Nintendo May Return for Future E3 Press Conferences

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Nintendo May Return for Future E3 Press Conferences

Nintendo E3

Nintendo of America president Reggie Fils-Aime says Nintendo conferences aren't "dead."

Nintendo made an arguably bold move this year, forgoing its traditional E3 press conference and instead offering smaller presentations and reveals via other avenues. It was an understandable move in many ways. E3 press conferences aren't on the cheaper end of the shindig scale and recent years have seen several of Nintendo's conference offerings fall flat among critics and viewers. All of this said, Nintendo might not be ready to fully quit the conference game just yet.

According to Nintendo of America president Reggie Fils-Aime, the future could hold future press conferences from Nintendo. "Next year and what we do at E3 next year is going to be an ongoing conversation," said Fils-Aime. "What we are not saying as a result of this year is that the Nintendo press conference is dead." According to Fils-Aime, this year's decision to skip E3 was a result of Nintendo's software lineup and increasing use of Nintendo Direct. "Nintendo Direct is very powerful for us and we are going to continue to utilize Nintendo Direct to drive engagement with our user."

The prospect of future Nintendo press conferences is likely to excite some, especially those who enjoy the more competitive "who won" aspects of E3. That said, if there are more effective methods the company can use to get its message out year round, it begs the question of why it would bother returning to traditional press conferences in the future.

Source: Polygon

Permalink

Yeah maybe it wasn't such a good idea letting Sony win now was it? And they finally had a freaking line-up to show-off to.

The only thing I missed was a crowd reaction to "Mega Man joins the battle!".

I actually thought it worked out well for them.

Nintendo's whole reason for going full-steam with the Direct is because they're fed up of having to try and present one conference to three different groups: Gaming media, investors and gamers. Before we all break out the joy lube for Sony's conference, let's not forget that the first half of it was filled with utterly laughable stuff like "We're going to bring across entertainment that gamers really want... like TV, films and music tailored specifically for gamers."

Right from the start of the Direct, it was nothing but games, games, games. Even more importantly, unlike Sony or Microsoft, they didn't try and fob people off with CGI trailers. Every single game announcement came with footage of the games running in action. They obviously tailored this Direct for the gamer audience, and I think unrealistic expectations aside, it worked.

I hope they keep doing this in future. Because I'd much rather watch more Directs where the focus is games, games, games, rather than watching crusty old marketing executives awkwardly try and jerk off gamers and investors at the same time.

I liked the Directs better though :/ The best part of these conferences are the games and Directs are just that.I Didn't have to sit through any boring presentations, just got straight to the games and moved on. I hope they just stick to that. The Sony and MS press conferences this year were more than 1 and a half hours long as opposed to about 40 mins of Nintendo. -_-

Anyway, this was a good idea, hope Sony and MS do something like that instead too. Just give us a quick presentation on the games, getting to the point immediately. That way I don't end up just skipping the presentation and Googling the summary afterwards. Plus, it's probably cheaper to pull off, so there's that too.

I always wondered why companies spent millions of dollars to have these super flashy events which ultimately are identical to the information released through the web.

E3 is a 'high visibility' moment and it 'builds hype,' but what Nintendo is doing with Direct and the nation wide demo stations seem to be so much more efficient about all that. Nintendo having a large presentation would have added 0% extra of anything to their presence or profits.

I am amazed that nintendo year after year can release the same games over and over again and no1 gets angry at them. But mention Call of Duty or announce a game that looks like it and everyone shits on everything.

How do they get away with rehashing the same ip's and everyone loves them for it? o.O

All i saw from that direct feed was, here are the same games you've played before but they have new names.

Don't get me wrong, i don't mind sequels, but in all fairness shouldn't we expect something new from them too?

In terms of not holding a conference, they have conceded in the "Console Wars." Nintendo is a toy brand :P

DTWolfwood:
I am amazed that nintendo year after year can release the same games over and over again and no1 gets angry at them. But mention Call of Duty or announce a game that looks like it and everyone shits on everything.

How do they get away with rehashing the same ip's and everyone loves them for it? o.O

All i saw from that direct feed was, here are the same games you've played before but they have new names.

Don't get me wrong, i don't mind sequels, but in all fairness shouldn't we expect something new from them too?

In terms of not holding a conference, they have conceded in the "Console Wars." Nintendo is a toy brand :P

Because Nintendo is one of the few only one focusing on platformers, action/adventure games who focus more on adventure than action, and random genre games like wonderful 101 and Pikmin. We would all be sick of Nintendo if Sony and Microsoft where targeting the same genre, but they aren't. They are still focusing on realistic shooters of some kind or shooters in general. Either military or sci-fi or mix of both.

Negatempest:

DTWolfwood:
I am amazed that nintendo year after year can release the same games over and over again and no1 gets angry at them. But mention Call of Duty or announce a game that looks like it and everyone shits on everything.

How do they get away with rehashing the same ip's and everyone loves them for it? o.O

All i saw from that direct feed was, here are the same games you've played before but they have new names.

