Am I the only one burned out on gaming?

[TheFeniX]

Then why do they even view Microsoft and Sony as rivials in the first place?

Do they? You keep saying this, but offer nothing on it other than they all make gaming devices. Is Shindler's List competing with Scary Movie? Do they need to compete? I don't see Nintendo turning Mario into a gritty shooter. I do however see MS and Sony greenlighting games design to fight certain Nintendo IPs. They are fighting, Nintendo is not: they haven't needed to.

Of course not. But you need to make movies that rival movies like Transformers in term of box office earnings. Paramount made a billion off a Transformer movie? Then Disney should be able to create a product like Toy Story 3 that has the ability to earn just as much, if not more than Transformers. That is being compeitive without losing your core identity. Giving up the fight by claiming you cater to a different niche is not good business strategy.

With people like you in charge, no dark horse movie would ever get made. Because you can't predict how popular a movie will be. Large studios and publishing groups just throw money at what is currently trending and ignore everything else. You want to setup a system where a movie like Deadpool would never get made even with fan support and Ryan Reynolds. LOTR would never have been made because "Fantasy doesn't work." In fact, Harry Potter is a great example of how fucking stupid Hollywood is. That movie would NEVER had been made without the considerable money base from the book series. Pitch that idea to anyone without the established popularity: no fucking way it's getting made.

Hell, no one even wanted to publish the books because "kids don't read long novels." At least least, game development is on a spot where the small guys can get their ideas out. Which will then be copied, or bought up, and driven into the fucking ground. READ: nearly every group EA has consumed in it's lifetime.

They don't have to compete against them in everything, but they need to ensure they aren't losing too much of their potential customers. I know you don't give a shit about Pokemon, but ideally, that franchise should not be declining as quickly as it did. There are people who probably don't mind a Pokemon MMO or a slightly more "mature" take on the IP, and these are potential cutsomers Nintendo could be aiming at, in conjunction with the more "kid-friendly" Pokemon games.

The details don't matter. If a new Pokemon game beat out GTA: what exactly is that going to change? What does it show? Nothing, except that people still like Pokemon. This does not give Nintendo more power over anyone because the gaming market isn't setup that way. The best you could hope is that EA or whoever throws a couple of poorly made clones out into the market hoping to catch a few bottom feeders.

This can have positive side effects: in a desperate bid to fight Legend of Zelda, we got two decent games: Kameo and Dark Cloud. Both did fairly ok, but failed to make a dent into LoZ (no one can kill a Nintendo franchise but Nintendo). So, doing "well" means "utter shit, waste no more money because we have to compete for sales rather than just releasing a good game and make some money." Both easily could have qualified for a series, much like Saint's Row somehow survived being the poor man's GTA and got more than a few sequels.

Even then, why are franchises so fucking important. You can no longer just release a good game and move onto the next thing. Not every IP needs a damn trilogy. Not every MMO needs to chase WoWs success or mechanics. Not every shooter needs to ape CoD. But they have to because: money. Good money is awful. It's either all the money or none of it.

I think there are ways which companies like Nintendo and other innovative gaming companies can stay relevant. I mean a few years ago, no one could have imagined a R-rated Deadpool movie to perform better than the X-men films. There are tons of examples of unexpected success and shift in people's taste.

Deadpool probably owes a lot of it's popularity from just how fucking squeaky-clean the movie market is right now. The movie is absolutely tame by pre-2000s R-rated levels. But we've been watching sterilized CGI "gore" for 15 years. People are SHOCKED by that kind of violence and sexual content. Probably helps that the movie was well written and by someone who understood the source material. Still, not like Deadpool is a new IP or anything.

How is that comparable the the gaming market. The most popular games are GTA and CoD. Sex and violence are everywhere. Shouldn't Nintendo go the opposite direction? McSorny has targetted a demographic that doesn't want innovation either way.

And I am saying they should make more active efforts to create more mass-appeal games. Pokemon is a perfect example of Nintendo following the same path as the CoD games. They allowed that franchise to decline because every single one of thier games is basically a copy of the old games with slightly updated graphics. Unless you are a massive Pokemon fan as an adult/teen, there are no reasons why you want to get the newest copy of Pokemon.

So, how do you capitalize on the CoD base with a Pokemon game? Blood splatter when a monster uses claw? Charizard yells "I'm your battle date you ugly sack of shit!" when the fight starts? Ash is actually a super-secret army ranger whatever, but it turns out HE'S ACTUALLY THE BAD GUY/DEAD/A PRETTY PINK PRINCESS! You need to understand why CoD is still popular and pokemon is not, when they've been doing the same thing. Then ask yourself if you really want to MAKE pokemon popular with these people.

