Nintendo hates risk?

[Fyrus]

Originally Posted by man on the moon

I was gonna say, creativity, but then, I would really misuse the word. How can a company that brought us all these original games, be lacking in creativity? Perhaps the answer is that Nintendo hates risk?

Well, some might argue that the radical approach with the Wii and DS was extremely risky. I say think again: the real risk would be invoked if Nintendo adopted the conventional ways and tried to go head to head with Sony and MS. They know they failed with the 'Cube attempt, and they know they might end just like SEGA.

What really concerns me is new titles. I feel like Nintendo can do more, but it doesn't, it focuses on the big IPs it got. Well, I do appreciate the originality of each new title of the same series, but this is not enough, Nintendo should explore new areas, we know it can do better. I'm not saying Nintendo doesn't at all, I'm saying they should try harder.

What really makes a system a winner, whether a console or a handheld, is the games it offers. Raw power, or innovative new ways of input, are more of things that help making the job easier. They are, and others, important factors, but the ultimate factor is simply GAMES.

Nintendo is doing greatly financially, they have the ability to acquire new studios, and establish new ones. With the big possibility that it will take such action, I hope Nintendo will focus on the latter. The simple calculation that 10+1=11 not as useful as it may seem. MS bought Rare, not much of great potential. It happened before with many MNCs, especially American car makers, in order to expand, and they ended selling what they tookover. There is this bright Japanese approach in the case of Lexus and Infinity brands which were started from the scratch, and proved to be successful.


Nintendo should work on bringing new IPs. Again, it is true that, despite the classics are being commercialised to maximise profit, the originality of each title is preserved. Yet there is no excuse to not to focus more on bringing new titles, especially that Nintendo has the capability to do so. We have some completely new titles here and there, but we need more. We need more of Pikmin and Eternal Darkness.

I say so too, although Power has a point.

[PirateThom]

If it has "Wii" in front of it, it's a tech demo or application, not a game.

Brain Training is an application, not a game.

I'm not discounting that they are new IPs, but they're not exactly pushing boundaries.

[willay]

Originally Posted by PirateThom

If it has "Wii" in front of it, it's a tech demo or application, not a game.

Brain Training is an application, not a game.

I'm not discounting that they are new IPs, but they're not exactly pushing boundaries.

quoted for lots of truth. they're "look what the wii can do" games

[ltzasz]

Agree with Thom and willay. Less "look what the wii can do" games and more "look at what we can achieve with the wii".

And I didn't say the wii was a huge risk because I entered the thread assuming everyone already had full knowledge that it was.

[boffo]

When at least in NA they don't really charge for Wii Sports or Wii Play it kind of shows that even Nintendo didn't consider them to be worthwhile "games".

[Argon]

It appears my point was for the most part foregone:

Nintendo is not looking to make new Intellectual Properties. You are all right on that. Wii Play, Wii Sports, Wii Fit are not "games" in any sense of how the hardcore play. You who make that claim are just as understandable.

But take another look.

RFoM, the new IP for Sony:
A standard FPS. Takes most of its inspiration frm Halo.

Kameo, one of many "new IPs" for Microsoft:
A standard ARPG, is it not? Majora's mask precedes it.

If you want to define an IP as a new game in an old genre, I will tell you that Nintendo could be accused of wanting nothing of the sort. They want the old franchises to keep the hardcore Ninthings sated (it's true. We're all happy now that we have Galaxy. We wouldn't be so happy if they'd tried to put a different face on the game and call it a new IP. We might not have even bought it, possibly). They want Zelda and Mario to convince the world that they still make hardcore games.

But they're practically stepping all over the idea of genres. Nintendo isn't pursuing "new IPs" for the sake of "new IPs." They could care less about Super Maria Galaxy, about The Epic of Fitzgerald, or Water Insignia, Yellow-brick Road of Darkness.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Nintendo is making something other than new IPs. Some call it innovation. For their target audience, though, Nintendo has a great term for it:

New ways to play.

