# Should Nintendo make a mature platform (Uncharted-type) for the next gen (9th)?



## WiiCube_2013 (Oct 6, 2014)

Forget about the Wii U, the exclusives it's getting have already been announced and that's that.

However, on the next gen if Nintendo could work on a platforming game like Sony's Uncharted but without necessarily copying it it'd be fantastic because Uncharted feels like an adult themed Super Mario game and that's a good thing because you've got puzzles, platform, some meleeing (it's just one to two button sequences) and shooting.

The graphics of the Uncharted games look awesome on PS3 (I'd dare to say it's visually better than what I've seen from Wii U games and it doesn't have long loading screens neither).

So yeah if Nintendo wants to approach the mature audience they should consider new potential franchises while also keeping the classic ones alive too (Mario, Zelda, Smash, Kart, Metroid, F-Zero, Pikmin)

By the way, pretty disappointed they never released Luigi's Mansion 2: Dark Moon on the Wii U so if I want to play I'll have to get it for my 3DS.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Oct 6, 2014)

Nintendo has been living off of the same 5-6..."E for everyone" type IPs the last 20+ years, I highly doubt they're just gonna change their formula now. Especially when Bayonetta 2, the super mega ultra mature game for mature games™ that was supposed to totally save the Wii U and bring the mature audience to Nintendo, completely flopped and fell flat on it's ass on release in Japan (which will probably follow suit everywhere else). They're just going to live in the 80's like they always have and hope Mario and Zelda will be enough to keep them afloat.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 6, 2014)

No, they should become a software dev, maybe try to license something so they can have some branded hardware/peripherals instead. A Nintendo branded Android phone would be something worth seeing I reckon, equally I reckon they could shift third party peripherals that get used on more than one game. In magic land the games industry would adopt the DVD player model but that is magic land, even if it would be sweet.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Oct 6, 2014)

> They won't.


Fixed that for ya. 



FAST6191 said:


> They should become a software dev, maybe try to license something so they can have some branded hardware/peripherals instead. A Nintendo branded Android phone would be something worth seeing I reckon, equally I reckon they could shift third party peripherals that get used on more than one game. In magic land the games industry would adopt the DVD player model but that is magic land, even if it would be sweet.


 
Ya know, I used to think Nintendo becoming a software company was a bad thing but actually if they merged with Sony for exclusives on PlayStation only, we'd have the best of both worlds.


----------



## Veho (Oct 6, 2014)

They should. 

Are they capable of making one?


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Oct 6, 2014)

The only way Nintendo is going to get back on top is if they start setting trends again and releasing new content. Developing mature games only isn't going to "save" them. Nor is riding the waves of past successes. Not that they needing saving.


----------



## yuyuyup (Oct 6, 2014)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> Nintendo has been living off of the same 5-6..."E for everyone" type IPs the last 20+ years, I highly doubt they're just gonna change their formula now. Especially when Bayonetta 2, the super mega ultra mature game for mature games™ that was supposed to totally save the Wii U and bring the mature audience to Nintendo, completely flopped and fell flat on it's ass on release in Japan (which will probably follow suit everywhere else). They're just going to live in the 80's like they always have and hope Mario and Zelda will be enough to keep them afloat.


Yes good job taking an opportunity to pretend you know about Nintendo


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Oct 6, 2014)

Veho said:


> They should.
> 
> Are they capable of making one?


 
Well that is the better question, are they capable of it? If they've made Twilight Princess then it wouldn't be hard to make a mature platformer while not being necessarily too violent (sometimes emotional attacks are more effective than physical in games so that'd work in favour of Nintendo).


----------



## Gahars (Oct 6, 2014)

So when it comes to fixing Nintendo's rigid adherence to formula, the best way to innovate is to copy someone else's formula?

Hmmm.


----------



## ken28 (Oct 6, 2014)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> Fixed that for ya.
> 
> 
> 
> Ya know, I used to think Nintendo becoming a software company was a bad thing but actually if they merged with Sony for exclusives on PlayStation only, we'd have the best of both worlds.


uh not really, sony as they are no may as well could go out of buisness more sooner then later.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 6, 2014)

Gahars said:


> So when it comes to fixing Nintendo's rigid adherence to formula, the best way to innovate is to copy someone else's formula?
> 
> Hmmm.



To be fair Nintendo copying Sega's path would be a move nobody saw coming.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 6, 2014)

ken28 said:


> uh not really, sony as they are no may as well could go out of buisness more sooner then later.


 

Sony has businesses that do great and others that are flopping. Their video games side of things is doing great. Their TVs are dragging everyone else down. I think their computer business is also shitting everything up.

Sony wouldn't really go out of business, just cut down a lot and become much smaller.


----------



## ken28 (Oct 6, 2014)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Sony has businesses that do great and others that are flopping. Their video games side of things is doing great. Their TVs are dragging everyone else down. I think their computer business is also shitting everything up.
> 
> Sony wouldn't really go out of business, just cut down a lot and become much smaller.


hint:  as they are now


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 6, 2014)

Veho said:


> They should. Are they capable of making one?


I think they are. The Metroid Prime series is pretty good and relatively mature-oriented, they could create more series like that. The problem with Nintendo is that it's giving away the aura of a magical toy maker, a company that makes products for kids. They'd have to invest big time and _"waste"_ a generation supporting third parties and mature audiences before this image would change and I don't think they want to go that route.

Speaking of changing company image, what happened to the whole Quality of Life whoopaloo they were talking about some time ago? Was it just bullsh*t they fed their investors to calm them down and they're not planning to actually go through with their plans or are they preparing some new QoL-oriented product? Can't help but wonder...


----------



## GameWinner (Oct 6, 2014)

ken28 said:


> uh not really, sony as they are no may as well could go out of buisness more sooner then later.


Their PlayStation division is doing just fine so that's not going anywhere.


----------



## ken28 (Oct 6, 2014)

GameWinner said:


> Their PlayStation division is doing just fine so that's not going anywhere.


what is it worth that the gaming division is making a plus of the company as an whole failing, also playstation on its own is in no state to survive alone, yet.
Hell nintendo makes more profit the so


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 6, 2014)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I think their computer business is also shitting everything up.


Pretty sure they sold/got rid of the Vaio brand, do they even have a computer business now? I'm not sure, haven't looked through their fiscal year results.



ken28 said:


> Hell nintendo makes more profit the so


Nintendo posted an annual loss of $456 million, it's their third consecutive annual loss, they're not making profit at all _"as they are now"_ as you say and they're an infinitely smaller company with less capital.

Sony manufactures anything between semiconductors and software and on top of that they also have a life insurance and banking businesses, Nintendo just makes games. If you sit down and think about it reasonably for a moment, if one of Sony's businesses would completely fail, they'll just divert their attention to the multitude of their other divisions, if Nintendo fails at video games, they'll shut their doors because they do nothing else at this point.


----------



## grossaffe (Oct 6, 2014)

Nintendo should make the games they think will be great, not pander to the demographic that has written them off.  If I wanted Uncharted, I'd get a Playstation.

Personally, I've gotten tired of the term "mature" as it has nothing to do with the actual maturity of the content, but rather the amount of blood and sex.  There are plenty of games rated Everyone that are far more mature than your typical Mature rated game.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 6, 2014)

grossaffe said:


> Nintendo should make the games they think will be great, not pander to the demographic that has written them off.


Are you sure that it's the demographic that has written Nintendo off, or did Nintendo write off the demographic?


----------



## grossaffe (Oct 6, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Are you sure that it's the demographic that has written Nintendo off, or did Nintendo write off the demographic?