You will not like the result. Such as I didn't when Shadowrun 360 was released. Dungeon Keeper. Fallout/Elder Scrolls. Thi4f (dear God). I could sit here all day and name names, but the point is that to bring Pokemon to these people means you won't be playing a Pokemon game, at least not something recognizable to you.

The Dungeon Keeper mobile game probably made EA more money than both the original games did for Bullfrog. Is that a good thing?

A decent amount of IP other than Pokemon, Mario and Zelda? The new Nintendo console needs to be more than a simple device to play Nintendo exclusive titles. Even with the original Wii, it is actually possible to play CoD on it.

You know what's nice about owning the IP for the most popular titles on your hardware? FIrst off: getting all the money except what you paid out in development costs. And also that those victories are yours, not Rockstars, not Activision, not EA. Like I said before: different business model. Nintendo doesn't have to rely on huge successes to line pockets or large losses for a tax write-off. I don't always agree with their business model, but it works.

But look at what is selling on each console and compare WHO OWNS those rights. Who is getting all the money. Then try and tell me they have similar business plans or that Nintendo is trying to directly compete with McSorny. You seem to think people with time to burn on games of the video type are some kind of cohesive block. They never have been and they damn sure aren't now.

And that needs to be something that companies like Nintendo should be doing. Instead they are using the same old IP like Mario, Zelda and Pokemon.

You forgot Metroid..... everyone forgets Metroid..... sad fucking day. And when they tried to take Metroid in a new direction, give it a verbal narrative: they killed the fucking franchise. All that Retro had built up. And even then, Dudebros bashed on it because they wanted their Halos (of which they are games I enjoy that have a community I dislike).

If you are a massive multinational company, you pretty much have no choice but to chase profits. If your profits is reduced, it is going to make it harder for you to climb back up again.

And I, as the consumer, say "fuck you" and buy from someone else because your products are garbage.

I disagree. Companies like Nintendo themselves needs to be willing to embrace some changes for their IP. If they could try and innovate with their flagship title like Pokemon, perhaps the competition would be a lot fiercer.

God damn man, it's just pocket monsters. And from what I know, it's only been truly popular on handhelds due to the way the MP is designed. And Nintendo still fucking owns the handheld market if only because Sony is so terrible at trying to push into that area. So, going all-in on it for console seems a long shot, at best.

But you need to update your IP constantly for it to stay fresh. Disney did it via Pixar when 2D animation is becoming less popular than 3D animation and etc. They tried to update their classic stories with a live-action adaption. The public needs to get the hint that the new Disney stuff isn't exactly like the old Disney stuff.

I doubt that had anything to do with it. Disney animators were some of the best in the business. And the cost of hand-drawn animation can't get much cheaper. CGI on the other hand is as cheap as it's ever been and will get even cheaper as time goes on. Disney evolved with the technology, not consumers saying they preferred 3D over hand-animating: unless you can prove it.

Gaming isn't meant to be a lonely experience, or about showing off to others how your taste in gaming is "superior" to others.

I spend 90%+ of my gaming time with other people. Your jab doesn't bother me. And if you want to hear about "superior" taste, talk to a Dudebro for 5 seconds. Jesus Christ to hear them wax on about CoD. "Take more skill out of any game." These guys are in a reality all their own, but at least I give other games a shot. I don't write something off due to graphics or supposed "maturity," so yea, I'm going to bite the bullet and say my taste is superior to theirs.

[MKSheppard]

Wii and Wii U are hot messes. Come on; they couldn't be bothered to spend $30 more on a GPU that could at least output 1080p?

(Yes, I realize that at 1080p, you'd be very limited in what you can do graphically due to FPS limitations, but....that wouldn't be a problem with Nintendo's Stylized graphics than COD ultra realisms graphics).

[TheFeniX]

I thought the WiiU was 1080p. And has been maintaining more stable FPS than the AAAiest of the PS4 and Xbone titles. I could be wrong: No Metroid on the horizon, no sale. I dove back into PC gaming in 200....9, I think and haven't looked back. I'm going off console forum-war bullshit over the last few years.