Don't get me wrong, i don't mind sequels, but in all fairness shouldn't we expect something new from them too?

In terms of not holding a conference, they have conceded in the "Console Wars." Nintendo is a toy brand :P

Because Nintendo is one of the few only one focusing on platformers, action/adventure games who focus more on adventure than action, and random genre games like wonderful 101 and Pikmin. We would all be sick of Nintendo if Sony and Microsoft where targeting the same genre, but they aren't. They are still focusing on realistic shooters of some kind or shooters in general. Either military or sci-fi or mix of both.

I think it also comes down to 2 things:
1. They don't release new big title IPs every year. You get maybe one or two big 3D Mario games/ new Zelda games a generation

Mario 64 for the N64- 1997(?)
Sunshine for the GC- 2002
and
Galaxies 1 & 2 for the Wii 2007 & 2010

They're spaced far enough a part that by the time a new one comes out it's been a while since the last so you do want it.

and

2. It maybe the same IP but it certainly FEELS different.

Zelda games for example:
Skyward Sword focused on 1:1 sword play in a bright, colorful world, Twilight Princess was a more gloomy take on the franchise taking place in the familiar Hyrule setting, and Wind Waker was a light hearted adventure on the open seas.

They find something new to throw in there to keep it from feeling stale and they're spaced so far a part that the demand for them is there. Also, there aren't a lot of similar platformers or adventure games so if you want one your choices are fairly limited. So their market is whatever the opposite of over saturated is XD. These two keep the games from feeling samey (though they basically ARE) and make each new iteration feel different enough from the older ones to make the purchase feel more justifiable. They do try new things, just not a lot all at once.

I actually didn't mind the Nintendo Direct thing, although I must admit it lacked the "pizazz" of the other conferences.

One thing I would like to see more of, from all the companies at E3, is interactivity with products outside of E3, with Nintendo doing it this year with the whole "you can play our games at Best Buy" deal.

However, I think you could easily go further with this. Don't just have them available at stores, but for any games with gameplay, let people download that alpha/beta/demo at home. You would get your product that you are trying to hype out to so many more people. There's no way I could've gone to E3 this year but I'd have loved to be able to download that 3 stage Sonic: Lost World demo to give it a go.

You could even just have it time based for E3, or maybe a day or so after. Honestly, I don't see a downside, so long as your demo is good which, if you're taking it to E3 to show people, it should be.

Yeah I typically don't watch E3 presentations, just go for the cliff notes, but I really liked the Nintendo Direct thing.

DTWolfwood:
I am amazed that nintendo year after year can release the same games over and over again and no1 gets angry at them. But mention Call of Duty or announce a game that looks like it and everyone shits on everything.

How do they get away with rehashing the same ip's and everyone loves them for it? o.O

All i saw from that direct feed was, here are the same games you've played before but they have new names.

Don't get me wrong, i don't mind sequels, but in all fairness shouldn't we expect something new from them too?

In terms of not holding a conference, they have conceded in the "Console Wars." Nintendo is a toy brand :P

Two fundamental differences:

1) They don't put out sequels on a yearly basis. You will never get more than two Zelda games per platform, two 3D Mario games per platform, and never more than one Mario Kart or Smash Bros per platform. They make one game per series, then let them sit for years at a time. Smash Bros Brawl came out in 2008. It will have been a six year wait for the new game to come out.

2) They invest in making each game play and feel differently from each other. Mario 64, Sunshine, the Galaxy games and 3D Land all feel completely different from each other. They all have different features, different aesthetics, and different fundamental game designes. Zelda games constantly mix up settings and art-styles. Twilight Princess was a dark, 'realistic' Zelda game, whereas Wind Waker was a light, ce-shaded cartoony one. And Skyward Sword was somewhere between the two. In terms of gameplay, SS focused on 1:1 motion sword controls, something that hadn't been done before in an action game. Wind Waker focused on letting players explore a huge ocean and all the islands in it. Mario Kart has gone from being a simple use of the SNES' Mode 7 graphics to an anti-gravity racer that lets players race through water and glide through the air.

The gameplay from Nintendo is always (or nearly always) new, they just package it in existing franchises.

I take it, as an aside, that you never watch James Bond films anymore? Or watch anything to do with Star Trek? Or indeed Star Wars? Or never watch any Doctor Who? All those things have been around for far, far longer than Nintendo, and they're still making 'em to this day.

Between the Nintendo Direct and the Developer Directs I think Nintendo did very well. They were able to focus heavily on their games and less on flogging Reggie. The main thing that allowed Sony to "win" was the Used Game policy that MS was begging to be set on fire with. Nintendo couldn't have taken advantage of that because everyone is already fully aware of their policy since the WiiU is already out.

The MegaMan announcement is the only thing that could have been pulled off better with the conference, and I don't know how much "better" that really could have been.

Negatempest:

DTWolfwood:
I am amazed that nintendo year after year can release the same games over and over again and no1 gets angry at them. But mention Call of Duty or announce a game that looks like it and everyone shits on everything.