I don't think Nintendo-proper ever really made the kind of games that that demographic currently eats up.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Oct 6, 2014)

I really want to see nintendo go and keep all licenses to themselves. forever. no selling them to other companies or anything. they'll just be gone.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 6, 2014)

grossaffe said:


> I don't think Nintendo-proper ever really made the kind of games that that demographic currently eats up.


You're making it sound like you're one of those old grandpas shaking their canes at the noisy rascals on their blasted skateboards. Nintendo never made a Call of Duty-like game, no - they used to make arcade games. The world moved on, arcade games fell out of favour, now Nintendo's making different games - that's progress. It's the company that has to adjust their products to the market, not the other way around - it's in their best interest to create products that are desired by their potential customers.


----------



## grossaffe (Oct 6, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> You're making it sound like you're one of those old grandpas shaking their canes at the noisy rascals on their blasted skateboards.








Back in my day, games were about gameplay, not shiny 3D graphics *shakes cane at the sky*



> Nintendo never made a Call of Duty-like game, no - they used to make arcade games. The world moved on, arcade games fell out of favour, now Nintendo's making different games - that's progress. It's the company that has to adjust their products to the market, not the other way around - it's in their best interest to create products that are desired by their potential customers.


That is exactly what I meant by pandering.  Yes, they could decide to go out and try to make the games that that demographic is buying up, but those aren't the games they have a passion for, and aren't the kind of games they've ever made.  There are more than enough companies pandering to that demographic and I'm happy to have Nintendo continuing to make the games that they are passionate instead of copying the games that are saturating the market.


----------



## duffmmann (Oct 6, 2014)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> Forget about the Wii U,* the exclusives it's getting have already been announced and that's that.*
> 
> However, on the next gen if Nintendo could work on a platforming game like Sony's Uncharted but without necessarily copying it it'd be fantastic because Uncharted feels like an adult themed Super Mario game and that's a good thing because you've got puzzles, platform, some meleeing (it's just one to two button sequences) and shooting.
> 
> ...


 

We got us someone with full knowledge of the future here.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 6, 2014)

grossaffe said:


> That is exactly what I meant by pandering. Yes, they could decide to go out and try to make the games that that demographic is buying up, but those aren't the games they have a passion for, and aren't the kind of games they've ever made. There are more than enough companies pandering to that demographic and I'm happy to have Nintendo continuing to make the games that they are passionate instead of copying the games that are saturating the market.


Yes, well, Atari didn't _"pander to the demographic"_ either. Do you know what they're up to now? They're making casino games in an 18-people team last time I checked and all that's left of their former glory is the name. They've gone from the market leader, practically the inventor of the industry, to a complete zero. A company _has_ to adjust over time, change the portfolio to keep the products desirable. When you're not moving forwards, you're falling behind because everybody else does and eventually you fall into the realm of obscurity.

I like some Nintendo games as they are too and I'm not saying that they should change their existing IP's, but there's nothing wrong with inventing new ones. This way, you keep your old fans happy _and_ you offer something new to potential customers - how's that a bad thing? They should definitely broaden their horizons, especially considering the fact that unlike in the 80'ies and 90'ies, the average gamer is no longer a _"kid"_ - the average gamer is in a guy in his mid-twenties, and Nintendo has little to offer to that guy.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Oct 6, 2014)

grossaffe said:


> *snappity snipper*
> That is exactly what I meant by pandering. Yes, they could decide to go out and try to make the games that that demographic is buying up, but those aren't the games they have a passion for, and aren't the kind of games they've ever made. There are more than enough companies pandering to that demographic and I'm happy to have Nintendo continuing to make the games that they are passionate instead of copying the games that are saturating the market.


 
Unfortunately, the people who agree with you are becoming increasingly rare, evident by the fact that Nintendo consoles haven't done well (besides the Wii, which is just a fluke really) sales wise since the SNES. Nintendo needs to at least expand into new territory, otherwise they might not make it to the next gen.


----------



## grossaffe (Oct 6, 2014)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> Unfortunately, the people who agree with you are becoming increasingly rare, evident by the fact that Nintendo consoles haven't done well (besides the Wii, which is just a fluke really) sales wise since the SNES. Nintendo needs to at least expand into new territory, otherwise they might not make it to the next gen.


Nintendo consoles may not have done as well lately due to lack of third party support, but their own games continue to sell.  The problem lies not with the games they are making.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 6, 2014)

grossaffe said:


> Nintendo consoles may not have done as well lately due to lack of third party support, but their own games continue to sell. The problem lies not with the games they are making.


Perhaps, but their portfolio _is_ the image of their consoles in more ways than one. Their hardware designs underperform, but it's their portfolio that creates the image of a _"kiddy"_ company that's dragging them down. What lead to extraordinary sales of the Wii practically killed the N64 and the Gamecube and it's actively killing the Wii U. They need to broaden up their horizons a little bit, don't you think?


----------



## grossaffe (Oct 6, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Perhaps, but their portfolio _is_ the image of their consoles in more ways than one. Their hardware designs underperform, but it's their portfolio that creates the image of a _"kiddy"_ company that's dragging them down. What lead to extraordinary sales of the Wii practically killed the N64 and the Gamecube and it's actively killing the Wii U. They need to broaden up their horizons a little bit, don't you think?


No, I don't think so at all. I think the only problem they need to fix is third party support. It's a troublesome problem as they seem to be caught in a positive feedback loop where people don't buy their console thinking they won't have third party support, and third parties won't support the console thinking people won't buy it (because it doesn't have third party support). It doesn't help that the support they _have_ been getting has been half-assed at best and has only made things worse as when the half-assed or delayed games don't sell, it only reinforces the developers' opinions that it's the console's fault.

edit: I think the main problem the Wii U had was that they didn't have enough first party games to sell the console in the beginning, instead trying to give the third parties the opportunity to sell their games first (after all the complaints by third parties last gen that they couldn't compete with Nintendo's games).  Next time, I figure the best option is to make sure they have their own games ready for the launch window instead of putting their trust in third parties who can't be bothered to build a user base.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 6, 2014)

grossaffe said:


> No, I don't think so at all. I think the only problem they need to fix is third party support. It's a troublesome problem as they seem to be caught in a positive feedback loop where people don't buy their console thinking they won't have third party support, and third parties won't support the console thinking people won't buy it (because it doesn't have third party support). It doesn't help that the support they _have_ been getting has been half-assed at best and has only made things worse as when the half-assed or delayed games don't sell, it only reinforces the developers' opinions that it's the console's fault.


Third party support would be nice, but it'll only come back under three conditions - Nintendo has to become more lax when it comes to licensing _(let's face it - the days of Nintendo's Seal of Quality are long gone, they're not doing anyone a favour by allowing people to develop games for their system - these days it works the other way around)_, they have to start manufacturing hardware that sticks by the industry standards and is competitive to make multiplatform development easy peasy and they have to start promoting third party content so that releasing games on Nintendo platforms is once again profitable. A big reason why the NES and the SNES were so popular was that they were software selling machines - these systems had tons of great games because they printed money and Nintendo needs another one just like that.


----------



## grossaffe (Oct 6, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Third party support would be nice, but it'll only come back under three conditions - Nintendo has to become more lax when it comes to licensing _(let's face it - the days of Nintendo's Seal of Quality are long gone, they're not doing anyone a favour by allowing people to develop games for their system - these days it works the other way around)_, they have to start manufacturing hardware that sticks by the industry standards and is competitive to make multiplatform development easy peasy and they have to start promoting third party content so that releasing games on Nintendo platforms is once again profitable. A big reason why the NES and the SNES were so popular was that they were software selling machines - these systems had tons of great games because they printed money and Nintendo needs another one just like that.


I miss the days of the Seal Of Quality .  Weed out those buggy shovelware cash-grabs flooding the market.

