Kimishima (Nintendo CEO) : Aside from Labo, there's more new ways to play coming

[NightMarcher]

Wait, so touchscreen games are allowed to have exlusive or primary use of the touch screen, but motion controls can't?

Click to shrink...

Of course games are allowed exclusive use of the touch screen, as the game design necessitates the utilization of such technology, it is built around it at its core from the ground up. As far as I'm aware, Mario has always been a game that's been designed with traditional controls in mind, and there's not a thing stopping Nintendo from providing that option in full functionality in a form factor THEY GIVE us aside from dogmatic, exclusionary design philosophy. There is nigh zero need for necessity for motion controls in that game that the hardware dictates.

Yep, just like how motion controls are bad for being imprecise non-digital inputs but rotary dials and steering wheels are okay for being imprecise non-digital inputs.

Click to shrink...

Those again, are not imprecise inputs. If they are, explain to me how. If I turn the wheel 45^0 to the right, am I not getting a 45^0 input? The technology in the waggle that is at the core of Nintendo's motion tech is iffy at best in input interpretation, and you can't tell me it reads 100% right, 100% of the time.

 

[TheMisterManGuy]

Of course games are allowed exclusive use of the touch screen, as the game design necessitates the utilization of such technology, it is built around it at its core from the ground up. As far as I'm aware, Mario has always been a game that's been designed with traditional controls in mind, and there's not a thing stopping Nintendo from providing that option in full functionality in a form factor THEY GIVE us aside from dogmatic, exclusionary design philosophy. There is nigh zero need for necessity for motion controls in that game that the hardware dictates.

Click to shrink...

So if a game designed with such an input in mind can use that input primarily or exclusively, then why can't Mario Odyssey? It's a game that was designed from the start to be played with the Joy-Con detached, and the mechanics were created with that kind of control scheme in mind.

Those again, are not imprecise inputs. If they are, explain to me how. If I turn the wheel 45^0 to the right, am I not getting a 45^0 input? The technology in the waggle that is at the core of Nintendo's motion tech is iffy at best in input interpretation, and you can't tell me it reads 100% right, 100% of the time.

Click to shrink...

It did when I played Odyssey, or ARMS with detatched Joy-Con. More often than not implimentation of technology is more important than the tech itself. If you shove motion controls into everything and anything, then yes, you'll get mixed results. But if you use motion as a way to flesh out a mechanic and give the player more defined control over it, then it can be as precise as any button press, perhaps even more since Motion controls allow for more defined executions of mechanics that the linearity of a button press.

 

[zenspider]

Its amazing that, even after the Labo reveal, I still cannot imagine what that could possibly mean.

Keep Nintendo Weird!

 

[NightMarcher]

So if a game designed with such an input in mind can use that input primarily or exclusively, then why can't Mario Odyssey? It's a game that was designed from the start to be played with the Joy-Con detached, and the mechanics were created with that kind of control scheme in mind.

Click to shrink...

Because there's nothing about the inherent design of Odyssey that can't be replicated using buttons, analog, or a combination thereof. Obviously, a game that demands the use of a touchscreen will not function without it. If motion controls did not exist currently, Nintendo could make Odyssey work perfectly fine on the Switch. I see nothing in Mario that cannot be accomplished with buttons, so the option for them should exist, mainly because part of the selling point for their system is that we can have the same experience on the go that we can at home.

It's not that I'm against games being designed with a certain control method in mind, but when the option's possible for other ones it should be made available, especially when it mostly already is. To remove a few mechanics as they did in Mario is borderline trolling for those that wish to play the game with full button functionality in handheld mode or who may be disabled.

It did when I played Odyssey, or ARMS with detached Joy-Con. More often than not implementation of technology is more important than the tech itself. If you shove motion controls into everything and anything, then yes, you'll get mixed results. But if you use motion as a way to flesh out a mechanic and give the player more defined control over it, then it can be as precise as any button press, perhaps even more since Motion controls allow for more defined executions of mechanics that the linearity of a button press.

Click to shrink...

The implementation of technology I'd argue lay contingent upon the capability and limitations of it. VR's a prime example....the implementation cannot work without the tech making it possible.