How do they get away with rehashing the same ip's and everyone loves them for it? o.O

All i saw from that direct feed was, here are the same games you've played before but they have new names.

Don't get me wrong, i don't mind sequels, but in all fairness shouldn't we expect something new from them too?

In terms of not holding a conference, they have conceded in the "Console Wars." Nintendo is a toy brand :P

Because Nintendo is one of the few only one focusing on platformers, action/adventure games who focus more on adventure than action, and random genre games like wonderful 101 and Pikmin. We would all be sick of Nintendo if Sony and Microsoft where targeting the same genre, but they aren't. They are still focusing on realistic shooters of some kind or shooters in general. Either military or sci-fi or mix of both.

Nintendo focusing on platformers is no excuse for the repetitive ideas over the years. And to be frank, at least Sony has the console JRPG market heavily attached to it along with its actions titles, so your broad stroke generalization falls flat there. And I'm saying this as a PC Gamer.

Pikmin is a niche franchise so I don't think Pikmin 3 is going to be the savior that everyone is making it out to be. And the Wonderful 101 still has no release date, so their's still no reason to care for it. It also hasn't been heard from in a long damn time.

That and the franchises people do want to see sequels to, Nintendo won't budge on. Like how long do people have to wait for a console Starfox title? Or another 3D Donkey Kong game? A game in the vein of Warioworld for Wario? A Kirby game that isn't in a Yarn based environment? An F-Zero game?

I think what people are sick of seeing is Nintendo constantly doing a back and forth between Mario+Spin offs and Legend of Zelda.

I wager they just see it as an inexcusable cost to justify to their shareholders and employees. This is the same company which Iwata halved his own pay because they didn't hit their sales figures.

How could you justify layoffs if you're also spending likely hundreds of thousands, if not upwards of 1 million USD to have a big flash stage show, fly everyone there, accommodations, etc? Simply put, these things are expensive and Nintendo is not doing well financially. In contrast, Iwata took a camera to an empty room, filmed everything either himself or with a cameraman and then got likely one or two people to just edit it with trailers they have ready.

Don't waste money when you don't have money to waste. Seems practical to me.

AzrealMaximillion:

Nintendo focusing on platformers is no excuse for the repetitive ideas over the years. And to be frank, at least Sony has the console JRPG market heavily attached to it along with its actions titles, so your broad stroke generalization falls flat there. And I'm saying this as a PC Gamer.

Sony and MS aren't exactly free of repetitiveness either. The 2 are basically kill X, shoot Y while Nintendo is rescue Princess from Z. The difference is, Nintendo is the only one who still does that. Sony may have KH3, FFs and possibly other JRPGs but Ninty has Monster Hunter and SMT4 for 3rd party (ATM) AND Pokemon, Mario and Luigi, and X2 as first party, so no dice there. Also, two of those were POKEMON AND MONSTER HUNTER. THOSE ARE HUGE IN JAPAN. Pretty big here too.

Pikmin is a niche franchise so I don't think Pikmin 3 is going to be the savior that everyone is making it out to be. And the Wonderful 101 still has no release date, so their's still no reason to care for it. It also hasn't been heard from in a long damn time.

Yes it does. September 15. And they talked about it in the Direct.... Yesterday... There was a new trailer and everything too...

That and the franchises people do want to see sequels to, Nintendo won't budge on. Like how long do people have to wait for a console Starfox title? Or another 3D Donkey Kong game? A game in the vein of Warioworld for Wario? A Kirby game that isn't in a Yarn based environment? An F-Zero game?

I think what people are sick of seeing is Nintendo constantly doing a back and forth between Mario+Spin offs and Legend of Zelda.

Fair enough, though I doubt people are sick of them. They're spaced so far apart the demand is usually there by the time a new iteration is made. The last Mario & Luigi game was released in 2009.

Honestly, I'm glad that they are going this route.
Nintendo has always been the middle man at E3. We know they are there, but we just don't care.
And quite frankly these conventions have increasingly become a dick slap fight between Microsoft and Sony anyway.
What surprises me is that Nintendo is the one that started this method in the first place. They still have a fat bank, and they can afford to go all out on a couple of these conferences.
Microsoft however is the one that needs to do this. Honestly, the fact that up until recently they actually started making a profit on their gaming consoles(and the future of Xbone not looking too bright) anything that keeps them from spending a shit ton of money should be on their priority list.

DTWolfwood:
I am amazed that nintendo year after year can release the same games over and over again and no1 gets angry at them. But mention Call of Duty or announce a game that looks like it and everyone shits on everything.

How do they get away with rehashing the same ip's and everyone loves them for it? o.O

All i saw from that direct feed was, here are the same games you've played before but they have new names.

Don't get me wrong, i don't mind sequels, but in all fairness shouldn't we expect something new from them too?

In terms of not holding a conference, they have conceded in the "Console Wars." Nintendo is a toy brand :P

Looks like proper games to me.