"Industry Standards" doesn't mean much to me; everything is programmed to the APIs these days rather than to the metal.  Their consoles are better engineered (which does not necessarily mean more powerful) to find the right balance of components to maximize performance while minimizing cost.  Look at the PS2/GCN/XBOX era.  The Gamecube was $100 cheaper than both the PS2, and XBox while being easily more powerful than the former.  Oh, and let's not forget the failure rate of their consoles; "industry standard" would have them dropping left and right .


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 6, 2014)

grossaffe said:


> I miss the days of the Seal Of Quality . Weed out those buggy shovelware cash-grabs flooding the market.


Yeah, the Seal of Quality didn't do much in that regard - it was never really functioning properly to begin with. Think back to all the crappy games on the NES and SNES - didn't weed out those, did they?


> "Industry Standards" doesn't mean much to me; everything is programmed to the APIs these days rather than to the metal. Their consoles are better engineered (which does not necessarily mean more powerful) to find the right balance of components to maximize performance while minimizing cost. Look at the PS2/GCN/XBOX era. The Gamecube was $100 cheaper than both the PS2, and XBox while being easily more powerful than the former. Oh, and let's not forget the failure rate of their consoles; "industry standard" would have them dropping left and right .


The API's themselves as well as the overall feature set and calculation power _are_ the industry standard these days. You want to support the latest DirectX _(or equivalent)_ the hardware can handle, you want to generate a set amount of polygons not to stay behind the rest of the pack, you want to provide OS services the games require, so on and so forth. If you don't, you're stuck in a limbo, like the Wii U - somewhere between next gen and last gen, always requiring a separate build. The goal of hardware designers is to create hardware that allows developers to create software with the least effort possible - that's the whole point. The moment you introduce custom, non-standard solutions for things that should be obvious, you're creating an unnecessary learning curve that does nothing other than slowing the developers down. Want to provide custom functionality? Go nuts, just make sure that the core functionality is there.

As for the failure rate, I'd absolutely agree with you if only Nintendo's systems weren't subject to hardware catastrophies as well. Just to name one, the Wii used to suffer from BGA damage just like the Xbox 360 and the PS3 _(Blue Slot of Death)_ despite being several times weaker, therefor, according to your logic, _"safer"_. Following an industry standard doesn't mean that your hardware will immediately fail - that's a matter of design, the implementation of technology, not the technology itself.


----------



## grossaffe (Oct 7, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Yeah, the Seal of Quality didn't do much in that regard - it was never really functioning properly to begin with. Think back to all the crappy games on the NES and SNES - didn't weed out those, did they?


I only remember the good games, so I'll pretend it mattered 



> The API's themselves as well as the overall feature set and calculation power _are_ the industry standard these days. You want to support the latest DirectX _(or equivalent)_ the hardware can handle, you want to generate a set amount of polygons not to stay behind the rest of the pack, you want to provide OS services the games require, so on and so forth. If you don't, you're stuck in a limbo, like the Wii U - somewhere between next gen and last gen, always requiring a separate build. The goal of hardware designers is to create hardware that allows developers to create software with the least effort possible - that's the whole point. The moment you introduce custom, non-standard solutions for things that should be obvious, you're creating an unnecessary learning curve that does nothing other than slowing the developers down. Want to provide custom functionality? Go nuts, just make sure that the core functionality is there.


The hardware power is not nearly as far behind as people like to believe it is. If it had a large install base and games were selling, you'd better believe developers would have no problems porting their games over. They just love to blame power instead of just coming out and saying they don't believe they would profit from making a port. I'd rather not spend an extra $100 on hardware just to support lazy/wasteful programming practices. I mean you want to talk about custom hardware that's awkward to program to? Look no farther than the PS3's Cell architecture. But developers still put in the effort to port their games to it. The Wii U is a billion times simpler than that; the CPU is practically the same architecture as the past two generations but now it's tri-core (and you'd think they'd had plenty of experience programming to a tri-core PPC from working with the 360).



> As for the failure rate, I'd absolutely agree with you if only Nintendo's systems weren't subject to hardware catastrophies as well. Just to name one, the Wii used to suffer from BGA damage just like the Xbox 360 and the PS3 _(Blue Slot of Death)_ despite being several times weaker, therefor, according to your logic, _"safer"_. Following an industry standard doesn't mean that your hardware will immediately fail - that's a matter of design, the implementation of technology, not the technology itself.


My logic wasn't "weaker = safer". It's that a system to design within acceptable parameters is safer. If operation of the system causes the temperature to a degree that is damaging to the system, then that's poor design, be it that your clock rate is too high, or your fabrication is not made to sustain the temperatures incurred from operation. While a limited number of Wiis did apparently fail, they did so at a MUCH lesser rate. Hell, a google search of "Blue slot of death" only turns up 51 results, versus the nearly 9 million results for "Red Ring Of Death" and 2.5 milllion for "Yellow Light Of Death".[/quote][/quote]


----------



## TecXero (Oct 7, 2014)

I'd like to see a larger variety of games coming out of Nintendo. Whenever they create a new IP, it's usually interesting. That said, "cinematic" games don't interest me. I tend to prefer a more arcade style games or gameplay centered games. The only problem I'd have with them attempting a game like Uncharted is if it took development from a game I might enjoy. Other than that, I'm all for variety.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Oct 7, 2014)

Gahars said:


> So when it comes to fixing Nintendo's rigid adherence to formula, the best way to innovate is to copy someone else's formula?
> 
> Hmmm.


 
Hold on yer horses Gars, Uncharted feels like it was based on the Tomb Raider games and then developed to be its own thing, which is a good thing because it has enough variety and personality to feel different from the Tomb Raider series. So if Nintendo took a shot a it then they'd take notes from not only Tomb Raider or Uncharted but also Enslaved.


----------



## DinohScene (Oct 7, 2014)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> Hold on yer horses Gars, Uncharted feels like it was based on the Tomb Raider games and then developed to be its own thing, which is a good thing because it has enough variety and personality to feel different from the Tomb Raider series. So if Nintendo took a shot a it then they'd take notes from not only Tomb Raider or Uncharted but also Enslaved.


 
Every game ultimately comes from Tennis for two.
Which is based on an even older game from the late 40's.
Which is based on board games, dating back thousands of years.


----------



## grossaffe (Oct 7, 2014)

DinohScene said:


> Every game ultimately comes from Tennis for two.
> Which is based on an even older game from the late 40's.
> Which is based on board games, dating back thousands of years.


What about OXO?


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 7, 2014)

grossaffe said:


> What about OXO?


The test of time proved that the OXO cube was and always will be better than the Gamecube.


----------



## grossaffe (Oct 7, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> The test of time proved that the OXO cube was and always will be better than a Gamecube.


You on drugs, son?


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 7, 2014)

grossaffe said:


> You on drugs, son?


Don't be so salty, accept that one cube is just more flavourful than the other.


----------



## Veho (Oct 7, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> The test of time proved that the OXO cube was and always will be better than a Gamecube.


Oxo cubes did not withstand the test of time, because in the course of said time the actual meat content shriveled down to 2%


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 7, 2014)

Veho said:


> Oxo cubes did not withstand the test of time, because in the course of said time the actual meat content shriveled down to 2%


This just in: Veho likes to have a lot of meat in his mouth.


----------



## Veho (Oct 7, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> This just in: Veho likes to have a lot of meat in his mouth.


Foxi will settle for a carrot or a cucumber but for me it has to be all meat, baby


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 7, 2014)

Veho said:


> Foxi will settle for a carrot or a cucumber but for me it has to be all meat, baby


To be fair, if you're planning to make proper meat stock, you should probably just buy a slab of meat and make stock. If you're relying on a little dry cube of spices and grease, you don't get the right to complain, you lazy butt. _;O;_


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 7, 2014)

Something something tuna, something something badly stuffed kebab.