Thing is, Odyssey is not more precise or fleshed out with motion controls. The moves that are executed are still binary and linear in nature, they are simply assigned to generalized areas of movement to trigger on/off. No variance of degree within that allowance will make Mario do a smaller hat spin, or a different type of homing attack, for example. When you assign binary inputs to motion controls, what you are doing is giving the player a basic idea of what to do to get the desired on/off result, but still using a system that fails to set any concrete defined boundaries to the player in the degree of movement they can make before that motion trespasses on another's zone and one input is interpreted contrary to the player's will. That's the problem. That Mario has binary inputs assigned to motion controls in this manner doesn't show me that it was built from the ground up to utilize them, but were in fact shoehorned in.

One of my favorite games of all time uses motion controls (Pikmin 3), but the difference being, there's always UI feedback in showing the cursor onscreen. It's never left in ambiguity where the player stands in contrast to the system reading their inputs, and as long as motion controls suffer from this problem, I'll always prefer the assured nature of traditional control schemes and will always wish for a way to opt out.

 

[TheMisterManGuy]

Because there's nothing about the inherent design of Odyssey that can't be replicated using buttons, analog, or a combination thereof. Obviously, a game that demands the use of a touchscreen will not function without it. If motion controls did not exist currently, Nintendo could make Odyssey work perfectly fine on the Switch. I see nothing in Mario that cannot be accomplished with buttons, so the option for them should exist, mainly because part of the selling point for their system is that we can have the same experience on the go that we can at home.

It's not that I'm against games being designed with a certain control method in mind, but when the option's possible for other ones, it should be made available, especially when it mostly already is. To remove a few mechanics as they did in Mario is borderline trolling for those that wish to play the game with full button functionality in handheld mode or who may be disabled.

Click to shrink...

Except Mario Odyssey uses motion controls to give the player more nuanced and easier control over Cappy. Button's are linear so being able to throw Cappy at an angle for example, would require a fiddly input combo, or just not be possible at all since you use the right stick to control the angle, how is the player going to move the camera? Motion Controls in Mario Odyssey aren't there for the gimmick factor, they're there because they're a fundamental part to the game's core mechanic. And while the game does offer button substitutes for many of these moves, they're more complex and less reliable because impact of the game's mechanics are lost when adapting it to another control scheme. For another non-Music example, it's like Playing Donkey Kong Jungle Beat with a standard GameCube controller. Sure the option is there, but really, why would you want to use it though? The game was clearly designed to be played with its included Bongo controller because the mechanics are more meaningful and impactful when played with it.

Thing is, Odyssey is not more precise or fleshed out with motion controls. The moves that are executed are still binary and linear in nature, they are simply assigned to generalized areas of movement to trigger on/off. No variance of degree within that allowance will make Mario do a smaller hat spin, or a different type of homing attack, for example. When you assign binary inputs to motion controls, what you are doing is giving the player a basic idea of what to do to get the desired on/off result, but still using a system that fails to set any concrete defined boundaries to the player in the degree of movement they can make before that motion trespasses on another's zone and one input is interpreted contrary to the player's will. That's the problem. That Mario has binary inputs assigned to motion controls in this manner doesn't show me that it was built from the ground up to utilize them, but were in fact shoehorned in.

Click to shrink...

As I've explained, the Motion Controls give the player more nuanced and easier control over Cappy. Tossing at an angle, homing, throwing up, throwing down, spin attack. These are more intuitive and better defined when you play the game the way it asks you to. Yes these are technically binary actions. But my point isn't that Odyssey is giving you VR-like 1:1 Control over Cappy, rather it's giving the player deeper, but still simple control of Cappy. Buttons are too linear and limited to offer that degree ease of control over the core mechanic. While the game does offer button options for many of these actions, they're more complex and less useful, because again, you're adapting something that was designed with a gesture based input in-mind, to a control scheme that's too fiddly to allow for that level of easy control. There's a lot more to the Cappy mechanic than you're realizing. And yes, Odyssey was built from the ground up for Motion Controls. The Hat mechanic was only created because the developers were exploring different uses for the Joy-Con.