The Wii had a price-point $150USD below the cheapest console alternative of which both of it's competing console were sold at loss. Sony and MS would take years to finally turn a profit but Nintendo was cashing checks from day 1. Nintendo, from what I know, has no hardware or software division to prop them up while they hemorrhage money. I have no desire to see them go the route of SEGA and throw everything they've got at the wall in order to push graphics and crater in the process.

I do agree they should change things up. But aping other console manufacturers? No. The idea they should go third-party and let Sony and MS have a say in what they do? Hell fucking no.

I've also read about more than a few 1080p 60FPS games out of the WiiU. Meanwhile, their competition is pushing a lot of 30FPS upscaled (maybe) 900p games. MS and Sony painted themselves into this corner, so it is nice to see them suffer for it (for all the good it will do, they've still selling units).

[Mr Bean]

Nintendo, from what I know, has no hardware or software division to prop them up while they hemorrhage money. I have no desire to see them go the route of SEGA and throw everything they've got at the wall in order to push graphics and crater in the process.

Huh? Nintendo has a hardware and software division, what are you on about Fenix? or do you mean software as in operating system and software suites, because they sure as heck have a hardware division from handhelds to Amibos Nintendo gets it's cut. Hell they have Ten billion dollars in the bank. I had to go look that up myself to verify and my memory was wrong I had thought it was two billion in reserves turns out it's ten billion.

[TheFeniX]

Huh? Nintendo has a hardware and software division, what are you on about Fenix? or do you mean software as in operating system and software suites, because they sure as heck have a hardware division from handhelds to Amibos Nintendo gets it's cut. Hell they have Ten billion dollars in the bank. I had to go look that up myself to verify and my memory was wrong I had thought it was two billion in reserves turns out it's ten billion.

Poor phrasing on my part. I meant that MS has an entire companies resources, not specifically related to gaming, to lean on to push into the market with. And this is what they did to get their marketshare. Sony has an entire hardware division of TVs, audio equpiment, etc (not to mention SOE, or what's left of it) for the same thing. I'm not saying either at this point, considering how involved they've been in the industry for so long, could back out without major consequences. But they aren't specifically gaming companies. They could back out and still be in business. From what I know, Nintendo does not have this luxury.

Nintendo has billions in reserve to due profits relating to their gaming related earnings. Sure, they could burn that to try and compete with the other guys on their own level, but they aren't. And to be fair, they've survived other players on the field trying to edge them out by selling more mature consoles with better graphics. SEGA had additions to their own console for this (32x and CD). NeoGeo and 3DO. However, they didn't sell that hardware at a significant loss to get buyers. But we're also at the point that Sony and Microsoft won't either. So, the "underpowering" of the Wii actually made a lot of sense. The Wiiu, I don't now enough about to really slug that argument out.

[General Zod]

Nintendo has billions in reserve to due profits relating to their gaming related earnings. Sure, they could burn that to try and compete with the other guys on their own level, but they aren't. And to be fair, they've survived other players on the field trying to edge them out by selling more mature consoles with better graphics. SEGA had additions to their own console for this (32x and CD). NeoGeo and 3DO. However, they didn't sell that hardware at a significant loss to get buyers. But we're also at the point that Sony and Microsoft won't either. So, the "underpowering" of the Wii actually made a lot of sense. The Wiiu, I don't now enough about to really slug that argument out.

The 32x and the CD were massive commercial failures, though.

[TheFeniX]

The 32x and the CD were massive commercial failures, though.

Definitely. And they, along with other systems like the Turbo Graphix 16, were pushing the "mature" and graphics edge over Nintendo, while also offering more kid friendly content. But, as ray put it, appearances are also a thing. Nintendo will always be known for Mario and Zelda. Unless they are willing to forgo the money involved on those two licenses to put up a more mature front (or change those IPs to make them unrecognizable), there is no way they can ditch that appearance. Pushing Mario to the background would be fucking suicide and with a brightly colored plumber as your mascot, you are not drawing in kids who think Mortal Kombat is the best fighter because the sprites being modeled on actors made them look more realistic and the gore and that Street Fighter is shit for maintaining it's cartoony look with next to no blood.

SEGAs problem was that, at the time, those appearances didn't mean what they do now. Yes, there was a "mature games for a mature gamer such as myself" kid group out there, but not enough to sustain them nor to break through the idea that video games are for losers. Arcades were still where normal people went to play video games. By the time of the PSX and Saturn, SEGA was now in the kiddie area with mascots like Nights and a blue hedgehog as with the jump to 3D, the kid friendly themes of Sonic really showed through.