It would probably cost a lot to setup an E3 conference, a lot to rent out etc for it.

They didn't have as much to show as others, so this probably worked out best for them this time. When they have some real big stuff to show, they will be back.

Not saying next Smash Bros or anything aren't big, they just didn't have enough big things to make the cost worth it I would imagine.

DTWolfwood:

In terms of not holding a conference, they have conceded in the "Console Wars." Nintendo is a toy brand :P

Uh, that's because games ARE toys. Some are M-rated and some have engrossing plots, but they're toys nonetheless.

AC10:
I wager they just see it as an inexcusable cost to justify to their shareholders and employees. This is the same company which Iwata halved his own pay because they didn't hit their sales figures.

How could you justify layoffs if you're also spending likely hundreds of thousands, if not upwards of 1 million USD to have a big flash stage show, fly everyone there, accommodations, etc? Simply put, these things are expensive and Nintendo is not doing well financially. In contrast, Iwata took a camera to an empty room, filmed everything either himself or with a cameraman and then got likely one or two people to just edit it with trailers they have ready.

Don't waste money when you don't have money to waste. Seems practical to me.

Untrue; they're still profitable and their gigantic war chest hasn't even been scratched. Iwata did the pay cut more as a gesture than anything. They had other reasons for forgoing an E3 presser.

Dragonbums:
Honestly, I'm glad that they are going this route.
Nintendo has always been the middle man at E3. We know they are there, but we just don't care.
And quite frankly these conventions have increasingly become a dick slap fight between Microsoft and Sony anyway.
What surprises me is that Nintendo is the one that started this method in the first place. They still have a fat bank, and they can afford to go all out on a couple of these conferences.
Microsoft however is the one that needs to do this. Honestly, the fact that up until recently they actually started making a profit on their gaming consoles(and the future of Xbone not looking too bright) anything that keeps them from spending a shit ton of money should be on their priority list.

Yeah, it seems like they are sick and tired of E3 being reduced to a dick-measuring contest between two insecure frat boys while Nintendo is using it to promote GAMES. Sure the Direct wasn't as theatrical as Sony and MS' pressers, but it didn't need to be. They let the games speak for themselves, not using stupid CG trailers, or letting drama determine how the audience felt. Their Direct has hit 1 million views on Youtube, so it was quite successful. I'd rather they keep doing Directs and show games at THEIR choosing instead of letting E3 dictate things.

Raiyan 1.0:

DTWolfwood:
I am amazed that nintendo year after year can release the same games over and over again and no1 gets angry at them. But mention Call of Duty or announce a game that looks like it and everyone shits on everything.

How do they get away with rehashing the same ip's and everyone loves them for it? o.O

All i saw from that direct feed was, here are the same games you've played before but they have new names.

Don't get me wrong, i don't mind sequels, but in all fairness shouldn't we expect something new from them too?

In terms of not holding a conference, they have conceded in the "Console Wars." Nintendo is a toy brand :P

Looks like proper games to me.

So they are finally letting other people make stuff on their consoles? Yay.

OT: If they want to save money to make more games more power to them. I haven't payed much attention to nintendo recently but at least they seem to want quality gameplay, if nothing else.

I kinda miss the huge conference format, if only for the reactions to new developments. The directs are great, especially during the year, since they are basically little E3 conferences. Either way as long as they have a huge presence at E3 in general, then I'm happy. Plus with directs there are no technical problems, unless there are too many people watching and the direct starts to lag.

AzrealMaximillion:

Negatempest:

DTWolfwood:
I am amazed that nintendo year after year can release the same games over and over again and no1 gets angry at them. But mention Call of Duty or announce a game that looks like it and everyone shits on everything.

How do they get away with rehashing the same ip's and everyone loves them for it? o.O

All i saw from that direct feed was, here are the same games you've played before but they have new names.

Don't get me wrong, i don't mind sequels, but in all fairness shouldn't we expect something new from them too?

In terms of not holding a conference, they have conceded in the "Console Wars." Nintendo is a toy brand :P

Because Nintendo is one of the few only one focusing on platformers, action/adventure games who focus more on adventure than action, and random genre games like wonderful 101 and Pikmin. We would all be sick of Nintendo if Sony and Microsoft where targeting the same genre, but they aren't. They are still focusing on realistic shooters of some kind or shooters in general. Either military or sci-fi or mix of both.

Nintendo focusing on platformers is no excuse for the repetitive ideas over the years. And to be frank, at least Sony has the console JRPG market heavily attached to it along with its actions titles, so your broad stroke generalization falls flat there. And I'm saying this as a PC Gamer.

Pikmin is a niche franchise so I don't think Pikmin 3 is going to be the savior that everyone is making it out to be. And the Wonderful 101 still has no release date, so their's still no reason to care for it. It also hasn't been heard from in a long damn time.

That and the franchises people do want to see sequels to, Nintendo won't budge on. Like how long do people have to wait for a console Starfox title? Or another 3D Donkey Kong game? A game in the vein of Warioworld for Wario? A Kirby game that isn't in a Yarn based environment? An F-Zero game?