One of my favorite games of all time uses motion controls (Pikmin 3), but the difference being, there's always UI feedback in showing the cursor onscreen. It's never left in ambiguity where the player stands in contrast to the system reading their inputs, and as long as motion controls suffer from this problem, I'll always prefer the assured nature of traditional control schemes, and will always wish for a way to opt out.

Click to shrink...

Except Odyssey doesn't really have that ambiguity you claim is an issue. When you flick your wrist, Mario will toss Cappy, flick at an angle, and Mario will toss at an angle. There's still clear visual feedback when you play with motion controls in the game.

 

[jdstorm]

Speaking of strange decisions regarding Mario Odyssey's controls.

Did the Jump button being on A bother anyone else? It drove me a bit crazy that it was on a face button vs a shoulder button given the need to use both sticks to move/look at the same time.

 

[Ecotic]

I dislike this persistent direction Nintendo is taking so much. Nintendo tries to give the illusion of being an innovator with peripherals and wacky console design, but in terms of software they play it very safe. These peripherals and such aren't coming organically, as though a development team had an idea that couldn't be done without something new, they're coming because Nintendo's leadership has decided this is the way they'll try to differentiate themselves and compete. What happens is you end up with expensive peripherals in search of a software solution. They're forever chasing that Wii Sports sugar high.

Just put in the hard work of making some killer software with a traditional controller that people who wouldn't have given Nintendo a second chance can't ignore. This 'new way to play' approach is hoping for a shortcut.

 

[TheMisterManGuy]

I dislike this persistent direction Nintendo is taking so much. Nintendo tries to give the illusion of being an innovator with peripherals and wacky console design, but in terms of software they play it very safe. These peripherals and such aren't coming organically, as though a development team had an idea that couldn't be done without something new, they're coming because Nintendo's leadership has decided this is the way they'll try to differentiate themselves and compete. What happens is you end up with expensive peripherals in search of a software solution. They're forever chasing that Wii Sports sugar high.

Just put in the hard work of making some killer software with a traditional controller that people who wouldn't have given Nintendo a second chance can't ignore. This 'new way to play' approach is hoping for a shortcut.

Click to shrink...

A company who makes a shooter where you play as squids who shoot ink, a fighter about stretchy armed freaked, a weird edutainment game that introduced the phrase Brain Training, and a puppy sim plays it safe with software? Also these ideas all came from developers who wanted to use the unique hardware features of the consoles, not because just leadership. Nintendo has always been like this, and they always will be like this.

 

[Ecotic]

A company who makes a shooter where you play as squids who shoot ink, a fighter about stretchy armed freaked, a weird edutainment game that introduced the phrase Brain Training, and a puppy sim plays it safe with software? Also these ideas all came from developers who wanted to use the unique hardware features of the consoles, not because just leadership. Nintendo has always been like this, and they always will be like this.

Click to shrink...

Nintendo makes 80% or more sequels to old franchises. A creative company that took risks would be akin to what Sega did during the Dreamcast, or what Pixar did during the 2000's decade (not one sequel). Nintendo makes a few new IPs here and there, but they're always smaller projects and never a large departure from the type of game Nintendo usually makes.

What's maddening about this is that Nintendo is the platform holder, they have the captive audience's foremost attention. The risk therefore, is much lower than it is for a third-party to lay it on the line when making something ambitious. That's what console gaming at its pinnacle should be about, the platform holder providing the financial and managerial support to let some truly creative magic happen. This industry used to be experimental and progressive, instead it's now full of people endlessly defending its current conservatism.

 

[SaberVS7]

Quality of Life confirmed.

I can imagine using the Joy-con in creative ways and even without using the screen too much similarly to 1, 2... Switch.

Click to shrink...

 

[TheMisterManGuy]

Nintendo makes 80% or more sequels to old franchises. A creative company that took risks would be akin to what Sega did during the Dreamcast, or what Pixar did during the 2000's decade (not one sequel). Nintendo makes a few new IPs here and there, but they're always smaller projects and never a large departure from the type of game Nintendo usually makes.

Click to shrink...