But really, SEGA was just god damn terrible about killing it's own half-assed technology. They released the 32x when there were already specs for their next actual 32-bit console on the horizon. The Saturn would have killed the 32x on it's own. There were on something like a 2 year hardware rotation when everyone else was doing 5 years minimum or just bowing out completely. I can't believe they waited as long as they did to release the Dreamcast (for what good it did).

Man, if there's any game I miss from that trash heap of a hardware series, it's Popful Mail. I don't even know how to get the Windows version. At least Echo is easy to find, across multiple platforms.

[ray245]

The 32x and the CD were massive commercial failures, though.

Definitely. And they, along with other systems like the Turbo Graphix 16, were pushing the "mature" and graphics edge over Nintendo, while also offering more kid friendly content. But, as ray put it, appearances are also a thing. Nintendo will always be known for Mario and Zelda. Unless they are willing to forgo the money involved on those two licenses to put up a more mature front (or change those IPs to make them unrecognizable), there is no way they can ditch that appearance. Pushing Mario to the background would be fucking suicide and with a brightly colored plumber as your mascot, you are not drawing in kids who think Mortal Kombat is the best fighter because the sprites being modeled on actors made them look more realistic and the gore and that Street Fighter is shit for maintaining it's cartoony look with next to no blood.

I would say Final Fantasy made the transition pretty well. It's not a blood and gore game, but it still manage to appeal to the more "mature" crowd while not alienating the "younger" or more "traditional" crowd.

Little Big Planet sold pretty well despite being a non-blood and gore game.

So, how do you capitalize on the CoD base with a Pokemon game? Blood splatter when a monster uses claw? Charizard yells "I'm your battle date you ugly sack of shit!" when the fight starts? Ash is actually a super-secret army ranger whatever, but it turns out HE'S ACTUALLY THE BAD GUY/DEAD/A PRETTY PINK PRINCESS! You need to understand why CoD is still popular and pokemon is not, when they've been doing the same thing. Then ask yourself if you really want to MAKE pokemon popular with these people.

Have you seen Monster Hunter? Those games are a pretty nice mix between looking a little bit more "mature" without going crazy with blood and gore. I know many friends that aren't ashamed of playing Monster Hunter, but are turned off by Pokemon due to the games being seen as too childish.

[TheFeniX]

I would say Final Fantasy made the transition pretty well. It's not a blood and gore game, but it still manage to appeal to the more "mature" crowd while not alienating the "younger" or more "traditional" crowd.

True, and FFVII was one of the first big breaks (especially for an RPG) into the mainstream. Japan was going to buy it up no matter what as only Dragon Warrior (from what I know) is a more popular RPG over there and FF still had name recognition over here.

The graphics combined with a first-rate advertising campaign showing off Square's FMV skills lead to a whole lot of "gaming/RPGs are maturing" articles. While not loading up on the blood and gore, the game definitely got you into the action quickly (for a 20+ hour game) and combined it with decidedly adult themes for the time. Terrorism, death, that sort of thing. The series was not afraid to pull punches. But neither Halo nor CoD really ratchet up the blood either. They are heavily into playing the player up as a badass though, which is how we see Cloud in the beginning.

Little Big Planet sold pretty well despite being a non-blood and gore game.

I don't know much about it, but the PS3 already had an established install base and the game was cheap from what I know. I doubt the game in of itself would sell a lot of Playstations.

Have you seen Monster Hunter? Those games are a pretty nice mix between looking a little bit more "mature" without going crazy with blood and gore. I know many friends that aren't ashamed of playing Monster Hunter, but are turned off by Pokemon due to the games being seen as too childish.

Monster Hunter is pretty popular in Japan, but doesn't have that following in America. I don't know how you change that. It's not hard for RPGs as you can play into the American market easily. But MH is in a genre that's never been all that big in America.

[Mr Bean]

Have you seen Monster Hunter? Those games are a pretty nice mix between looking a little bit more "mature" without going crazy with blood and gore. I know many friends that aren't ashamed of playing Monster Hunter, but are turned off by Pokemon due to the games being seen as too childish.

Monster Hunter is pretty popular in Japan, but doesn't have that following in America. I don't know how you change that. It's not hard for RPGs as you can play into the American market easily. But MH is in a genre that's never been all that big in America.

I'd say Monster Hunter is an issue of localization being bad to terrible and a few issues with Western sensibilities being ignored. Monster Hunter has always just screams Japan a touch to much.