I think what people are sick of seeing is Nintendo constantly doing a back and forth between Mario+Spin offs and Legend of Zelda.

Oh, I'm sorry the Ps3 has an RPG library far larger than the ps2.... oh wait. Most of those RPG's stayed in Japan and didn't really reach the west. Also the rpg's you are thinking about are found mostly on the psp/vita. As for action games that didn't have a gun as the main weapon? A handful at best.

The point that I am trying to make is that Microsoft and Sony are both flooding the market with similar titles in the way the mechanics work. While Nintendo is mostly the only source of platforming, adventuring, and non genre specific games you can get from an AAA producer/developer. With the Indie developers making mostly non-shooting games that sell pretty damn well lets you know that there are too many shooters right now.

Negatempest:

AzrealMaximillion:

Negatempest:

Because Nintendo is one of the few only one focusing on platformers, action/adventure games who focus more on adventure than action, and random genre games like wonderful 101 and Pikmin. We would all be sick of Nintendo if Sony and Microsoft where targeting the same genre, but they aren't. They are still focusing on realistic shooters of some kind or shooters in general. Either military or sci-fi or mix of both.

Nintendo focusing on platformers is no excuse for the repetitive ideas over the years. And to be frank, at least Sony has the console JRPG market heavily attached to it along with its actions titles, so your broad stroke generalization falls flat there. And I'm saying this as a PC Gamer.

Pikmin is a niche franchise so I don't think Pikmin 3 is going to be the savior that everyone is making it out to be. And the Wonderful 101 still has no release date, so their's still no reason to care for it. It also hasn't been heard from in a long damn time.

That and the franchises people do want to see sequels to, Nintendo won't budge on. Like how long do people have to wait for a console Starfox title? Or another 3D Donkey Kong game? A game in the vein of Warioworld for Wario? A Kirby game that isn't in a Yarn based environment? An F-Zero game?

I think what people are sick of seeing is Nintendo constantly doing a back and forth between Mario+Spin offs and Legend of Zelda.

Oh, I'm sorry the Ps3 has an RPG library far larger than the ps2.... oh wait. Most of those RPG's stayed in Japan and didn't really reach the west. Also the rpg's you are thinking about are found mostly on the psp/vita. As for action games that didn't have a gun as the main weapon? A handful at best.

The point that I am trying to make is that Microsoft and Sony are both flooding the market with similar titles in the way the mechanics work. While Nintendo is mostly the only source of platforming, adventuring, and non genre specific games you can get from an AAA producer/developer. With the Indie developers making mostly non-shooting games that sell pretty damn well lets you know that there are too many shooters right now.

I don't think you're wrong in your opinion that the people you're quoting are wrong, but I don't think you're getting your point out with enough words. Allow me to make more words.

Let's analyze the concept of the franchise.
A franchise is the result of high demand for a product. High demand resulted in people desiring sequels to IP's. Companies make more games with said IP because the community has shown that they want it. This is true of every successful IP; GTA, Zelda, Halo, Pikmin, Assassin's Creed, COD, MW, Resident Evil, Mario-anything, and so on.
Compared to most developers, Nintendo has a startlingly high quantity of successful IP's.

Now let's look at the statement "I am amazed that nintendo year after year can release the same games over and over again and no1 gets angry at them. But mention Call of Duty or announce a game that looks like it and everyone shits on everything." Your profile (DTWolfwood) states that you've made over 3,000 posts in this forum. How could you not have noticed that this is not the case. If anything, Nintendo gets the most flak (undeserved) for this.
There is effectively one Zelda game per console cylce. There have been two Luigi's Mansion games. There were 3 Pikmin games. Over the span of 9 years. Similar statements can be said of almost every Nintendo AAA game. Some of the people playing a new game in one of these supposedly rehashed franchises weren't even born before each of the successive games. Meanwhile, every COD game came out in one generation. As such, it's easier for an IP to feel "rehashed" as there are fewer tools to work with in attempting to make a franchise-continuing game feel fresh, new, etc. And, even in the same franchises, a number of Nintendo games are vastly different. You may accuse the Zelda games of having similar stories, but that's something virtually every game in any franchise can be accused of. And yet, the last three console Zelda's were Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, and Skyward Sword, and at a screenshot glance, it would be very hard to believe that they were in the same franchise if it weren't for the garb of the main character. Meanwhile, if I look at many of the shooters that you refer to, it would be hard to believe that they weren't in the same franchise, if it weren't for the garb of the main character.

Furthermore, Nintendo is virtually the only developer that can make a game such as SSB, something only capable for a developer with numerous successful IP's. You may want to bring up PSAS, but virtually each of those IP's come from separate developers.

But sure, Nintendo is a toy brand.
Specifically, the toys known as video games.