If you're talking about the Wii U, sure, even I'll admit that was a creative low point for Nintendo. But most other Nintendo consoles have a ton of creative games from them, especially the DS and soon the Switch. And its more than just a few new IPs, they've actually produced quite a shit ton of new IP over the past decade or so. Including the ones I previously mentioned (Splatoon, ARMS, Brain Age, Nintendogs), there's Nintendo Labo, Ever Oasis, Electroplankton, Box Boy, Rusty's Real Deal Baseball, Tank Troopers, Style Savvy, and Xenoblade to name a few. Call them small, niche, handheld, eShop whatever, you asked for New IP, I gave you some. And even Nintendo's established IP constantly change and evolve. You can't tell me Super Mario Odyssey plays exactly like Super Mario Bros. on the NES.

What's maddening about this is that Nintendo is the platform holder, they have the captive audience's foremost attention. The risk therefore, is much lower than it is for a third-party to lay it on the line when making something ambitious. That's what console gaming at its pinnacle should be about, the platform holder providing the financial and managerial support to let some truly creative magic happen. This industry used to be experimental and progressive, instead it's now full of people endlessly defending its current conservatism.

Click to shrink...

Innovation happens all the time in the industry, I mean, just look at the indie scene for example. Just because it's not being sold on a $60 disc in a plastic box for a home console sold on store shelves doesn't make it less valid.

 

[Ecotic]

If you're talking about the Wii U, sure, even I'll admit that was a creative low point for Nintendo. But most other Nintendo consoles have a ton of creative games from them, especially the DS and soon the Switch. And its more than just a few new IPs, they've actually produced quite a shit ton of new IP over the past decade or so. Including the ones I previously mentioned (Splatoon, ARMS, Brain Age, Nintendogs), there's Nintendo Labo, Ever Oasis, Electroplankton, Box Boy, Rusty's Real Deal Baseball, Tank Troopers, Style Savvy, and Xenoblade to name a few. Call them small, niche, handheld, eShop whatever, you asked for New IP, I gave you some.

Click to shrink...

That's not really what I asked for. To address your immediate issue, I think releasing a handful of new IPs that are so insignificant their failure wouldn't even be financially noticed is not at all impressive. But there's more to stepping out of one's comfort zone than just having new IP. My original charge was that Nintendo plays it very safe in terms of software. Nintendo almost never releases games in genres you wouldn't expect from them, with a tone you wouldn't expect from them, and with a scope of ambition that you wouldn't expect of them. Under present leadership there's never going to be a Nintendo equivalent of Shenmue or Phantasy Star Online, two examples of console gaming audacity at its height, even though Nintendo has the resources to make such ambitious projects and the skill to make them profitable. Splatoon and ARMS, for example, are just about the most conservative, Nintendo-esque new games Nintendo could possibly make.When Nintendo does embrace 'new' technology (that was actually proven ages ago), like online gaming or HD gaming, they do so in the most limited way possible.

 

[NightMarcher]

Except Mario Odyssey uses motion controls to give the player more nuanced and easier control over Cappy. Button's are linear so being able to throw Cappy at an angle for example, would require a fiddly input combo, or just not be possible at all since you use the right stick to control the angle, how is the player going to move the camera? Motion Controls in Mario Odyssey aren't there for the gimmick factor, they're there because they're a fundamental part to the game's core mechanic. And while the game does offer button substitutes for many of these moves, they're more complex and less reliable because impact of the game's mechanics are lost when adapting it to another control scheme. For another non-Music example, it's like Playing Donkey Kong Jungle Beat with a standard GameCube controller. Sure the option is there, but really, why would you want to use it though? The game was clearly designed to be played with its included Bongo controller because the mechanics are more meaningful and impactful when played with it.

Click to shrink...

Just because an input system isn't as effective or is more inefficient (which is pure conjecture in the case of Odyssey) doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented to the best of the developer's ability, and let's be honest, we are talking about Nintendo. They are easily capable to provide full button support with minimal (if any) concessions to playability. 2-3 unused buttons, and there's no way to do it well? I don't buy it, and I played through Odyssey and am very familiar with Cappy's mechanics.