[ray245]

True, and FFVII was one of the first big breaks (especially for an RPG) into the mainstream. Japan was going to buy it up no matter what as only Dragon Warrior (from what I know) is a more popular RPG over there and FF still had name recognition over here.

The graphics combined with a first-rate advertising campaign showing off Square's FMV skills lead to a whole lot of "gaming/RPGs are maturing" articles. While not loading up on the blood and gore, the game definitely got you into the action quickly (for a 20+ hour game) and combined it with decidedly adult themes for the time.

There's a nice spot between games being seen as too "mature" and games being seen as too "kiddish".

Terrorism, death, that sort of thing. The series was not afraid to pull punches. But neither Halo nor CoD really ratchet up the blood either. They are heavily into playing the player up as a badass though, which is how we see Cloud in the beginning.

Well if the popularity of Overwatch is anything to go by, people aren't asking for hyper-realistic graphics all the time either. Overwatch's graphics could easily be something from a Nintendo game. It's kid friendly enough for kids from 7 onwards to play them, while not alienating older gamers.

I don't know much about it, but the PS3 already had an established install base and the game was cheap from what I know. I doubt the game in of itself would sell a lot of Playstations.

That's why you don't rely on one game alone to sell Playstations or console. Ideally, you should be creating more games that can appeal to both kids and older gamers alike.

Monster Hunter is pretty popular in Japan, but doesn't have that following in America. I don't know how you change that. It's not hard for RPGs as you can play into the American market easily. But MH is in a genre that's never been all that big in America.

True, but even in Asia there's less of a stigma if you play a game like Monster Hunter vs a Pokemon game. Sure, its sales figure isn't going to match the Pokemon games anytime soon, but it does show there is a market for a more "mature-looking" monster game.

It would benefit Nintendo if they allow some of their IP to age a little with their audience, kinda like how the HP novels and movies are allowed to age with their audience. I would say even Star Wars did this in some ways, with the new Star Wars movie supposedly emulating gritty war movies like Saving Private Ryan.

Disney's recent acquisition demonstrated that a "kiddy" media empire could diversify themselves by acquiring IP like Marvel and Star Wars. No one is asking for a dark and gritty Mario, but having some IP that's more appealing to older gamers could work without alienating their younger or more non-gamers.

[TheFeniX]

To this day, I think the biggest hit to Nintendo was losing Final Fantasy due to CD-ROM technology. But also that such a large franchise/developer moving convinced a lot of other publishers to jump ship as well. I'm not absolving Nintendo of responsibility for keeping with cartridges (or just other weird proprietary formats like with the GameCube). But Square seemed to want nothing to do with Nintendo after the PSX. And neither did a lot of developers.

Nintendo pushed first-party hard, seemingly, in response, bringing in teams to help bolster development on certain titles such as Donkey Kong. And they branched out even further with these IPs, bringing out games like Hyrule Warriors which pushed a comparatively low amount of units compared to AAA titles, and still beat Nintendo's projections. And Squeenix seems to only bother with the GBA/DS because ignoring it would be idiotic considering the marketshare it represents and even still, they can release titles like Dissidia on the PSP. Or just release more graphically advanced games on it.

Still, that Nintendo continues to be on Microsoft or Sony's radar in the console market shows how they work with what they have and how much pull their first-party stuff has. I have to respect that. And as much as I'd like to see PC ports of their games, I can understand why they wouldn't sign their own death certificate.

There's a nice spot between games being seen as too "mature" and games being seen as too "kiddish".

You could turn Zelda into a grimdark Dark Souls clone and it still wouldn't push non-fans to buy it. Further, you'd lose your established base.

Well if the popularity of Overwatch is anything to go by, people aren't asking for hyper-realistic graphics all the time either. Overwatch's graphics could easily be something from a Nintendo game. It's kid friendly enough for kids from 7 onwards to play them, while not alienating older gamers.

There was so much going in Overwatch's favor that it being a blockbuster was a given. The extended beta period showcased the gameplay and if Blizzard knows anything, it's gameplay. This lead to loads of hype spread across numerous streaming sites and news outlets. This, combined with their advertising campaign that was everywhere (especially if you own another Blizzard product) meant it's exposure was nearly unlimited. "Trendy" counts for a whole lot when it comes to appearances.

True, but even in Asia there's less of a stigma if you play a game like Monster Hunter vs a Pokemon game. Sure, its sales figure isn't going to match the Pokemon games anytime soon, but it does show there is a market for a more "mature-looking" monster game.

