Super Mario Bros.
Zelda 1
Metroid & Kid Icarus
Final Fantasy & Dragon Warrior
Castlevania games
Mario 3 and Mario World
LttP
Game Boy
Pokemon
Mario 64
Ocarina of Time
DS
Wii and motion controls
Super Smash Bros.
Just to name a few. Basically, the current game industry was made possible by Nintendo, almost all modern game designs can be traced backwards to Nintendo, there would be no Sega, no Playstation, no Xbox, no GTA.
Maybe games would have eventually risen without Nintendo, but if you look at the actual history, everything was made possible either directly or indirectly by Nintendo.
Donkey Kong
The NES
Super Mario Bros.
Zelda 1
Metroid & Kid Icarus
Final Fantasy & Dragon Warrior
Castlevania games
Mario 3 and Mario World
LttP
Game Boy
Pokemon
Mario 64
Ocarina of Time
DS
Wii and motion controls
Super Smash Bros.
Just to name a few. Basically, the current game industry was made possible by Nintendo, almost all modern game designs can be traced backwards to Nintendo, there would be no Sega, no Playstation, no Xbox, no GTA.
Maybe games would have eventually risen without Nintendo, but if you look at the actual history, everything was made possible either directly or indirectly by Nintendo.
No, everything was not made possible either indirectly or directly by Nintendo. Quite a bit of Japanese console gaming, sure, but in all honest, not a single one of the games on that list matter all that much to me, nor did they have much of an impact on the video games that matter to me.
I get that they're seminal games, but the world would still have its Mysts, its Ages of Empires, its System Shocks, and its Thiefs without them. And, I'd argue, it'd have even more. That's the world I, personally, would rather live in.
The surge in popularity of Western games this generation comes in a large part from the transition of western, PC developers, such as Epic and Bungie, to consoles. PC games were awesome and rarely limited, so when they, with all the ambition and progress they brought, came to consoles, they were something of a revelation to audiences, even though they weren't nearly as good as what had come before in many respects. While console audiences are fawning over Bioshock, I was left cold because I'd played System Shock 2.
It's not to say "fuck Nintendo I wish they were dead," because they've done wonderful things, but I do feel like this thread could use a devil's advocate.
But still Skyrim kind of... blows
My point was that Skyrim would have been a better game had it not been designed for the mass, lowest-common denominator audience of console gaming. Design a game entirely for the PC and you'll come up with something like STALKER or Morrowind (sure, it had a port, but that was as much an afterthought as Silent Hill 2 PC). Compromise it for consoles, and you end up with Skyrim.
Again, I'm speaking somewhat tongue-in-cheek here, but only somewhat.
If you really think the industry would be the same, I'd have to recommend you to look at your current gaming controllers.
"Somebody else would have done it"
Maybe, maybe not.
Also, personally, I wouldn't be here disscusing and playing games today. I would go as far as to say that maybe NeoGAF wouldn't exist if it weren't for the things they did in the 80s.
"Somebody else would have done it"
Maybe, maybe not.
Also, personally, I wouldn't be here disscusing and playing games today. I would go as far as to say that maybe NeoGAF wouldn't exist if it weren't for the things they did in the 80s.