Nintendo talks about it's new console

Not sure what to think here, it’s sounds like marketing hype.

One step closer to Elijah Wood’s line in Back to the Future 2 - “You mean you have to use your hands? That’s like a baby’s toy!”

“What we need is not a next-generation machine but a next-generation way of playing games,” said Iwata. “We need to propose a new idea so that the game industry can overcome its current crisis.”

Here I was thinking what we really needed was some decent games. Who knows, maybe future Me will look back and laugh at how naive I was. So much, in fact, that he drops his psychic stylus and pops out his cybermonacle.

So what are they going to do now. Make a console that uses 2 TVs so new types of games can be made? Then they can put in DS “connectivity” and let you have 4 screens. I also hardly call the console world in a crisis now. Maybe Nintendo thinks it is for them since the PS/PS2 has kicked their asses so much but I think Sony is pretty happy with things right now.

What crisis?

The only crisis I see is Nintendo’s lethargic acceptance of online console gaming.

They can be quite inspiring at times, but also really back-assward too.

Does anyone else find irony in the fact that the company complaining about the console world being in an unhealthy rut is the same one that is putting out yet another Mario game where you jump on things and collect coins, a couple new Zelda games, two new Pokemon editions that are mostly just like the others, a sequel to Metroid Prime that’s just like the first one only moreso, etc.? The same company putting out freakin’ NES games for the GBA that cost $20 a piece?

Sure, I think those games will be fun and there’s nothing wrong with them. I’m fine with building on established franchies.

But if Nintendo wants to complain about moving gameplay and consoles to a whole new paradigm, they need to stop making stuff like Mario Party Eighteen and bring about some totally new franchises that do more than bank on the same half dozen main characters.

I don’t think they need to go online. There are a huge number of people who only ever play single player, or with friends. The majority of people who bought Unreal Tournament 2003 never played online.

There are some very compelling things that can be done with online play, but I don’t believe it’s the future of gaming. 90% of the time when I want to play a game, I don’t want to play with other people. And the other 10% of the time, I don’t want to play with the type of people I’ll find on a public server.

You mean like WarioWare, Animal Crossing and Pikmin? Nintendo is making new franchises, but they’re also milking their old ones for all they’re worth. If you were CEO of Nintendo, would you honestly stop making Pokemon games just because you’ve been doing it for a while and it’s time to do something else? Or to put it another way, if you had a machine that prints money (legally), would you turn it off?

Yeah, Microsoft should’ve quit after one Halo too. Who needs another? Ratchet and Clank? Definitely a one shot game. Never should’ve gotten a sequel or two. I’m also very glad that Sly Cooper isn’t getting a sequ… oh, wait.

Gran Turismo! Now there’s a series that should’ve stopped after the first one! I mean, why bother selling millions of games on PS2 with THAT franchise. They should’ve completely scrapped all that was good and made a whole new game.

If Nintendo were making the EXACT SAME GAME every time they released a sequel, I’d agree with you. But they’re not. Each iteration of a popular series has added some game changing mechanic to the play that makes it fresh and unique. Super Mario Sunshine had the water. Zelda also had water (and lots of it!). Mario Party 4 and 5 have very different ways to play the board game portion and all new minigames (so many it’s overwhelming) in the fifth edition.

I guess adding online play to Halo is amazingly new and fresh by comparison. :roll:


Nintendo has never seemed to be able to please gamers when it comes to their stance on franchises. Possibly it’s the clouded memory of adolesence and I’m mistaken, but I remember back on the N64 when aside from Mario, Nintendo wasn’t really into sequels to franchises. It’s all anyone ever asked though: “When will we get Metroid 64? When will we get Kid Icarus 64? When will we get Duck Hunt 64?”

Now that Nintendo is taking advantage of their franchise titles, they get flak for “churning out sequels.”

I’m not sure which stance was better, or to what degree they had a good idea in either case; there are merits to both positions. Nintendo definitely isn’t getting any credit either way though.

You guys misunderstand. Jason isn’t complaining about the franchising, he’s noting the silliness of Nintendo’s corporate whining about gaming being stuck in a rut. Because A) that’s bullshit and B) if true, they helped.

Basically, Nintendo is sad that the gaming market is moving away from being toys for children into entertainment options for adults. They are unable or unwilling to make that transition with Xbox and PS2.

That’s probably the best bit of posting wisdom these boards have seen in a long time. That’s absolutely what happens when it comes to Nintendo. I imagine someday it’ll happen to Sony too.


… because the existence of XBox Live means there are absolutely no single-player experiences to be had with the X-Box.

The PC, XBox and PS2 show that it’s not an either-or situation, so if you’re going complain about the lack of innovation, why keep yourself limited to a single unconnected console experience? With XBox Live, Microsoft showed that you can serious add to the value in the eyes of consumers of your console with a well-supported online capability. It’s not like you even have to invest much of any support at all to get the added value of online play, as Sony showed with little company based support of the PS2 other than encouraging developers to make use of it.

It’s not like you couldn’t see existing games on the platform that could have benefitted from Nintendo taking a firmer stance on encouraging online capability. Hell, when I first heard of Animal Crossing, my first though was whether it had online play, which would have fit it perfectly.

Online play doesn’t even reach one tenth of the installed base of any of the consoles. How is this considered “serious value” if hardly anyone is using it?


Also, time spent implementing online play is time that won’t go towards stuff that those 90% of gamers care about. There’s a reason why I don’t own a single Live-enabled game.

Unless you’re talking about a feature like live “aware”, a pretty significant number of resources need to go into adding online play

They’re also doing something about it, with stuff like Donkey Konga, and the DS, which Jason totally neglected to mention. Going whole hog into totally unexplored territory is what killed Sega

Helped kill Sega… they were already praying for a miracle when they shipped Dreamcast.

Sega was conservative too at the same time they were experimental. Launch games included NFL2K, Soul Calibur and Sonic Adventure. SA is a classic Nintendo-styled update to an already strong franchise. Some people didn’t get into it but a lot of folks really did. It was one of the console’s million sellers after all.

Sega did more for gaming in the three years of Dreamcast than many companies have done in their lifetime. Infogrames/Atari springs to mind there… Sega’s attempts at creating new game styles, funding a lot of R&D into graphic styles and just plain pushing the quality of gaming to a higher level overall really helped usher in the current generation.

Unfortunately, they’re now heading down the road to mediocrity and licensed game making with the Sammy merger. It’s an awful fate for one of the publisher/developers that’s been dedicated to trying new things again and again.


WHAT? You haven’t heard about the crisis?!

Open Your Eyes

Bundling! Dead-end franchises like Grand Theft Auto! New consoles available before the old ones have been milked by a mutual understanding among competitors! Won’t someone please think of the children?