I also see the downfall of oxo cubes as a bad thing, I will of course make my own stock but at one time an oxo cube in some hot water did the trick at the end of the day, they also worked well for nibbling as a chef's perk.

Also is noughts and crosses a game?


----------



## tbb043 (Oct 7, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Perhaps, but their portfolio _is_ the image of their consoles in more ways than one. Their hardware designs underperform, but it's their portfolio that creates the image of a _"kiddy"_ company that's dragging them down. What lead to extraordinary sales of the Wii practically killed the N64 and the Gamecube and it's actively killing the Wii U. They need to broaden up their horizons a little bit, don't you think?



What hurt the N64 was using carts when everyone else had moved to cheap CD formats, what hurt the GC was using non-standard discs that held less than half as much as the DVD formats the competition had moved on to. The notion that being kiddy had anything to do with the Gamecube not being number one is revisionist history. There were plenty of non-kiddy attempts by Nintendo that gen. Eternal Darkness, Metroid Prime, getting exclusive rights to several Resident Evil games (yes, they later got ported, but at the time they were Nintendo only, to the point where that one Capcom guy said he'd cut off his own head if RE4 went to PS2). Gamecube was probably the biggest example of Nintendo attempting to break the kiddy mold.


----------



## Veho (Oct 7, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> To be fair, if you're planning to make proper meat stock, you should probably just buy a slab of meat and make stock. If you're relying on a little dry cube of spices and grease, you don't get the right to complain, you lazy butt. _;O;_




But that's exactly what I'm saying, once upon a time the cubes weren't comprised of spices and grease, they were chock full of meaty goodness. 

That's what Nintendo should do, make bouillon cubes with actual meat


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 7, 2014)

tbb043 said:


> What hurt the N64 was using carts when everyone else had moved to cheap CD formats, what hurt the GC was using non-standard discs that held less than half as much as the DVD formats the competition had moved on to. The notion that being kiddy had anything to do with the Gamecube not being number one is revisionist history. There were plenty of non-kiddy attempts by Nintendo that gen. Eternal Darkness, Metroid Prime, getting exclusive rights to several Resident Evil games (yes, they later got ported, but at the time they were Nintendo only, to the point where that one Capcom guy said he'd cut off his own head if RE4 went to PS2). Gamecube was probably the biggest example of Nintendo attempting to break the kiddy mold.


Eternal Darkness is not a Nintendo game, it was only published by them. The only _(arguably)_ mature IP Nintendo owns is Metroid, and even that is relatively tame by today's standards. That's besides the point though, the point is that Nintendo's strategy proved to be ineffective the moment a platform with a more broad appeal popped up. It wasn't just a matter of the medium _(although the medium did contribute a lot to the system's failure)_, otherwise the SNES would've been obliterated by the SEGA CD and it wasn't. The Saturn didn't outsell the N64 either, so clearly the medium wasn't the most important factor. As for the Gamecube, it was a genuienly good platform, but Nintendo's image prevented it from being as successful as it could've been - everyone went for the PS2 because the PS1 was so great _(not to mention that the Gamecube entered the scene a bit too late to make a dent)_.




Veho said:


> But that's exactly what I'm saying, once upon a time the cubes weren't comprised of spices and grease, they were chock full of meaty goodness. That's what Nintendo should do, make bouillon cubes with actual meat


Y'know, you can wait for that imaginary product... or you could just buy a PS4. _;O;_




Baiting complete, return to base!


----------



## Veho (Oct 7, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> or you could just buy a PS4. _;O;_


If I wanted all plastic and no meat, I would just buy Oxo cubes


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 7, 2014)

Veho said:


> If I wanted all plastic and no meat, I would just buy Oxo cubes


PC Knorr Cubes Master Race?


----------



## Jayro (Oct 7, 2014)

Nobody likes Sony's TVs or computers. They should stick with Playstation and ride it out. They have Blu-ray royalties rolling in as a constant cashflow, so they just need to cut the shit off that's weighing them down and focus on what is making them succeed.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 7, 2014)

Jayro said:


> Nobody likes Sony's TVs or computers. They should stick with Playstation and ride it out. They have Blu-ray royalties rolling in as a constant cashflow, so they just need to cut the shit off that's weighing them down and focus on what is making them succeed.


That's the thing about corporations though - they want to do as many things as possible so that the profitable businesses can support the less profitable ones, they invest in a lot of different sectors of the industry and always have a money pillow to fall on. You never know when the market situation will change, PlayStation will start bombing and Sony TV's will suddenly come back to _"fashion"_, so to speak _(all it takes is a couple sh*tty Samsung TV's and people will turn right around to the brand they used to trust before they switched)_. If you went back in time and told a PS1 and a PS2 owner that the PS3 will bomb big time for the first couple of years, he'd call you a complete lunatic, but that's exactly what happened. It's all about walking the tightrope and deciding which businesses have a chance of turning a profit in the future and are thus worth investing in and which ones should be cut because there's no hope anymore. I agree that they have to cut some fat off, but I don't think their TV business should be closed. Sony never really got a footing in the computer business though, so it's a good thing that they got rid _(are getting rid?)_ of the Vaio brand - they're just not known for their computers, that's not what the brand stands for, or at least I think it's not what people identify Sony with.


----------



## Jayro (Oct 7, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> That's the thing about corporations though - they want to do as many things as possible so that the profitable businesses can support the less profitable ones, they invest in a lot of different sectors of the industry and always have a money pillow to fall on. You never know when the market situation will change, PlayStation will start bombing and Sony TV's will suddenly come back to _"fashion"_, so to speak *(all it takes is a couple sh*tty Samsung TV's and people will turn right around to the brand they used to trust before they switched).* If you went back in time and told a PS1 and a PS2 owner that the PS3 will bomb big time for the first couple of years, he'd call you a complete lunatic, but that's exactly what happened. It's all about walking the tightrope and deciding which businesses have a chance of turning a profit in the future and are thus worth investing in and which ones should be cut because there's no hope anymore. I agree that they have to cut some fat off, but I don't think their TV business should be closed. Sony never really got a footing in the computer business though, so it's a good thing that they got rid _(are getting rid?)_ of the Vaio brand - they're just not known for their computers, that's not what the brand stands for, or at least I think it's not what people identify Sony with.


 
That bolded part actually does make a lot of sense...


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 7, 2014)

Jayro said:


> That bolded part actually does make a lot of sense...


It's actually sort of surprising that Sony's TV's are bombing. I know they're expensive, but there were always cheaper alternatives, even in CRT times. I remember when Sony TV's were almost a sign of status - everyone wanted a Trinitron TV because it was practically the best thing around, I can't help but wonder why Bravia TV's don't have the same allure. Sony really has to come up with a budget line of TV's and do some catching up.


----------



## Jayro (Oct 7, 2014)

Sony TVs are nice, and while Samsung and Sharp dominate in the picture quality department, LG has them beat in terms of features. The one thing I like about LG TVs and Blu-ray players is, I can plug in a USB stick into them and play an MKV of anything without converting it on a PC. That feature alone sets LG in the God-tier of TVs for me. MKV playback devices are very difficult to find, especially ones that can play the Hi-10 color profiles and DTS 5.1 audio.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Oct 8, 2014)

Jayro said:


> Sony TVs are nice, and while Samsung and Sharp dominate in the picture quality department, LG has them beat in terms of features. The one thing I like about LG TVs and Blu-ray players is, I can plug in a USB stick into them and play an MKV of anything without converting it on a PC. That feature alone sets LG in the God-tier of TVs for me. MKV playback devices are very difficult to find, especially ones that can play the Hi-10 color profiles and DTS 5.1 audio.