And why would I want to play Jungle Beat with a standard button controller? Well, I'm disabled and using my arm causes me pain. People need to stop projecting their own experiences in leverage to justify denying other people the chance to have their own, especially when there is absolutely no good reason why options cannot be given when possible. Give me the lesser of input methods if needs be, because I'll tell you this much: I'd sooner choose a more inefficient or cumbersome method that grants full playability than to have a more efficient one that does the same but that causes me constant discomfort so makes me not want to experience it at all.

Why are some so adamantly against allowing that? Do they wish to deny people the full enjoyment of games who are worse off than I am and can only use their hands? Does Nintendo? This complaint is largely a personal gripe for me (and this isn't all about Mario, but games that've used motion controls that could've given options but didn't), but even aside it, I would appreciate knowing what is so wrong with allowing gamers the ability to play the way they want when the hardware is capable of enabling it? Who is Nintendo (or anyone) to claim how it's better to experience their games to the extent that they compromise/neglect other perfectly viable options, options that have been traditionally used thus far?

As I've explained, the Motion Controls give the player more nuanced and easier control over Cappy. Tossing at an angle, homing, throwing up, throwing down, spin attack. These are more intuitive and better defined when you play the game the way it asks you to. Yes these are technically binary actions. But my point isn't that Odyssey is giving you VR-like 1:1 Control over Cappy, rather it's giving the player deeper, but still simple control of Cappy. Buttons are too linear and limited to offer that degree ease of control over the core mechanic. While the game does offer button options for many of these actions, they're more complex and less useful, because again, you're adapting something that was designed with a gesture based input in-mind, to a control scheme that's too fiddly to allow for that level of easy control. There's a lot more to the Cappy mechanic than you're realizing. And yes, Odyssey was built from the ground up for Motion Controls. The Hat mechanic was only created because the developers were exploring different uses for the Joy-Con.

Click to shrink...

Motion controls can be limiting, less intuitive, and less easy while buttons are preferable to the disabled, and being able to use them are not necessarily better for some even when they would present a marked improvement in gameplay over traditional means. Having to use them can be restrictive and burdensome. And even though buttons may not be as nuanced, they are still an option to people not capable of utilizing that nuance through physical impairment. Until they're not, because for some strange reason, allowing people to choose how to play their game would affect those who play it the way it was intended to be played.

Except Odyssey doesn't really have that ambiguity you claim is an issue. When you flick your wrist, Mario will toss Cappy, flick at an angle, and Mario will toss at an angle. There's still clear visual feedback when you play with motion controls in the game.

Click to shrink...

There is no visual feedback nor reference until the action has been executed, and the hardware gives you no indication of how it's tracking your movements prior. I'll admit Mario is one of Nintendo's better motion control implementations, but it doesn't solve the fundamental issue I hold with them.

 

[Stick]

Nintendo trying to expand that market place i see.... Movies, Themeparks, crazy toys, and of course games. Could be the start of something awesome, and the more Nintendo this world has, the happier I am.

 

[TheMisterManGuy]

That's not really what I asked for. To address your immediate issue, I think releasing a handful of new IPs that are so insignificant their failure wouldn't even be financially noticed is not at all impressive.

Click to shrink...

Splatoon and ARMS are insignificant? Honestly, that's one of the best parts of Nintendo. Many times, They'll put out something so bizarre, so out-of-nowhere, yet not worry too much if it fails, because the generally low-budget means there's no financial huge loss. Mario and Zelda are great, but it's always exciting when Nintendo throws us some curve-ball oddity that may or may not be the next big thing.

But there's more to stepping out of one's comfort zone than just having new IP. My original charge was that Nintendo plays it very safe in terms of software. Nintendo almost never releases games in genres you wouldn't expect from them, with a tone you wouldn't expect from them, and with a scope of ambition that you wouldn't expect of them. Under present leadership there's never going to be a Nintendo equivalent of Shenmue or Phantasy Star Online, two examples of console gaming audacity at its height, even though Nintendo has the resources to make such ambitious projects and the skill to make them profitable. Splatoon and ARMS, for example, are just about the most conservative, Nintendo-esque new games Nintendo could possibly make.When Nintendo does embrace 'new' technology (that was actually proven ages ago), like online gaming or HD gaming, they do so in the most limited way possible.

Click to shrink...