I call that a bigger risk than making Ring: Fighting Leveled Up or Deity of Battle. If we've resolved that Nintendo takes more risks than anyone else, then we can let that rest. But I honestly doubt Nintendo is too interested in a new IP so much as they are novel ways to play old games--ways that will make the "casual" gamers take a Wii home.

[Tag]

Originally Posted by boffo

When at least in NA they don't really charge for Wii Sports or Wii Play it kind of shows that even Nintendo didn't consider them to be worthwhile "games".

Yes, because clearly Super Mario Brothers and Super Mario World were terrible.

[boffo]

Originally Posted by Argon

It appears my point was for the most part foregone:

Nintendo is not looking to make new Intellectual Properties. You are all right on that. Wii Play, Wii Sports, Wii Fit are not "games" in any sense of how the hardcore play. You who make that claim are just as understandable.

But take another look.

RFoM, the new IP for Sony:
A standard FPS. Takes most of its inspiration frm Halo.

Kameo, one of many "new IPs" for Microsoft:
A standard ARPG, is it not? Majora's mask precedes it.

If you want to define an IP as a new game in an old genre, I will tell you that Nintendo could be accused of wanting nothing of the sort. They want the old franchises to keep the hardcore Ninthings sated (it's true. We're all happy now that we have Galaxy. We wouldn't be so happy if they'd tried to put a different face on the game and call it a new IP. We might not have even bought it, possibly). They want Zelda and Mario to convince the world that they still make hardcore games.

But they're practically stepping all over the idea of genres. Nintendo isn't pursuing "new IPs" for the sake of "new IPs." They could care less about Super Maria Galaxy, about The Epic of Fitzgerald, or Water Insignia, Yellow-brick Road of Darkness.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Nintendo is making something other than new IPs. Some call it innovation. For their target audience, though, Nintendo has a great term for it:

New ways to play.

I call that a bigger risk than making Ring: Fighting Leveled Up or Deity of Battle. If we've resolved that Nintendo takes more risks than anyone else, then we can let that rest. But I honestly doubt Nintendo is too interested in a new IP so much as they are novel ways to play old games--ways that will make the "casual" gamers take a Wii home.

You're just forgetting that there really is very little anymore that can't be compared to something before it. Look at movies and books where it's commonly stated that there are only what 5 or 6 different story types and all of them are based around them. With video games I'm sure you could name just about any game in the last 5-10 years and come up with another game that it can be compared to.

[fiasco8]

Originally Posted by man on the moon

Nintendo is doing greatly financially, they have the ability to acquire new studios, and establish new ones. With the big possibility that it will take such action, I hope Nintendo will focus on the latter. The simple calculation that 10+1=11 not as useful as it may seem. MS bought Rare, not much of great potential. It happened before with many MNCs, especially American car makers, in order to expand, and they ended selling what they tookover. There is this bright Japanese approach in the case of Lexus and Infinity brands which were started from the scratch, and proved to be successful.

Actually, most Lexus, Infiniti, and Acura cars were just rebadged Toyotas, Nissans, and Acuras. They shared probably about 50% of their parts. The only reason they were created was to avoid limitations on the number of vehicles they could import. Answer, just create a new line of cars. Why do you think there is no Lexus', Infinitis, or Acuras in Japan?

Sorry. *Car geek off.*

[Argon]

Originally Posted by boffo

You're just forgetting that there really is very little anymore that can't be compared to something before it. Look at movies and books where it's commonly stated that there are only what 5 or 6 different story types and all of them are based around them. With video games I'm sure you could name just about any game in the last 5-10 years and come up with another game that it can be compared to.

I'm not forgetting, and you're not noting my point.

I'm not saying Nintendo isn't suffering from the same problem; the realm of gameplay mechanic is mostly exhausted. Every now and then you'll see a Katamari Darmacy or something, but originality in gameplay isn't very common these days. Mostly a feature or some tweak to make things more interesting.

If that was refuting my point I'm not sure where you're going with it.