You're saying that LG TV & Blu-ray player can handle H.264 Hi10P? I don't believe you.


----------



## loco365 (Oct 8, 2014)

Veho said:


> Are they capable of making one?


 
They are, but since they have a family-friendly image they don't want to tarnish, it's unlikely that they will go through with it.


----------



## grossaffe (Oct 8, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Eternal Darkness is not a Nintendo game, it was only published by them. The only _(arguably)_ mature IP Nintendo owns is Metroid, and even that is relatively tame by today's standards. That's besides the point though, the point is that Nintendo's strategy proved to be ineffective the moment a platform with a more broad appeal popped up. It wasn't just a matter of the medium _(although the medium did contribute a lot to the system's failure)_, otherwise the SNES would've been obliterated by the SEGA CD and it wasn't. The Saturn didn't outsell the N64 either, so clearly the medium wasn't the most important factor. As for the Gamecube, it was a genuienly good platform, but Nintendo's image prevented it from being as successful as it could've been - everyone went for the PS2 because the PS1 was so great _(not to mention that the Gamecube entered the scene a bit too late to make a dent)_.


Silicon Knights was the primary developer, but Nintendo owns the IP and has recently reasserted their ownership of the IP. http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/07...kness-trademark-includes-digital-distribution

Along with Eternal Darkness, Nintendo published (and owns the rights to) another Mature game from the Gamecube era: Geist.


----------



## Jayro (Oct 8, 2014)

I think Nintendo could benefit from releasing TWO new consoles next generation. One for REAL gamers, and another for children... since they are professionals about alienating people, this could be their chance to please everyone. I would think that by doing this, both units would sell well. Nintendo's mature console could finally compete with the leading two, and their kid-friendly console would sell for the casual gaming adults and their kids. I find this much more profitable than if they were to just abandon hardware and go down the Sega road. At least Sega knows what they are doing, and know how to flourish when hardware sales go sour.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 8, 2014)

Jayro said:


> I think Nintendo could benefit from releasing TWO new consoles next generation. One for REAL gamers, and another for children... since they are professionals about alienating people, this could be their chance to please everyone.


Uhm... that's just making things more complicated for the developers, don't you think? If anything, they should release a basic bundle for casual gamers and a more advanced one for the more hardcore crowd, kind of how the Xbox 360 Pro/Elite versus Xbox 360 Core/Arcade worked. Wii U Basic and Wii U Premium were made with a similar thought in mind, except the system has pitiful amount of storage either way so it was pretty much pointless. Now, it the Wii U Basic had 32GB built-in storage and the Wii U Premium had that plus a hard drive bay _(NOT USB HDD compatibility)_, we'd have a whole different situation on our hands.


grossaffe said:


> Silicon Knights was the primary developer, but Nintendo owns the IP and has recently reasserted their ownership of the IP. http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/07...kness-trademark-includes-digital-distribution
> 
> 
> Along with Eternal Darkness, Nintendo published (and owns the rights to) another Mature game from the Gamecube era: Geist.


In other words, they've never made an M game themselves, only published some games on terms unfavourable for the actual developers. I'm sure Eternal Darkness 2 and Geist 2 are on their way to the Wii U _(not)_.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Oct 8, 2014)

They should do like Marvel did with their "Max" imprint.

Have mature games under an explicitly stated banner. Make it clear its for adults only.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 8, 2014)

eobb said:


> They should do like Marvel did with their "Max" imprint. Have mature games under an explicitly stated banner. Make it clear its for adults only.


They used to do that on the spines of Gamecube games _(little coloured triangle at the bottom had different colours depending on the age brackets)_, but now that the ESRB's ratings are prominently displayed on the game boxes there's really no point.

*EDIT:* Oh, you mean like a sub-series! Sorry, I completely misunderstood you there.


----------



## Jayro (Oct 8, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Uhm... that's just making things more complicated for the developers, don't you think? If anything, they should release a basic bundle for casual gamers and a more advanced one for the more hardcore crowd, kind of how the Xbox 360 Pro/Elite versus Xbox 360 Core/Arcade worked. Wii U Basic and Wii U Premium were made with a similar thought in mind, except the system has pitiful amount of storage either way so it was pretty much pointless. Now, it the Wii U Basic had 32GB built-in storage and the Wii U Premium had that plus a hard drive bay _(NOT USB HDD compatibility)_, we'd have a whole different situation on our hands.


 

While I do agree that they tried that with the WiiU, it's one machine trying to cater to all, but it's not working (clearly, as sales have shown). And to keep it simple for developers, just treat them as two completely different systems that don't play eachother's games. Simple as that. Nintendo would just need two separate dev teams, or just rely on hiring 3rd party support for the "gamer" machine, and keep the Nintendo devs for the "family" machine.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 8, 2014)

Jayro said:


> While I do agree that they tried that with the WiiU, it's one machine trying to cater to all, but it's not working (clearly, as sales have shown). And to keep it simple for developers, just treat them as two completely different systems that don't play eachother's games. Simple as that. Nintendo would just need two separate dev teams, or just rely on hiring 3rd party support for the "gamer" machine, and keep the Nintendo devs for the "family" machine.


I think that if they released one system gimped and made explicitly for kids and another one that's far more capable, the smart shopper would always go for the better, more all-encompassing version - that's the problem those low-cost versions of consoles always face.

If you mean that they should release two completely different systems with different line-ups, third party would only cater to the one that sells better and Nintendo wouldn't keep up with making games for three systems instead of just the usual two. We're seeing the exact opposite trend - cross-platform development is becoming a thing and in the near future, if the gods of technology look upon us gamers favourably, our home consoles and portable consoles _(provided portable consoles won't become obsoleted by smartphones by the end of this generation)_ will run the same software, which is far better for developers and customers alike.


----------



## grossaffe (Oct 8, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> In other words, they've never made an M game themselves, only published some games on terms unfavourable for the actual developers. I'm sure Eternal Darkness 2 and Geist 2 are on their way to the Wii U (not).


 
Not exactly. While Silicon Knights was the primary developer for Eternal Darkness, and N-Space was the primary developer for Geist, both developers received constant feedback from Nintendo throughout the development process.
Development of Eternal Darkness created to a strong relationship with Nintendo that resulted in Nintendo personally recommending Silicon Knights to Kojima as the developers to take on Metal Gear Solid: Twin Snakes. Around this time, Silicon Knights considered themselves to be an extension of Nintendo. The relationship between them only broke down when news of the Wii broke and Dyack wanted moar powar to create Too Human, which he had started and cancelled in the previous two generations. Without Nintendo by their side anymore, though, the game wound up killing the company. Supposedly Silicon Knights were in the process of getting back together with Nintendo to make Eternal Darkness 2, but then it got shut down after the Epic Games lawsuit revolving around Too Human finished them off.

As for Geist, it was a game that didn't quite live up to expectations. I wouldn't mind a remake/reboot/sequel in the future with a stronger vision and more freedom in spooking people. Personally, though, I'd rather Nintendo publish another horror game from N-Space: Winter. They had a demo/trailer for it some years back as a Wii game and it looked promising, but were unable to find a publisher for it.

So while I'm not big on Nintendo internally focusing on M rated games, I do like the idea of them taking developers under their wing and providing guidance and publishing their games.


----------



## Jayro (Oct 8, 2014)

The only problem I'm having is cell phones becoming the mobile gaming platform with stupid games like flappy bird... If more devs than just EA and SquareEnix would jump aboard Android and iOS, I think mobile gaming would be better off, but I still want Nintendo's and Sony's handhelds to stick around. I wonder if Microsoft will ever jump aboard the portable bandwagon any time soon. What better way to show off everything Live games have to offer?