On one hand I did miss the crowds and applause of a live show. The Direct just seemed so sterile. So lifeless compared to the press conferences. On the other hand, I appreciated just how straightforward it was. No marketing execs trying to force buzzwords or special athlete appearances. Just Iwata saying "here is a game, here is some gameplay, here's when it comes out."

It also helped that every single game presented for longer than 20 seconds in a montage was exclusive to Nintendo and had functioning gameplay footage.

The Direct this year disappointed me at first. It lacked the sort of punch the Sony conference had. But my post-E3 wish list is made almost entirely of Nintendo games. Perhaps Nintendo was onto something with the whole "short and simple" presentation this year. Maybe something in this style, just done live, would be the best idea for next year.

DTWolfwood:
I am amazed that nintendo year after year can release the same games over and over again and no1 gets angry at them. But mention Call of Duty or announce a game that looks like it and everyone shits on everything.

How do they get away with rehashing the same ip's and everyone loves them for it? o.O

All i saw from that direct feed was, here are the same games you've played before but they have new names.

Don't get me wrong, i don't mind sequels, but in all fairness shouldn't we expect something new from them too?

In terms of not holding a conference, they have conceded in the "Console Wars." Nintendo is a toy brand :P

Here's the thing that I think you and many others asking the same question about Nintendo as you don't understand:

The only thing it seems if that, that actually changes with Call of Duty games is graphics. I've played and watched enough Call of Duty games to know that, if people play one or two of them, they've played them all in a sense. You get generic war story and/or generic war espionage story, you see generic enemies, you shoot them, save the day yeah. End of story, but really it all comes down to the latest multiplayer, which barely changes from the previous one, and that is really what people are buying the game for, and one of the main reasons each installment gets people to buy it, is out of fear that soon the community of the previous game will dry up and they won't find people to play with, which causes a vicious circle, because the previous game's multiplayer does dry up, because people bought the next installment out of those fears.

Now look at Nintendo. Their games while they keep pinging on the same franchises, they make changes. Zelda may have the same core/basic story each time, save Zelda yada yada, but the setting even when most of them are Hyrule, change. The landscape changes, there are always new, colorful, thought out, and likeable characters. They incorporate enemies new and old into each installment.

Graphically, in comparison, Call of Duty is stagnant. It basically traverses a straight line from the early age of little past basic polygonal graphics, to slightly more "realistic" each time.
Now look at Zelda, it has three base graphical styles, with sub-variations as graphic tech and color pallets improved.

Zelda games while they have their core items and mechanics, each game tends to add a few new items and one or two new mechanics. Also as I mentioned that they tend to have some core story points, beyond the surface, they all have different stories, but also they all have been intertwined, even with the franchise now having grown into incorporating three different timelines/alternate realities.

The way I see it, Call of Duty is what rehashing is. Zelda is far from rehashing, very far, well it isn't rehashing. It is near-perfect frachise structuring to where each new installment while they make it feel familiar it still feels fresh. The key is the people that think it is rehashing, only look at the surface. They only look at the core elements, and think it is rehashing, they don't look at the surrounding changes that interconnect with those core elements to keep the games fresh.

I could go much deeper with the other franchises, Mario being the lead one, but I don't really have the time. I will say however that the closest Nintendo has come to true rehash, is the whole New Super Mario Bros series, Wii to Wii U, but even then Nintendo is showing that it doesn't take them too long to turn it all around and bring something fresh, that being the whole New Super Luigi thing going on soon, which will be more than just playing as Luigi.

On a final note, I think the reason Nintendo gets more leeway from many gamers is they are one of the few companies that get that many gamers don't want just multiplayer and that many many more don't even care about multiplayer, at most they somewhat like and tolerate same screen co-op.

Note when looking through the back-catalog of Nintendo games, most of them are single player with same/split screen co-op, with very few of those single player games having the modern sense of "multiplayer" along with them. When Nintendo thinks and develops modern sense "multiplayer" they make it the premise and the entire game(the Mario Karts, various sports, Parties, etc), while you can play single with a computer, it ends up being more fun with more people playing, because they are the games specifically designed for multiplayer.

You see, that is the problem with other game companies, they try to cram it all into a game, when they should be making multiple branching styles of games that each get proper attention and work done on them, and that leads to the point that 95%, probably higher, of Nintendo games actually have proper development times. Look at the large console level Zelda titles, they respectively get at least three to five solid years of development time, while games like Call of Duty get spit out in a year.

Mr. Omega:

It also helped that every single game presented for longer than 20 seconds in a montage was exclusive to Nintendo and had functioning gameplay footage.

You see that's the thing about Nintendo, they aren't afraid of people seeing what the game looks like and making comments, because they know that they have a fan-base that will buy it and love it, even if it has some kind of flaw that Nintendo might not think of. Nintendo seems to always feel confident in what they do, and they have fun with it.

The vast majority of the other companies seem to be scared of the work they do, and have no confidence in it, "We can't show them game-play, because what if some of them don't like what they see and don't buy it. Yeah, we have to show cut-scenes because they tend to look the best because they have the best rendering, that will make them think the game is that good, so they will buy it on that. That will bring the higher margin of people that buy it day one."

