I think people tend to confuse Nintendo's over reliance on their first party franchises with failure to innovate. They're not making the same games over and over - Mario Kart is a very different game from Luigi's Mansion and from Super Mario Galaxy (hell, they aren't even in the same genre). They just happen to use the same characters over and over, in which case I don't think they should be faulted. They're maximizing the use of brands they have established.
I agree in theory with the idea that continuing the same franchise with many different variations ad nauseum can be successful, but what I'm saying is that not moving on to other things--or at least working on new stuff concurrently--is incredibly risky. And relying on big names to balance out the risk loses its effectiveness over time--not to mention that people eventually just become jaded to them.
Personally, I've all but given up on GTA because each iteration is just designed to be a marginal improvement over the game that came before it. I see people approaching Mario platformers/racers/parties with the same attitude. I'm also seeing similar reactions to Zelda as well.
To Sony's credit, they have made efforts over the past two generations to make multiple new franchises that have a chance to grow and succeed, allowing for further assurances of a decent gaming lineup beyond "safe" franchises that people may or may not be getting sick of.
I think Nintendo certainly wouldn't mind following their example. But for some reason they're unwilling to try, which is a major fault on their part.
I think the other two companies would have done the same thing, except they haven't been around long enough to establish their own brands as much as Nintendo has
Oh, they're milking their signature franchises, no question. But I would argue that they're not putting all their ducks in one barrel the way Nintendo is.
I'm not saying Nintendo is without fault, though. I just think that the real problem they have is their failure to secure third parties as well as the other two companies did, not their overreliance on first party titles.
Nah. I think Sony disproves that. Their first party lineup is their greatest strength. Even if they had no third parties they'd still get by pretty well. The difference between their first parties and Nintendo's, however is that Nintendo is either unable or unwilling to branch out.
The fact is that the net gamers all derided the Wii as a fad. It wasn't. The only reason sales are down now is because the market has hit it's saturation point.
Then why are the other consoles' sales still going without a proportionate amount of loss in relation to the Wii?
Everyone who'll buy a Wii, which is pretty much most of the planet, has already bought one. It's time for the next system.
PS2.
never factoring in that it is definitively the greatest selling platform of all time.
I don't think the author's meaning ran counter to that.
It was referring to its staying power in relation to the other consoles.
For instance, I would argue that, while the PS2 probably didn't sell as fast or as voluminously as the Wii in its younger years, the Wii probably won't be selling as much or as long as the PS2 has and is (insanely enough).
...or that 6 year old consoles tend to have downward sliding sale rates.
Except, as the article noted, the sales of the PS3 and the 360 haven't followed that trend.
that's bull shit. and horse shit. when the wii hit e3 years ago, there was internet and journalistic outrage.
I believe their referring to the actual consumption of the product and not its reception. I don't think the author would argue that media outlets (at least western ones) weren't unhappy with what they saw.
what you're missing is the article you're referencing...
That's right. I'm "referencing". Meaning I'm using points it has made to make my own points without necessarily quoting it verbatim or quoting its information in such a manner that the author originally intended. That's how citations are usually grabbed.
I realize that the article has lauded the Wii, but that doesn't mean it contradicts my scrutiny of it. What I am going so far as to say is that the problems they see with the Wii U is due in no small part to the Wii and its marketing. I'm
expanding on the author's observation if you will.
the angle you're taking is nintendo didn't do it right with the wii, and now they're blowing it.
What I'm saying is that the sale and success of the Wii and the ideas it represents has boxed Nintendo into a corner. While stating as such certainly implies that they've potentially sabotaged their future interests, that doesn't try to interpret the implementation of the Wii as either "right" or "wrong".
secondly, what is it you're faulting nintendo for? with wii, they expanded the market with a different control interface and their robust collection of IP. with wii u, they're trying a similar strategy and, as you said, using some DS and iphone bits as inspiration. so, there you have three of the most popular pieces of technology of all time. what should they be doing...?
You've missed the point. In fact, I think you skipped two full paragraphs on why I feel Nintendo's hamstrung their ability to make games conventionally (assuming they ever feel the need or desire to do so). i.e. By fixating on a bold and innovative gaming interface as the selling point--as opposed to the actual games--they doom themselves to a compulsion to develop future systems that aren't intuitive as gaming consoles.
And, uh, I wouldn't go so far as to say that their IPs have contributed more to their market share than the motion controls all on their own....and I wouldn't go so far as to call them "robust" either.
you're not sure if its functional.
I'm giving Nintendo the benefit of the doubt. I don't think they'd release something they didn't think is functional.
you're not sure if it's fun.
I don't think it looks fun at all. I'm sure others do though. So I left it open to the possibility that it is.
you're positive its not intuitive, nor an evolution. and you've... never tried it.
I don't need to try it to know that it's not intuitive. That's the entire point behind identifying conventions.
And aside from implementing motion controls, there is nothing about the Wii-U that would suggest it's an evolution from the Wii's nun chuck. Imagine for a moment that you're only familiar with the Wii-U and were completely ignorant of the Wii: do you really think you would picture the nun chuck as the Wii-U's predecessor?
so, a question. does 2012 pariah ever look back at 2007 pariah's posts, and see that he said basically the same thing all those years ago?
No I didn't. I said the Wii is a fad--and I still say that. And I think the disproportionate sales between the Wii and the other two systems demonstrates that.
Contrary to what people would like to believe, a normally short run time is not the principle identifier of a fad. It's the gimmicky selling point. And in the case of the Wii, its gimmick is fading. As such, Wii-U is not likely to have the energy that the Wii did.