Back in 2005, nobody would expect Nintendo to produce an experimental touch-based music making tool staring neon colored Fish. Or an edutainment title aimed at old people staring the disembodied head of a Japanese Neuro-science professor nobody in America has even heard of. Or a massive Open-World JRPG from the developers of Xenosaga, let alone acquire said developer. Point is, Nintendo does a lot of unexpected things, some good, some bad. That's what makes them unique. Of course, they're not going to do something needlessly expensive like Shenmue as Sega would because they're not Sega. Sega always had a bad habit of pouring obscene amounts of money in obviously niche projects. Nintendo's a much more fiscally responsible developer by comparison. They generally keep their development budgets deliberately low to allow both experimentation, and stable profits. If a game like Ever Oasis underpreforms, no big loss for Nintendo, or the developer, hell they might even green-light a sequel, or another weird oddity that will fail.

Conservative, sure, sometimes to a fault. But you can't say Nintendo is lazy, or isn't creative. Barring the Wii U, Nintendo's hardware and software are consistently some of the most unique in the industry.

 

[TheMisterManGuy]

Just because an input system isn't as effective or is more inefficient (which is pure conjecture in the case of Odyssey) doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented to the best of the developer's ability, and let's be honest, we are talking about Nintendo. They are easily capable to provide full button support with minimal (if any) concessions to playability. 2-3 unused buttons, and there's no way to do it well? I don't buy it, and I played through Odyssey and am very familiar with Cappy's mechanics.

And why would I want to play Jungle Beat with a standard button controller? Well, I'm disabled and using my arm causes me pain. People need to stop projecting their own experiences in leverage to justify denying other people the chance to have their own, especially when there is absolutely no good reason why options cannot be given when possible. Give me the lesser of input methods if needs be, because I'll tell you this much: I'd sooner choose a more inefficient or cumbersome method that grants full playability than to have a more efficient one that does the same but that causes me constant discomfort so makes me not want to experience it at all.

Why are some so adamantly against allowing that? Do they wish to deny people the full enjoyment of games who are worse off than I am and can only use their hands? Does Nintendo? This complaint is largely a personal gripe for me (and this isn't all about Mario, but games that've used motion controls that could've given options but didn't), but even aside it, I would appreciate knowing what is so wrong with allowing gamers the ability to play the way they want when the hardware is capable of enabling it? Who is Nintendo (or anyone) to claim how it's better to experience their games to the extent that they compromise/neglect other perfectly viable options, options that have been traditionally used thus far?

Click to shrink...

Control options only work if the game's design allows for options. Splatoon and ARMS lend themselves well to non-motion alternatives due to their nature as multiplayer titles. Mario Odyssey is a mixed bag, some of its mechanics can be adapted. But for the full experience, you'll want to play it the way the game tells you to.

Motion controls can be limiting, less intuitive, and less easy while buttons are preferable to the disabled, and being able to use them are not necessarily better for some even when they would present a marked improvement in gameplay over traditional means. Having to use them can be restrictive and burdensome. And even though buttons may not be as nuanced, they are still an option to people not capable of utilizing that nuance through physical impairment. Until they're not, because for some strange reason, allowing people to choose how to play their game would affect those who play it the way it was intended to be played.

Click to shrink...

You're acting like this is 2005 era motion tech in the Wii Remote, that can only detect very basic gestures on a 3-axis angle. The Joy-Con have pretty sophisticated motion tech in them, so they're capable of a lot more than the old Wii Remote or even the Wii Remote Plus was.

There is no visual feedback nor reference until the action has been executed, and the hardware gives you no indication of how it's tracking your movements prior. I'll admit Mario is one of Nintendo's better motion control implementations, but it doesn't solve the fundamental issue I hold with them.

Click to shrink...

The Motion controls do give you physical feedback with HD Rumble.

 

[NightMarcher]

Control options only work if the game's design allows for options. Splatoon and ARMS lend themselves well to non-motion alternatives due to their nature as multiplayer titles. Mario Odyssey is a mixed bag, some of its mechanics can be adapted. But for the full experience, you'll want to play it the way the game tells you to.

Click to shrink...