Nintendo's first party titles are rarely 'the same' at least in the way that Call of Duty is. Granted, the objectives are always the same, as well as the means of accomplishing them, and the control schemes rarely change. But, other than that, no they don't make the same games. It actually takes Nintendo time and effort to make their games, unlike Activision who literally release the same game year after year.

If you want to levy a criticism Nintendo's way, complain about their overt concerns with marketability and 'innovation'. It's always the usual suspects, and Nintendo always tries to shoehorn in some kind of gimmick to promote sales (Cat Mario for example). I saw an article from one of the Pokemon producers saying they'd never make Pokemon Snap 2 for the Wii U. This is a game that a fair enough amount of people want, that could put the gamepad peripheral to good use instead of shoe-horning it in, Snap had one previous release so it's not like it's an over-used concept (leaving the fact that it's Pokemon aside). Yet Nintendo won't make it. What they will make is the umpteeth Pokemon hand-held sequels. The same goes for F-Zero. Lots of people just want a good, solid F-Zero game. But Nintendo's hung up on the idea that it has to be marketable, that it has to have some weird innovation. A company with a far smaller fanbase would have valid complaint. But Nintendo, there are literally millions of people who would buy their products no matter what. Sony and Microsoft would kill to have that kind of brand loyalty.

These concerns also hurt their relationships with third-parties. Development costs are already sky-high, to the point that the industry cannot turn profits and therefore sustain itself. A company that makes designing for auxillary peripherals like a motion controller or gamepad isn't going to be an attractive prospect for a company with already steep manufacturing costs.

Sonic Doctor:

Mr. Omega:

It also helped that every single game presented for longer than 20 seconds in a montage was exclusive to Nintendo and had functioning gameplay footage.

You see that's the thing about Nintendo, they aren't afraid of people seeing what the game looks like and making comments, because they know that they have a fan-base that will buy it and love it, even if it has some kind of flaw that Nintendo might not think of. Nintendo seems to always feel confident in what they do, and they have fun with it.

The vast majority of the other companies seem to be scared of the work they do, and have no confidence in it, "We can't show them game-play, because what if some of them don't like what they see and don't buy it. Yeah, we have to show cut-scenes because they tend to look the best because they have the best rendering, that will make them think the game is that good, so they will buy it on that. That will bring the higher margin of people that buy it day one."

Damn, what was the games name again... Zombie Island? *Asks little brother* "What, Dead Island?" Bam, there ya go, Dead Island.

Andy Shandy:
However, I think you could easily go further with this. Don't just have them available at stores, but for any games with gameplay, let people download that alpha/beta/demo at home.

Nintendo did talk about this. They think that isn't a good idea.
The booths at E3 and Best Buy are a controlled environment where problems can easily be fixed by the stuff, while a downloadable demo can't and they fear that the user will be put off buy a buggy product.

Or something like that. I will look a bit to see if I can find the article I read.

Yeah, it seems like they are sick and tired of E3 being reduced to a dick-measuring contest between two insecure frat boys while Nintendo is using it to promote GAMES. Sure the Direct wasn't as theatrical as Sony and MS' pressers, but it didn't need to be. They let the games speak for themselves, not using stupid CG trailers, or letting drama determine how the audience felt. Their Direct has hit 1 million views on Youtube, so it was quite successful. I'd rather they keep doing Directs and show games at THEIR choosing instead of letting E3 dictate things.

This.

I really don't know why people are upset at how they went about E3.

It's like we have short term memories or something. If I recall, Nintendo said multiple times MONTHS AGO that they aren't really going to hold a big conference at E3. What I saw on Nintendo Direct was exactly what I expected, and I was satisfied.
Everyone getting all pumped for Kingdom Hearts and all that, let me ask you something.

They said this game is in development. How far in are they actually into the game? Yes we saw a trailer, but that could've just been a small little gameplay snippet that they made specifically for E3. They could for the most part still be on concept art and model building. How long will we actually get that game? It could come out 2 years from now.
Same with a lot of other trailers. They were just that. Trailers. There was no gameplay footage no nothing.

That's what Nintendo showed. All the games that they showed us have significant portions of the game complete. These weren't flashy CGI trailers. This was actual gameplay from games that will be coming out either this year, or early next year.

This is why Nintendo doesn't really bother with E3 anymore. The time they spend wasting their time on big CGI trailers and catering to CEOs and gamers is the time that could've been spent actually working on the game. Hell, when Iwata did the Nintendo Direct, the man even stated he did it on a Sunday. Probably just got him and some random cameraman to put the stand up and make sure he's centered and hit record. After that he dropped it off to like a team of 6 and told them to get this done by 7:00 a.m Pacific Time. And lets' be honest here that doesn't take to long. It's basically Iwata talking, then a transition to a trailer. That's it.
Then Iwata, Miyamoto, and him meet up with Reggie in the US and they can freely spend their time holding bananas and putting Pikmin on their head knowing that back in Nintendo headquarter Japan, they have a full crew clocking in hours polishing said games.

