If the switch 2 is coming next fall I bet it’s finally time to move all resources onto a new game maybe? The problem with games like this are you have done everything so what else do you even have to offer?
This game had a shockingly good run. Obviously it’s still going to be around with repeat tours and all that, but the fact it got as many new updates as it did is pretty impressive
Nintendo has historically been slow to change and, more specifically, innovation. They also have been fairly antagonistic when it comes to fan interactions in terms of things like streaming, fan games, and porting old games. On the flip side, they do a pretty decent job with quality control. The “entertainment” field is already pretty bloated with lots of things competing for time. Regardless of success, I’m sure they’ll be trying to squeeze every nostalgia penny they can out of customers.
You’re right, I should specify. I’m thinking more in terms of flagship games. Mario has always been big and adaptive over game generations, but there have been a lot of different stretches of time where other major Nintendo games felt miles behind contemporary titles on other platforms, if they were made at all. Recent years have been a lot better, and there have been performance improvements. I guess you could say it is an extension of the IP issue, with titles going through a sort of dark stretch. Starfox, Metroid, and even Legend of Zelda have had that. Innovation was the wrong word to pick.
Nintendo has historically been slow to change and, more specifically, innovation.
The company was founded in 1889 and produced physical playing card games. From a historical perspective, I think they had more than their fair share of change and innovation, all things considered.
We all get what that means, and don’t think otherwise for a minute. It’ll be unfinished 70€ titles, requiring 3 30€ dlcs to feel mostly complete, requiring a paid 15€ subscription on top of that. We’ve seen this a dozen times too many by now. Nintendo are just always late to everything
Or it just means Nintendo isn’t going to rely on video games for growth.
The idea of paying anything for video games is already going away, with free to play games doing well in the youth market. And while the Switch is their best selling console, it is effectively a tablet with Bluetooth controllers and standard hardware. I don’t see Nintendo being able to maintain selling hardware after this next generation.
But Nintendo has a lot of IP that it hasn’t really tapped outside of video games. I expect that to change.
No, as that’s fully against their philosophy. They ship complete games, on time, with limited if any bugs and with no microtransactions and large DLC expansions for most games.
He is clearly talking about their expansion into film, theme parks and other entertainment avenues other than games consoles or anything really done prior (Pokémon movies are TPC, rather than Nintendo).
Breaking news: The company that created the Nintendo Entertainment System and Super Nintendo Entertainment System is evolving into an entertainment company!
Funny, but I think he means they want to take on the likes of Disney. Not necessarily be known for movies; but games, movies, shows, maybe even theme parks.
If any company has the ability to do it, it’s Nintendo.
I had a bit of a rant about this a while back when I was playing Splatoon with friends.
The crux of the argument is this “if we stop trying to look at Splatoon as a good game and instead look at it as an entertaining game, the issues we run into make sense. The bugs glitches and bad balancing issues don’t matter as much from an entertainment standpoint. You get in you play and you’re entertained. Even if the match drops you can get back in an be entertained. It doesn’t mean it’s a good game, but it is entertaining.”
My friend’s and I are now freaking out about my prophetic words.
I have to ask then: what’s the difference between a good game and an entertaining game?
From my perspective, games exist to be entertaining so if a game is entertaining then it is a good game. I don’t know what other metric would be used to determine if a game is good.
Unfortunately that’s the part of the rant I don’t remember. I had a pretty decent definition for both a good game and an entertaining game and why they aren’t exactly the same thing but I also had a decent amount of beer that night.
If I think of it I’ll reply to your comment again with the update.
Mobile games, case in point. They often aren’t designed to be good or even fun, they’re designed to maximize playtime over the long term
That means you start off making it fun and easy to advance, but then you start to back off on the rewards and make them grind and wait more and more. It’s the Facebook technique
Man, I learned a TON about the Caribbean sea islands and colonial era big cities from Pirates on the NES. Countless hours spent pouring over this map to find hidden treasure and hunt down leads
nintendolife.com
Aktywne