Like I said, Pokemon had pre-loaded hype built into the dubbed Amercan release of the show. It was already a monolith before Nintendo started making games. The card game even competed with Magic (but not really as WotC handled printing) and fucking blew out the established card game in favor of Pikachus. The Monster Hunter games do sell in America, but how do you make them compete with GTA/CoD on WiiU hardware? When said games split their sales (at least CoD at the start) across Xbone/PS4/PC?

It would benefit Nintendo if they allow some of their IP to age a little with their audience, kinda like how the HP novels and movies are allowed to age with their audience. I would say even Star Wars did this in some ways, with the new Star Wars movie supposedly emulating gritty war movies like Saving Private Ryan.

Through some camera work, yes. Filming tech and stye has changed over the years: but the movie is pretty much ANH when you look at the plot and themes.

Disney's recent acquisition demonstrated that a "kiddy" media empire could diversify themselves by acquiring IP like Marvel and Star Wars. No one is asking for a dark and gritty Mario, but having some IP that's more appealing to older gamers could work without alienating their younger or more non-gamers.

Disney has been involved in numerous business ventures for years. They have the buying power to do pretty much whatever they want. Mr. Bean pointed out just how much money Nintendo has (seemingly, all the money): what desire would they have to start taking risks when they only have the same market to fall back onto if they fail? What they are doing is working. Disney can drop 4 billion on an established IP to play the long game because Disney makes billions each years on non-Star Wars related stuff.

I guess they could try to buy Squeenix. Honestly tired of them doing nothing but Final Fantasy bullshit anyway.

[MKSheppard]

I thought the WiiU was 1080p.

Wii was a horrible mess; which is why even though we had a Wii, I had no interest in a WiiU. Nintendo's sabotaging of the Wii made them lose out on a sale of the WiiU with me.

[ray245]

To this day, I think the biggest hit to Nintendo was losing Final Fantasy due to CD-ROM technology. But also that such a large franchise/developer moving convinced a lot of other publishers to jump ship as well. I'm not absolving Nintendo of responsibility for keeping with cartridges (or just other weird proprietary formats like with the GameCube). But Square seemed to want nothing to do with Nintendo after the PSX. And neither did a lot of developers.

Nintendo pushed first-party hard, seemingly, in response, bringing in teams to help bolster development on certain titles such as Donkey Kong. And they branched out even further with these IPs, bringing out games like Hyrule Warriors which pushed a comparatively low amount of units compared to AAA titles, and still beat Nintendo's projections. And Squeenix seems to only bother with the GBA/DS because ignoring it would be idiotic considering the marketshare it represents and even still, they can release titles like Dissidia on the PSP. Or just release more graphically advanced games on it.

Which is why it's important to create new IP or incentivise more third party developers to create new games on the Nintendo platform.

Still, that Nintendo continues to be on Microsoft or Sony's radar in the console market shows how they work with what they have and how much pull their first-party stuff has. I have to respect that. And as much as I'd like to see PC ports of their games, I can understand why they wouldn't sign their own death certificate.

I don't think relying on their current first-party stuff is good to last them forever. At the least the Wii offers players the chance to play CoD on the platform.

You could turn Zelda into a grimdark Dark Souls clone and it still wouldn't push non-fans to buy it. Further, you'd lose your established base.

Making it mature isn't grimdark. If fans of Final fantasty can continune to support the franchise even after it became a little bit more "mature", they can do so for a Zelda game.

Moreover, it's not like the Elder Scrolls games are particularly grimdark either.

There was so much going in Overwatch's favor that it being a blockbuster was a given. The extended beta period showcased the gameplay and if Blizzard knows anything, it's gameplay. This lead to loads of hype spread across numerous streaming sites and news outlets. This, combined with their advertising campaign that was everywhere (especially if you own another Blizzard product) meant it's exposure was nearly unlimited. "Trendy" counts for a whole lot when it comes to appearances.

It is not as if Nintendo can use the same strategy. Allowing their games to be hyped up is useful if you wish to expand the player base.

Like I said, Pokemon had pre-loaded hype built into the dubbed Amercan release of the show. It was already a monolith before Nintendo started making games. The card game even competed with Magic (but not really as WotC handled printing) and fucking blew out the established card game in favor of Pikachus. The Monster Hunter games do sell in America, but how do you make them compete with GTA/CoD on WiiU hardware? When said games split their sales (at least CoD at the start) across Xbone/PS4/PC?