So I hope they continue to do this. They can slap some game booths at E3 and that's it. No need to waste time trying to be flashy. You want games? Here play games. They continue to make Nintendo directs and E3 for them will just simply be a demo convention more than anything.
Let Sony and Microsoft have their 6 days of glory.

Kamille Bidan:
Nintendo's first party titles are rarely 'the same' at least in the way that Call of Duty is. Granted, the objectives are always the same, as well as the means of accomplishing them, and the control schemes rarely change. But, other than that, no they don't make the same games. It actually takes Nintendo time and effort to make their games, unlike Activision who literally release the same game year after year.

If you want to levy a criticism Nintendo's way, complain about their overt concerns with marketability and 'innovation'. It's always the usual suspects, and Nintendo always tries to shoehorn in some kind of gimmick to promote sales (Cat Mario for example). I saw an article from one of the Pokemon producers saying they'd never make Pokemon Snap 2 for the Wii U. This is a game that a fair enough amount of people want, that could put the gamepad peripheral to good use instead of shoe-horning it in, Snap had one previous release so it's not like it's an over-used concept (leaving the fact that it's Pokemon aside). Yet Nintendo won't make it. What they will make is the umpteeth Pokemon hand-held sequels. The same goes for F-Zero. Lots of people just want a good, solid F-Zero game. But Nintendo's hung up on the idea that it has to be marketable, that it has to have some weird innovation. A company with a far smaller fanbase would have valid complaint. But Nintendo, there are literally millions of people who would buy their products no matter what. Sony and Microsoft would kill to have that kind of brand loyalty.

These concerns also hurt their relationships with third-parties. Development costs are already sky-high, to the point that the industry cannot turn profits and therefore sustain itself. A company that makes designing for auxillary peripherals like a motion controller or gamepad isn't going to be an attractive prospect for a company with already steep manufacturing costs.

I agree with the Pokemon aspect. Although to be fair it seems to be Tajiri and Sugimori more than Nintendo themselves. Keep in mind that while we associate Nintendo with Pokemon they are very loyal second party developers.
I agree. I would love Pokemoon Snap 2. And hot damn would it be a great game to showcase the WiiU tablet's full potential (the table is the camera, how cool is that!)
Lately however they have become more and more hostile to having any sort of Pokemon game on any home console. Let's be honest here the Gamecube Pokemon games Pokemon XD and Coliseum at least had a sort of plot to it with characters, bosses, a slightly explorable world, and catching Pokemon. The newest Pokemon game on the Wii however was basically a lesser version of Pokemon Stadium 2.
I wouldn't be surprised if they never make a game for the WiiU. Granted we are getting a Pokemon Conquest 2 for the 3DS, and they do have the Pokemon Mystery Dungeon series, but I have a feeling that are just tired of hearing about console this console that for a game they have said multiple times don't belong on the consoles due to their original vision of the game being portable.
I'm not saying this as a way to excuse no Pokemon Snap. I'm pretty sure Nintendo could make them do it with enough pressure, however it seems that Nintendo has no desire to push it's weight on Gamefreak in that regard because Gamefreak gives them a lot of money with their games anyway.

TiberiusEsuriens:
Nintendo having a large presentation would have added 0% extra of anything to their presence or profits.

considering what E3 is, it would certainly have impacted their presence. They are a business, you know.

Negatempest:

Sonic Doctor:

You see that's the thing about Nintendo, they aren't afraid of people seeing what the game looks like and making comments, because they know that they have a fan-base that will buy it and love it, even if it has some kind of flaw that Nintendo might not think of. Nintendo seems to always feel confident in what they do, and they have fun with it.

The vast majority of the other companies seem to be scared of the work they do, and have no confidence in it, "We can't show them game-play, because what if some of them don't like what they see and don't buy it. Yeah, we have to show cut-scenes because they tend to look the best because they have the best rendering, that will make them think the game is that good, so they will buy it on that. That will bring the higher margin of people that buy it day one."

Damn, what was the games name again... Zombie Island? *Asks little brother* "What, Dead Island?" Bam, there ya go, Dead Island.

What? I don't even know what you are talking about. Did you quote the wrong person, or did you just quickly reply to my comment with a comment that has no context?

Because, I sure don't get what you are saying.

Edit: The only thing I can think of I guess is that you are saying that Dead Island was like what I was taking about in my final paragraph.

AzrealMaximillion:

That and the franchises people do want to see sequels to, Nintendo won't budge on. Like how long do people have to wait for a console Starfox title? Or another 3D Donkey Kong game? A game in the vein of Warioworld for Wario? A Kirby game that isn't in a Yarn based environment? An F-Zero game?

I think what people are sick of seeing is Nintendo constantly doing a back and forth between Mario+Spin offs and Legend of Zelda.

Did you try Kirby's Return to Dream Land? That was pretty good, but Kirby's Mass Attack on DS was even better.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here