Perhaps I'd be more inclined to believe that motion controls are absolutely necessary for full playability in Odyssey if it weren't for two things:

• buttons being redundant
• a splash screen telling me to try playing with detached Joycons for "extra" options

How is it defined as extra when Nintendo apparently didn't even take the effort to make every button distinct in function, and how are you certain all of Cappy's abilities couldn't be assigned to those that are redundant? I can think of a way they could be used. Currently, X and Y are to throw the cap and A and B are to jump. You don't need two jump buttons, which would free up three buttons for Cappy. Assign two moves (spin, homing) to two buttons, and use the remaining one as the default throw, which can be combined with analog directions for the rest (up and roll on the ground), and there you go. Not difficult, and certainly not precluded by game design.

You're acting like this is 2005 era motion tech in the Wii Remote, that can only detect very basic gestures on a 3-axis angle. The Joy-Con have pretty sophisticated motion tech in them, so they're capable of a lot more than the old Wii Remote or even the Wii Remote Plus was.

Click to shrink...

Motion controls are motion controls, improvements in tech doesn't change the nature of the beast.

The Motion controls do give you physical feedback with HD Rumble.

Click to shrink...

And this yet again does not refute my argument against them, so it still stands.

 

[ourghostsofwar]

But these games take time to make. So when Nintendo's next AAA release is still a few months out, they have to fill the gap with something else if third parties aren't there. No company can release a AAA title every month. Nintendo is no exception. What you're asking is incredibly unrealistic.

Click to shrink...

That they take time to make isn't my problem. It's Nintendo's job to allocate resources to make sure they have the games they need to support their platform. I heard "Please Understand" from Nintendo enough times to say it's been over a decade of this nonsense and I'm tired of it.

 

[Mizavari]

Nintendo makes 80% or more sequels to old franchises. A creative company that took risks would be akin to what Sega did during the Dreamcast, or what Pixar did during the 2000's decade (not one sequel). Nintendo makes a few new IPs here and there, but they're always smaller projects and never a large departure from the type of game Nintendo usually makes.

Click to shrink...

1. As noted before, Nintendo releases games with highly original gameplay All the time: Brain Age, Rhythm Heaven, Wii Sport, Wii Fit, Nintendogs, Splatoon, 1-2 Switch, Snipperclips, ARMS and now Labo.
2. Precisely because they do so much more than other developers, they tend to start small and safe, but of the 80% sequels, many of them are sequels to innovative gameplay that they took the risk of starting in the first place.

Take the following franchises for example:
- Mario Kart
- Animal Crossing
- Splatoon

Oh Sure, they seem like old established franchises Now, but nobody else did them before, now they're AA or AAA franchises with not a single other AAA developer doing anything similar.

Also, if you look at the Mario and Zelda games, all of them have different gameplay mechanisms in each installment. It's not like the nth release of COD which will still be about shooting. Nintendo chose to go with Mario for 'taking over monsters and objects and doing stuff as them'. It's a very rare gameplay mechanism though, and perhaps not featured in any other AAA game. BotW is a Zelda game, but it also broke a whole lot of core Zelda conventions, resulting in a lot of complaints from fans.

So Nintendo is releasing new gameplay all the time. When a new concept is well-received, they build upon it to make it bigger and bigger. And it uses its established franchises to test out new gameplay concepts and mechanisms. That's why each iteration of Mario or Zelda stands out so much in the collective minds.

 

[TheMisterManGuy]

That they take time to make isn't my problem. It's Nintendo's job to allocate resources to make sure they have the games they need to support their platform. I heard "Please Understand" from Nintendo enough times to say it's been over a decade of this nonsense and I'm tired of it.

Click to shrink...

Yes, and its also their job to make sure the Switch reaches as broad of an audience as possible, which includes producing stuff like Kirby and Labo. We're still only in February, so we don't know the exact 2018 lineup, so we'll probably hear more sometime later this month in a Direct.

 

[pirata]

Music-creation game/software that's more Mario Maker than Wii Music. Use accessories to turn the Switch into a musical instrument. Fantastic tutorial and challenges to teach people how to make fairly robust electronic music. Online sharing system. Maybe some sort of rhythm-based game-play? Basically, I want Nintendo to teach kids how to make good music.