Yeah, but Nintendo strategy of remaking the exact same game with slightly updated graphics did not help the franchise in anyway. Instead of allowing the franchise to grow, it has instead declined. There is a market for Pokemon games that appeals to an older demographic, but Nintendo's laziness allowed the franchise to be seen as a mere kids franchise. It's an extremely lazy way of making massive amount of money, but in turn it allowed the franchise to stagnate.

Through some camera work, yes. Filming tech and stye has changed over the years: but the movie is pretty much ANH when you look at the plot and themes.

I don't deny that either. But the prequels and Disney's films did manage to convince older viewers back to the franchise, which is why it made so much money. The Star Wars franchise isn't content with targetting kids alone, it wanted to appeal to the broadest audience possible. The same strategy could be applied to Nintendo games, espeically the Pokemon franchsie.

Disney has been involved in numerous business ventures for years. They have the buying power to do pretty much whatever they want. Mr. Bean pointed out just how much money Nintendo has (seemingly, all the money): what desire would they have to start taking risks when they only have the same market to fall back onto if they fail? What they are doing is working. Disney can drop 4 billion on an established IP to play the long game because Disney makes billions each years on non-Star Wars related stuff.

That's my point. I find many of Nintendo titles give off the impression that they are risk conservative, which will only make it harder for them to challenge Microsoft and Nintendo in the long run. It's why Disney managed to grow from a company that focus on animation in the past into the media juggernaut today, while leaving many of their competition to collapse.

I guess they could try to buy Squeenix. Honestly tired of them doing nothing but Final Fantasy bullshit anyway.

I'm not sure if fans of Final Fantasy fans would be happy. There's a fear that Nintendo would tone things down to make it more appealing to kids, as well as lower the level of graphics fans of recent series are used to.

Nintendo's reputation of being a kid-friendly company can turn people away from a new Nintendo Final Fantasy game. This is what I meant by the limitations of Nintendo. It's public perception can affect its business in some way.

[TheFeniX]

Which is why it's important to create new IP or incentivise more third party developers to create new games on the Nintendo platform.

Which they've done with IPs like Bayonetta and Splatoon. But that incentivising is a lot harder when current devs are alreadys pushing cutting edge graphics boxes to the limit at release. This isn't like the 360 or PS3 where developers had room for improvement. To continue this trend, they're already release new version of the Xbone/PS4. At what point is Nintendo going too much in to try and woo them back?

I don't think relying on their current first-party stuff is good to last them forever. At the least the Wii offers players the chance to play CoD on the platform.

It may not. But people said the same thing about CoD not being able to keep up the pace once they dove into modern tacticool shooters. They were wrong.

Making it mature isn't grimdark. If fans of Final fantasty can continune to support the franchise even after it became a little bit more "mature", they can do so for a Zelda game.

In Twilight Princess, you can talk to people currently disembodied by the "darkness." They are cowering/terrified, begging for someone to help them. Most have no idea what's even going on. Even the "Childish" Wind Waker had themes of this nature as well.

There are numerous adult themes in those games hiding under the paint. And how has Final Fantasy really matured over overt referencing to torture (and possible rape, the lines edited in later releases) in FFVI? Damn, FFVI was filled with shit like genocide, murderous experimentation on sentient beings, and all around just "not nice" things. Kefka poisons an entire castle and you watch as they all drop dead, then Cyan finds his wife and child dead by this poison. He backs up in horror, then goes on a rampage. And that was a Nintendo title. FFIV, a SNES release title, had an entire castle/town wiped off the map in a bombing run and you can talk to the dieing/dead soldiers. In fact, a whole lot of people get wasted in that game and not just in passing.

Final Fantasy has always been "mature." FF1 was probably the tamest. FF2 and 3 never got original releases here, but those were pretty fucked up thematically, such as opening with your entire party getting wiped out in a unwinnable fight. The only real change has been the graphics. And that hasn't impressed me since I was traumatized years ago by old WaxWorks style games as a kid.

Moreover, it's not like the Elder Scrolls games are particularly grimdark either.

Um, yes they are. Skyrim opens with you about to be beheaded. Entering Solitude for the first time you see an another beheading. Racism is a fairly large part of the game. Dragonborn has a tentacle rape monster God. Vampires keeps "cattle" around. In Dawnguard, the way they talk isn't like they are enjoying it. The Dark Brotherhood will chain up innocents for you to torture/test out weapons on/feed if you're a vampire and one of the characters will replace the dead ones for you. Falmer are what's left of the Snow Elves, their race twisted by the Dwemer into horrifically evil abominations.