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 8, 2014)

So I found this online. This is pretty much all the reasons why Nintendo should make a mature franchise, all in one video.


----------



## BORTZ (Oct 10, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> I think they are. The Metroid Prime series is pretty good and relatively mature-oriented, they could create more series like that. The problem with Nintendo is that it's giving away the aura of a magical toy maker, a company that makes products for kids. They'd have to invest big time and _"waste"_ a generation supporting third parties and mature audiences before this image would change and I don't think they want to go that route.


With a coat of paint and some story-telling, Zelda could easily be a more mature audience driven game (IMO). I would also love to seem some of their 30 some dead IPs that died with the SNES come back as adult games.


----------



## Tiffani (Oct 11, 2014)

Microsoft should fund a console that Sony creates the specs for and Nintendo produces. That would be the best use of all their abilities. Microsoft with the money, Sony, with the design and Nintendo with the production since their stuff never breaks. Microsoft should also handle the online since PlayStation Network is down way too much and Nintendo doesn't really care about online much.
That would be the greatest thing that could happen in games right now.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 11, 2014)

Though I have long advocated for the DVD model of game console development I fear you are rather overestimating Nintendo's and Sony's build quality.


----------



## endoverend (Oct 11, 2014)

I don't think you people understand. If you think Nintendo's "kiddy image" is dragging them down, you're wrong. Nintendo doesn't make "mature" games (which I guess means more blood, sex, and violence?). That's not the company they are. That's like saying, "Hey, what if Chef Boyardee started making televisions?". Nintendo is dragged down by the lack of mature interest, okay, fine, but that doesn't mean Nintendo abandons what they've done so well for the past 30 years and cater to the 20+ year old men who bitch about Zelda not having enough guns and blood.


----------



## Steena (Oct 11, 2014)

Maybe nintendo could make the odd eternal darkness sequel, but they shouldn't focus on brown pseudo-shooters with diluted gameplay, no. There are already too many of those. And by desparetaly copying those, they won't ever be able to make them as good as some other developers who specialized in those for 10 years now.

That would lead to an oversaturation of the "FOR MATURE GAMERS" videogames and a lack of colored for-everyone games. Nobody would want to buy a console for "nintendo mature game targeted at 14 year olds" because there will be better versions out there, from quite a lot of big name developers with massive marketing power. Nintendo should simply accept the fact that demand for their design philosophy has not been in the majority for years, since people want games to be more like bloated hollywood movies, and start lowering down their production values and costs. Make smaller projects and do not invest billions on your games/systems. Do not make your games looking at 6 millions sales figures. I think that is best.

The demand is there, it's just that it shrinked. But they should still cater to that demand, because almost nobody else in the console business does that particular thing well, or at all. They pretty much have monopoly on that niche.

Nintendo focusing on mature games would look to me like yet another developer making a WoW clone. Essentially, a guaranteed failure already at the announcement.


----------



## Smuff (Oct 11, 2014)

To go back to the OP, 
"NO!"


----------



## TecXero (Oct 11, 2014)

Tiffani said:


> Microsoft should fund a console that Sony creates the specs for and Nintendo produces. That would be the best use of all their abilities. Microsoft with the money, Sony, with the design and Nintendo with the production since their stuff never breaks. Microsoft should also handle the online since PlayStation Network is down way too much and Nintendo doesn't really care about online much.
> That would be the greatest thing that could happen in games right now.


 
Not really, then the only competition in gaming would be PC. When there's a lot of competition in an industry, they generally compete by trying to make their product the superior product. When they work together with no competition, then it creates an oligopoly. Oligopolies are very anti-consumer. The more competition there is, the better it is for consumers, as there's more options and companies are making sacrifices and improvements to catch your interest.


----------



## Tiffani (Oct 12, 2014)

Yeah, but there would be competition. It would be competition amongst themselves for consumer dollars. Console vs. PC, console vs. mobile, console vs. movies, etc.
Yeah, there would be some lazy companies but most would see the opportunity before them. Suddenly, games that sell 2-3 million on Xbox and 2-3 million on PlayStation could play with each other.
I'm willing to bet that most game companies would make better games because the competition would be so big that they would have to, or they'd get left behind.
The "no competition" thing is nothing but a boogeyman people throw out there because they look at it the wrong way. Look at TV shows, you don't need a special TV to watch certain shows. You don't need a special DVD or Blu-Ray player to watch certain movies. Look at sports. There's no competition for the NFL, NBA, etc and they do well. 
It's true that some companies would fall by the wayside, but it would be their own fault. 
When you open the floodgates like this, and it becomes a free-for-all, the consumer wins. The oligopoly you speak of is a result of 1 company being in charge. In this scenario, at least 3 companies are in charge. You could even add bigger companies like Activision, EA, Ubisoft, and anyone else to this "board of directors", if you will. They would be like the owners in the sports leagues I mentioned before. The way to make this work is to focus the competition among the publishers.
Will this ever happen? No. Should it? Heck yeah.


----------



## TecXero (Oct 13, 2014)

Tiffani said:


> Yeah, but there would be competition. It would be competition amongst themselves for consumer dollars. Console vs. PC, console vs. mobile, console vs. movies, etc.
> Yeah, there would be some lazy companies but most would see the opportunity before them. Suddenly, games that sell 2-3 million on Xbox and 2-3 million on PlayStation could play with each other.
> I'm willing to bet that most game companies would make better games because the competition would be so big that they would have to, or they'd get left behind.
> The "no competition" thing is nothing but a boogeyman people throw out there because they look at it the wrong way. Look at TV shows, you don't need a special TV to watch certain shows. You don't need a special DVD or Blu-Ray player to watch certain movies. Look at sports. There's no competition for the NFL, NBA, etc and they do well.
> ...


 
It would only work like that if any company could make a console that those games to be played on. That's not how it would work, though, as I'm sure those three companies will patent anything they can. I'm not saying the oligopoly would be the game publishers, instead it would be the creators of the platform. They could make the console as expensive as they wanted as well as the licensing fees for putting games on the platform, as the only competition for the platform would be PC. Now if Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony just became publishers and games were made just for an open platform like PC, it would probably be closer to what you were talking about.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 13, 2014)

Patent issues usually get worked around by forming a working group. See video and audio codecs if you want some stuff there*, Microsoft and Sony at least are (and in some cases were) already leading lights of several of those (not just members, not just board members but actual they can veto things in some cases levels of power).

*they take a cut/payment for decoders, paid for encoders, paid for encodings, pressings of discs.... though in some cases if you have a properly paid encoder you may be then allowed to use it, likewise if I buy decoder chips then the chips may come with a licence to use the format).

Likewise "as expensive as they wanted" tends to wilt in the face of competition (in this case I would imagine the PC and android providing the bulk of the alternatives here). Games drive a fair bit and nobody sensible would ignore them but they are still just games so the PC maker is not going to up prices when business (which these days does often really want/need graphics performance, all the other "gaming musts" were in business for some time before all but the most bleeding edge gaming types got their hands on them) will make them shrink back down in a heartbeat.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 13, 2014)

endoverend said:


> I don't think you people understand. If you think Nintendo's "kiddy image" is dragging them down, you're wrong. Nintendo doesn't make "mature" games (which I guess means more blood, sex, and violence?). That's not the company they are. That's like saying, "Hey, what if Chef Boyardee started making televisions?". Nintendo is dragged down by the lack of mature interest, okay, fine, but that doesn't mean Nintendo abandons what they've done so well for the past 30 years and cater to the 20+ year old men who bitch about Zelda not having enough guns and blood.