 

[Deleted member 3017]

That they take time to make isn't my problem. It's Nintendo's job to allocate resources to make sure they have the games they need to support their platform. I heard "Please Understand" from Nintendo enough times to say it's been over a decade of this nonsense and I'm tired of it.

Click to shrink...

If you're tired of it, move on. For many of us, Nintendo is stronger than they've been in over 20 years.

 

[Todd Black]

I'm still very curious as to what Nintendo is going to do this year. Labo was one step, and if they have more, plus big games? 2018 could be just as big as 2017.

 

[ourghostsofwar]

If you're tired of it, move on. For many of us, Nintendo is stronger than they've been in over 20 years.

Click to shrink...

That would be like saying if you're tired of me posting in this thread, move on. Their core games have been stronger than they've been in 20 years. 1-2-Switch still sucks.

 

[Deleted member 3017]

That would be like saying if you're tired of me posting in this thread, move on.

Click to shrink...

Sure, if this thread were open and active for a decade.

 

[ourghostsofwar]

Sure, if this thread were open and active for a decade.

Click to shrink...

If you want to be the one blaming people for extending Nintendo an olive branch and supporting the Switch, by all means, lead the way. I personally think its a bad look. Trust me, I'd rather be playing more AAA games on my Switch right now than having this back and forth with you. Problem is there's nothing to play for at least another 2-3 months and it will have been that way for half a year.

 

[Deleted member 3017]

If you want to be the one blaming people for extending Nintendo an olive branch and supporting the Switch, by all means, lead the way. I

Click to shrink...

That's an...interesting way of looking at it.

 

[tabris]

Nintendo just can't get over the Wii and chasing the fad with non-gamers they had for a brief moment.

I really wish they kept focused on gaming. They have something really great going with the Switch. And for those that say this doesn't affect the gaming side - the past would say otherwise as Nintendo went downhill after the Wii in my opinion until now - chasing that fad with things like balance boards, vitality sensors, and other garbage.

 

[Slam Tilt]

I don't know about anyone else, but reading the last few pages of this thread is blurring into a cacophony of folks upset that Nintendo isn't 100% focused on them and their preferences.

 

[tabris]

I don't know about anyone else, but reading the last few pages of this thread is blurring into a cacophony of folks upset that Nintendo isn't 100% focused on them and their preferences.

Click to shrink...

That's correct, why wouldn't you want that? Especially when the focus on things that are not your preference affect the things that are your preference.

 

[Slam Tilt]

That's correct, why wouldn't you want that?

Click to shrink...

Because I'm not selfish.

 

[Ohto]

Because I'm not selfish.

Click to shrink...

More precisely, you are not acting like a cunt.


People complaining that Ninty only does sequels, have you looked how diverse Mario IP is? Or how you can find different kind old Zeldas, even the completely mediocre Metroid has different games in it's portfolio.

Hold on, guys. This is the negativity phase in the bipolarity of Nintendo discussion. Every time we get good news for Nintendo topics are filled with asinine whining. They'll move on soon.

 

[TheMisterManGuy]

Nintendo just can't get over the Wii and chasing the fad with non-gamers they had for a brief moment.

I really wish they kept focused on gaming. They have something really great going with the Switch. And for those that say this doesn't affect the gaming side - the past would say otherwise as Nintendo went downhill after the Wii in my opinion until now - chasing that fad with things like balance boards, vitality sensors, and other garbage.

Click to shrink...

I hope you're ready to stomach a lot of crow when Nintendo actually starts bringing these people back for the long term, and prove that the Wii wasn't this short-lived fad.

 

[Dark Cloud]

That's correct, why wouldn't you want that? Especially when the focus on things that are not your preference affect the things that are your preference.

Click to shrink...

Because there's more than just me that can be catered to in this industry...?

 

[brykuhn91]

I'm all for Nintendo making games that are unique and out of the norm, but I think there needs to be a balance. I think if we had more details on the rest of 2018 I would be a little more accepting of wacky Nintendo. As of now there is not a single game that they have coming that looks even close to as good as Zelda, Splatoon, Mario, Xenoblade, or Mario Kart. Hopefully we get more details on Fire Emblem and some of there other larger projects soon.

 

[NightMarcher]

.