That's just Skyrim and just a few choice examples (there are.... dozens if not hundreds more examples). The games have a lot of nightmare fuel and show that Tamriel is generally not a great place to live.

It is not as if Nintendo can use the same strategy. Allowing their games to be hyped up is useful if you wish to expand the player base.

They don't have that kind of exposure due to choices made decades ago. A lot of the success of the Wii was not attributed to what I would define as "gamers," people looking to become part of a fanbase.

Yeah, but Nintendo strategy of remaking the exact same game with slightly updated graphics did not help the franchise in anyway. Instead of allowing the franchise to grow, it has instead declined. There is a market for Pokemon games that appeals to an older demographic, but Nintendo's laziness allowed the franchise to be seen as a mere kids franchise. It's an extremely lazy way of making massive amount of money, but in turn it allowed the franchise to stagnate.

Dude, come on. How is that fair at all? I know little about Skyward Sword except the reliance on actual strategy concerning how to swing your sword, but many of the Zelda games have enough hooks in the gameplay to make them a lot more unique than the average shooter series. Not accounting for the jump to 3D, OoT had you playing as an adult and child. Majora's Mask had the mask system for combat (like what Kameo would go for years later). Wind Waker had the sailing mechanics. Twilight Princess pushed Zelda to the side and had you spending a lot of time with Midna and the mechanics behind the wolf form. All of these games offered new, or twists on old mechanics, weapons/tools for changes in fighting strategy. Meanwhile, how has CoD really changed? You see a bad guy, you shoot bad guy in the face. Exception: those stupid fucking shield enemies they added in with MW2 which was not a good thing.

Mario has expanded out into all sorts of genres, such as racing, fighting, puzzle, RPGs.

I'm not saying they are all great mechanics, but to say Zelda and Mario games are all "remake with slightly updated graphics" when comparing them to the current crop of AAA blockbusters as GTA and CoD: Seriously?

I don't deny that either. But the prequels and Disney's films did manage to convince older viewers back to the franchise, which is why it made so much money. The Star Wars franchise isn't content with targetting kids alone, it wanted to appeal to the broadest audience possible. The same strategy could be applied to Nintendo games, espeically the Pokemon franchsie.

The fanbase for Star Wars is everywhere. It is so hammered into the collective human consciousness, they can just mention Star Wars and start building hype, getting old fans excited enough online and in real life that new kids will be excited because it's just everywhere.

Star Trek is a much better example because it's always been more "nerd shit" than Star Wars, since they don't just shoot everything all day and it directly tackles mature themes such as racism/sexism, genocide, that sort of thing. They finally got into the Star Wars business by forgoing exploration and focusing on EXPLOOOOOSIONS. I didn't mind the new Star Trek movies, but are they really Star Trek? You got the names and a CGI ship that looks like a Constitution class, but what's really Star Trek about the new movies? Man, even DS9 didn't go that far into explosions.

That's my point. I find many of Nintendo titles give off the impression that they are risk conservative, which will only make it harder for them to challenge Microsoft and Nintendo in the long run. It's why Disney managed to grow from a company that focus on animation in the past into the media juggernaut today, while leaving many of their competition to collapse.

They made a Zelda Musou game, a genre never really popular in the west. The made the villain a woman with HUUUUUGE fucking knockers barely contained, which is pretty outside the kid-friendly idea. So, how was Hyrule Warriors not a risk? A risk that paid off mind you, even if they were only shooting for 100,000 units and got double that? Money is Money, not Opium.

I'm not really seeing how they are more conservative idea-wise than companies who just beat give us more of the same with a twist. They seem to take more risks with their only IPs than a lot of other companies will. The difference is that they are conservatives with money and it's been paying off.

[SAMAS]

You want Nintendo to make more "mature" games? Where the hell were you when Resident Evil 4 first came out(Fun fact: the Gamecube was at one time the only system with every single mainline RE game on it)? How about Eternal Darkness? Killer 7? Twilight Princess? Did you line up for Madworld? The Conduit? How about Xenoblade? The Metroid Prime series? Bayonetta 2/1? Xenoblade X? You want Nintendo to make certain kinds of games, but have you bought any of them the times they already have?

Every time Nintendo releases serious, mature, even bloody games, gamers like you continue to not buy them even as you demand Nintendo makes them. How about you step up and show them that it's not a waste of their time and money to try appealing to you instead of the marketing equivalent of a ding-dong-ditch?