 

...No, that metaphor doesn't work. You're taking one company and saying they're going into a completely different business. This is more like if Chef Boyardee started making a spicy version of their ravioli.

The issue is the games get pretty goddamn stale and not everyone wants to have the same art style they grew up with. Nostalgia goggles aren't present for everyone.


----------



## Tiffani (Oct 13, 2014)

TecXero said:


> It would only work like that if any company could make a console that those games to be played on. That's not how it would work, though, as I'm sure those three companies will patent anything they can. I'm not saying the oligopoly would be the game publishers, instead it would be the creators of the platform. They could make the console as expensive as they wanted as well as the licensing fees for putting games on the platform, as the only competition for the platform would be PC. Now if Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony just became publishers and games were made just for an open platform like PC, it would probably be closer to what you were talking about.


 

Well, it wouldn't have to be an open platform, just one with many heads. Essentially each of the companies would be a member of the board of directors. That's why I mentioned Ubisoft, Activision, EA, etc. also being on this board. The easiest way to think about is like the NFL (or any other sports league). There's 32 owners in the NFL (I know that technically the Packers are a special case, but bear with me) each with their own vested interests, but they work together for the greater good of the league itself. They're a monopoly, although I guess college football has it's own fans, but there's no shortage of competition within the league itself. Ubisoft isn't going to start making crap games because there's only 1 platform. They would start losing money that way, because the companies would be competing with each other. It doesn't have to be an open platform (although that would be better for us gamers), it just has to be unified. 

It would take tremendous foresight for any of these companies to be willing to get on board with this idea, but the benefits are almost innumerable. This applies both to the publishers and developers themselves, as well as consumers. A unified system would sell like crazy because you'd be able to play God of War, Uncharted, Halo, Gears of War, Mario, and Zelda all on one platform. It would open up these untapped audiences for these franchises as well.

Like I said, though, this will never happen so I guess I shouldn't waste my time thinking about it.


----------



## TecXero (Oct 13, 2014)

Tiffani said:


> Well, it wouldn't have to be an open platform, just one with many heads. Essentially each of the companies would be a member of the board of directors. That's why I mentioned Ubisoft, Activision, EA, etc. also being on this board. The easiest way to think about is like the NFL (or any other sports league). There's 32 owners in the NFL (I know that technically the Packers are a special case, but bear with me) each with their own vested interests, but they work together for the greater good of the league itself. They're a monopoly, although I guess college football has it's own fans, but there's no shortage of competition within the league itself. Ubisoft isn't going to start making crap games because there's only 1 platform. They would start losing money that way, because the companies would be competing with each other. It doesn't have to be an open platform (although that would be better for us gamers), it just has to be unified.
> 
> It would take tremendous foresight for any of these companies to be willing to get on board with this idea, but the benefits are almost innumerable. This applies both to the publishers and developers themselves, as well as consumers. A unified system would sell like crazy because you'd be able to play God of War, Uncharted, Halo, Gears of War, Mario, and Zelda all on one platform. It would open up these untapped audiences for these franchises as well.
> 
> Like I said, though, this will never happen so I guess I shouldn't waste my time thinking about it.


 
I know nothing about sports other than what I had to tolerate growing up in schools. It could work, but I don't trust companies beyond that they'll do whatever they can to make money. Yeah, there's not real point to this discussion, but it's interesting to throw ideas around. That's one of the great things about the internet.


----------



## endoverend (Oct 14, 2014)

Guild McCommunist said:


> The issue is the games get pretty goddamn stale and not everyone wants to have the same art style they grew up with. Nostalgia goggles aren't present for everyone.


 
I don't think game companies should follow one generation, give them the games they want until they're done playing games, and then say, "Welp, we had a good run, closing down shop."
Nintendo doesn't focus on this generation, and a lot of people grew up with Nintendo games. And Nintendo will keep making games that people grow up with.


----------



## Tiffani (Oct 14, 2014)

TecXero said:


> I know nothing about sports other than what I had to tolerate growing up in schools. It could work, but I don't trust companies beyond that they'll do whatever they can to make money. Yeah, there's not real point to this discussion, but it's interesting to throw ideas around. That's one of the great things about the internet.


 

Yeah, the biggest problem would be making these companies realize that this would make them more money in the long-run. It would also give them great stability because so many other companies would be assuming the risk as well. These companies spend a lot of money on R&D on their new consoles but imagine if they could spread that out amongst themselves? If they were really ambitious they could even sell a cutting edge console for no more than $300 dollars, maybe less depending on costs and such. You know, use the razor and blades business model. 

And I agree, this kind of talk is always fun to engage in from time to time.


----------



## Qtis (Oct 14, 2014)

endoverend said:


> I don't think game companies should follow one generation, give them the games they want until they're done playing games, and then say, "Welp, we had a good run, closing down shop."
> Nintendo doesn't focus on this generation, and a lot of people grew up with Nintendo games. And Nintendo will keep making games that people grow up with.


 
That's the thing, they (or anyone else for that matter) aren't making the same games as they used to for a specific generation. Technology changes. Genres change. People's preferences change. The problem people seem to forget is that it's not an option of doing just X, when the competition is doing X and Y (and the PC X, Y and Z). I've owned almost all Nintendo consoles sans the Virtual Boy and have loved the games on them. Still I could see a good market point of view for a more "realistic" Zelda. Just like I can see a market segment, which would cater to Wind Waker styled Zelda. 

Bayonetta 2 seems to be doing good on the review front, but the sales will tell the actual story. If it does well (or as well as it can with the limited sales of the console itself), I can see more games like that coming out. It won't replace Mario or Zelda as Nintendo's mascots, but it will give more variety, which is a huge bonus for a struggling console.


----------



## TecXero (Oct 14, 2014)

Tiffani said:


> Yeah, the biggest problem would be making these companies realize that this would make them more money in the long-run. It would also give them great stability because so many other companies would be assuming the risk as well. These companies spend a lot of money on R&D on their new consoles but imagine if they could spread that out amongst themselves? If they were really ambitious they could even sell a cutting edge console for no more than $300 dollars, maybe less depending on costs and such. You know, use the razor and blades business model.
> 
> And I agree, this kind of talk is always fun to engage in from time to time.


 
Sounds too idealistic and trusting to me. I'd rather see them at each others throats, because you can always trust companies to pursue money. The razor blades business model works well, but I doubt they'll go to that extreme, especially after the Dreamcast. Overall, it's not a bad idea, it just puts too much power into the hands of a select few companies for my taste. I tend to have a more pessimistic outlook than most people.


----------



## SickPuppy (Oct 14, 2014)

grossaffe said:


> Back in my day, games were about gameplay, not shiny 3D graphics *shakes cane at the sky*
> 
> 
> That is exactly what I meant by pandering.  Yes, they could decide to go out and try to make the games that that demographic is buying up, but those aren't the games they have a passion for, and aren't the kind of games they've ever made.  There are more than enough companies pandering to that demographic and I'm happy to have Nintendo continuing to make the games that they are passionate instead of copying the games that are saturating the market.



Nintendo making the games they always made is fine, but they need to quit taking a shit on the third party game developers. I don't know what the problem is but the third party just don't what to deal with Nintendo and that isn't good. There would be more Wii U sales if there were more third party games available. I want Diablo 3, Minecraft, and COD Advance Warfare, Destiny would have been nice too. I rarely buy any games for my Wii U because there aint any worth buying. How many times can I buy the same crap, generation after generation, it's starting to get old.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Oct 14, 2014)

Part of the problem with Nintendo is that they rarely branch out to other IP. You can only milk Mario and Zelda for so long.


----------



## avran89 (Oct 14, 2014)

oops wrong thread


----------



## endoverend (Oct 15, 2014)

Qtis said:


> That's the thing, they (or anyone else for that matter) aren't making the same games as they used to for a specific generation. Technology changes. Genres change. People's preferences change. The problem people seem to forget is that it's not an option of doing just X, when the competition is doing X and Y (and the PC X, Y and Z). I've owned almost all Nintendo consoles sans the Virtual Boy and have loved the games on them. Still I could see a good market point of view for a more "realistic" Zelda. Just like I can see a market segment, which would cater to Wind Waker styled Zelda.
> 
> Bayonetta 2 seems to be doing good on the review front, but the sales will tell the actual story. If it does well (or as well as it can with the limited sales of the console itself), I can see more games like that coming out. It won't replace Mario or Zelda as Nintendo's mascots, but it will give more variety, which is a huge bonus for a struggling console.


 
I love Nintendo games, and I agree, a "cool" Zelda game might actually be fun. (But Twilight Princess is the closest we're gonna get...) But the problem is, Nintendo has an image to maintain. Parents who grew up with Nintendo would know that they would never put anything remotely questionable in their games, so they know it's safe for their kids. If Nintendo made a "mature" console, their safe image would be degraded, and their major demographic would be ruined. It's just not realistic, nor would it be beneficial for Nintendo.


----------



## Gahars (Oct 15, 2014)

endoverend said:


> I love Nintendo games, and I agree, a "cool" Zelda game might actually be fun. (But Twilight Princess is the closest we're gonna get...) But the problem is, Nintendo has an image to maintain. Parents who grew up with Nintendo would know that they would never put anything remotely questionable in their games, so they know it's safe for their kids. If Nintendo made a "mature" console, their safe image would be degraded, and their major demographic would be ruined. It's just not realistic, nor would it be beneficial for Nintendo.


 

I don't buy that. If Sony can offer a range of titles that appeal to a variety of demographics (from Little Big Planet to God of War, Sly Cooper to Uncharted, etc.) and find success, there's nothing stopping Nintendo. No parent is going to ignore the T or M rating just because of the Nintendo logo. It's not like we got a wave of protests over Eternal Darkness when Nintendo published that.

People like to use Disney as the go-to example, but Disney makes everything from G-rated cartoons to PG-13 action flicks and beyond (even more if you count their subsidiaries).


----------



## endoverend (Oct 16, 2014)

Gahars said:


> I don't buy that. If Sony can offer a range of titles that appeal to a variety of demographics (from Little Big Planet to God of War, Sly Cooper to Uncharted, etc.) and find success, there's nothing stopping Nintendo. No parent is going to ignore the T or M rating just because of the Nintendo logo. It's not like we got a wave of protests over Eternal Darkness when Nintendo published that.
> 
> People like to use Disney as the go-to example, but Disney makes everything from G-rated cartoons to PG-13 action flicks and beyond (even more if you count their subsidiaries).


 
I'm not opposed to having M-rated *games* on their consoles. No More Heroes was an amazing M-rated game for Wii. I think it would be ridiculous to make an entire console devoted to more hardcore games. Changing their image like that isn't Nintendo's goal right now.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 16, 2014)

endoverend said:


> I'm not opposed to having M-rated *games* on their consoles. No More Heroes was an amazing M-rated game for Wii. I think it would be ridiculous to make an entire console devoted to more hardcore games. Changing their image like that isn't Nintendo's goal right now.


Dedicated is a strong word, I'd say _"a console that's capable of supporting them"_, and that goes outside of the realm of M-rated games and well into the realm of simple cross-platform development. Performing inadequately in comparison to the competition is not a good idea unless you have a strong install base you can rely on.


----------



## Gahars (Oct 16, 2014)

endoverend said:


> I'm not opposed to having M-rated *games* on their consoles. No More Heroes was an amazing M-rated game for Wii. I think it would be ridiculous to make an entire console devoted to more hardcore games. Changing their image like that isn't Nintendo's goal right now.


 

Adding some mature titles to its lineup wouldn't change Nintendo's image; it's more accurate to say that would broaden its horizons.

Maybe there's a handful of exceptions, but for the most part, no one's seriously asking Nintendo to only make corridor shooters or for Mario to start hijacking prostitutes and banging cars. They just want some variety, especially if there's a dearth of third party support to pick up the slack. Plus, keep in mind that "mature" doesn't mean blood, guts, tits, etc. The "Mature" rating and actual maturity don't always go hand-in-hand.

(Of course, we could always get more non-Other M Metroid games, but I'm going to play Kanye West here: Nintendo doesn't care about Metroid fans)

I'd like to see a mature title straight from Nintendo, one that let's them take their focus on fun gameplay design and run wild with some new ideas or settings. They could probably come up with something really wild. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, but at least it'd be an effort, and it's not like they still wouldn't have the staple of Mario/Zelda/Pokemon, etc. to fall back on.


----------



## endoverend (Oct 16, 2014)

You guys are both right, but the OP specifically put in the title that Nintendo should make a mature platform, not mature games.
I think that in order for Nintendo to keep their family-friendly image and at the same time satisfy their more edgy fans, they should make some new IP that is more mature.


----------



## Gahars (Oct 16, 2014)

endoverend said:


> You guys are both right, but the OP specifically put in the title that Nintendo should make a mature platform, not mature games.


 
>Taking WiiCube seriously

Ah, a fatal mistake.


----------



## endoverend (Oct 16, 2014)

Gahars said:


> >Taking WiiCube seriously
> 
> Ah, a fatal mistake.


 
Wait, this is a WiiCube thread...?
What the fuck am I doing?


----------



## cdoty (Oct 16, 2014)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> So yeah if Nintendo wants to approach the mature audience they should consider new potential franchises while also keeping the classic ones alive too (Mario, Zelda, Smash, Kart, Metroid, F-Zero, Pikmin)


 

It would probably have to be a adult targeted console. Very few gamers are going to buy a system for one game, especially if the prospects of getting another one are very slim.

I'm trying to think what gimmick Nintendo could use for an adult oriented console. I think we can rule out anything Fleshlite like. The heart rate monitor could've been a thing, but Apple and Android have pretty much taken over that.

VR might be the best they can come up with, but too many companies appear to be ahead there, and there's that Virtual Boy thing that will haunt them if they try.

They don't have the mature IP, or third party support, to take on Microsoft or Sony.


----------



## zeello (Oct 16, 2014)

I had an idea for a while now that Nintendo should reboot Metroid and this time Samus is a robot. (and maybe she should be named Metroid)

The idea didnt have many specifics other than that, and the fact that it being a robot makes morph ball more realistic. I was wondering if maybe it would be sort of like Avatar where humans are fighting aliens and you play as sort of a mediator between the two sides.

But recently I thought of a new version loosely based on Super Metroid. There is a space station with about 300 Samuses being built, as a top secret project. Suddenly the federation decides to pull the plug on the whole thing and chooses to have the space station self destruct. However, the Chozo scientist on board the space station lets one of the robots free. The robot makes its way into an escape pod and drifts into space before crash landing on some desolate alien planet.

Optionally:


Spoiler



the planet is Earth


and/or:


Spoiler



humanity is extinct


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 16, 2014)

zeello said:


> I had an idea for a while now that Nintendo should reboot Metroid and this time Samus is a robot. (and maybe she should be named Metroid)
> 
> The idea didnt have many specifics other than that, and the fact that it being a robot makes morph ball more realistic. I was wondering if maybe it would be sort of like Avatar where humans are fighting aliens and you play as sort of a mediator between the two sides.
> 
> ...


 

I hope this isn't serious. This sounds like Other M-tier awful.


----------

