Editorial: Gaming Needs Nintendo

Does anyone else hear the 50s Hygiene PSA music in the background?

This man’s jaw has been stuck like this for years.

Nintendo is in an unusual position. The company began over a century ago when its first available products were cards used for gambling. Which is appropriate, as the kanji used in Nintendo’s name literally means, left in the hands of the gods. Its fortunes allowed it to progress into selling toys, then subsequently, arcade machines akin to claw and model dispensers. Thanks to the business philosophy of Hiroshi Yamauchi, their economically conservative business practices allowed them to move into fields that it otherwise would never have gone.

Then it went into the selling of electronic gaming with the Famicom and history was made. With each generation its systems emphasized affordability and mingled at times with durability. Case in point; see the Game Boy that survived and was still operational after being caught in an explosion in Iraq. Using readily available technology, it enabled Nintendo to create a system that would give the company a guaranteed profit. In addition, it enabled some developers to be able to create excellent and, in some cases, timeless games that existed on the Super Nintendo.

This, and some strong handed, some would say draconian, tactics were used to ensure that Nintendo was able to maintain a competitive edge. The most infamous of these were the Nintendo Seal of Quality that it used on many NES cartridge boxes. In time, it ended up being more for show than an actual show of quality. In spite of these, it allowed Nintendo to remain the uncontested leader in the video game industry, seeing any attempts from competitors Sega, NEC, Atari, 3DO, and SNK to usually end up as either a niche or a failure.

Word has it, the SFX in this scene cost six hundred grand.

The amazing technicolor bleu cheese wheel!

It was not until the advent of the PlayStation did Nintendo’s seemingly unstoppable force meet its immovable object. The biggest coup d’état was when Squaresoft, long time supporter of Nintendo, defected and began to release exclusives on the competing system with its flagship game Final Fantasy VII, along with a slew of other games that still remain well regarded to this day. Mr. Yamauchi was not pleased, to put it mildly. It would be decades before he would even speak to Square after their many failures of the earlier 2000s, but that is another story for another time.

It should be noted that it was here that Nintendo’s ideas, especially for controllers, began to show up on other systems. Sony emulated the Super NES controller button layout, then the vibrator functions. A trend that Sony and Microsoft continue to this day.

Despite this, Nintendo and the N64 still held its own against the steady, but gaining, momentum of the PlayStation, and the floundering Sega Saturn. Part of this was due to the innovative, if not unusual control design. It would be a staple of Nintendo’s genius, or madness, depending on who is asked, for years to come.

Guaranteed to maybe burn the house down. Or explode. Whichever comes first.

The latest in space wasting technology!

It was not until the next generation did Nintendo realize that it needed to move out of its comfort zone. True, Sega’s Dreamcast had great potential, however, internal problems, lack of funds, and lack of communication between the Japanese and American branches of Sega sunk the system that should have flown. To complicate matters, when computer company Microsoft threw its hat into the ring with the bulky and cumbersome Xbox and Sony’s second iteration of the PlayStation came along; Nintendo found itself facing competition that had more funding from their parent companies, more influence, and more games. Well, games for Sony. There were few games of note on the original Xbox.

The Nintendo GameCube, as still following the same pattern of affordability and durability, still turned a profit, but could never hope to match the numbers the PlayStation 2 did with games that sold many millions of copies. It did do respectably, but Nintendo still had come to the understanding that they needed to change their tactics if they wished to survive, as previously stated, the Xbox and the PlayStation 2 had parent companies with no vested interest in games. Nintendo was a game company. Plain and simple. If they failed on the game front, they were out of the business.

He wants games, not a cheeseburger. Yet.

One of the few that could not figure out how the Wiimote worked.

Thankfully, they were able to capture lightning in a bottle with the Wii. So, for the majority of the Wii’s life, it was the undisputed champion of sales. With the simple use of the Wii Remote, it allowed an even more simple interface to make gaming more accessible. Millions upon millions suffered wait lists to get their hands on it. It expanded the gaming audience like nothing else had done before. The success it earned, however, would not last.

The further into the generation, Sony and Microsoft had corrected their respective courses and had made headway with longer lasting changes that would work for the gaming public. Nintendo, on the other hand, allowed shovelware, the likes that had never been seen since Barbie on the NES, to completely overrun any possible headway dedicated third parties might have been able to build. Add to this frustration that it seemed that only Nintendo games were capable of being sold on the system. Support from developers dried up and Nintendo found their lead evaporating like the dew to the morning sun.

Dearly Beloved; there will not be a reference to a Prince song here.

Not dead yet! Maybe? Kinda? Sorta?

As if the gods themselves had withdrawn their favor, Nintendo’s latest system, the Wii U, had squandered the chance to capitalize on the head start it had over Microsoft and Sony with the Xbone and the PS4, both of which had their own problems that could have been taken advantage of. Now, the PS4 and the Xbone have taken a lead over Nintendo and many have been clamoring, wrongly, that Nintendo should cash in their chips and do as Sega does now.

It is ironic to note that both Sony’s and Microsoft’s attempts to copy Nintendo’s tactics with the Wii with the PS Move and the Kinect were met with apathy and downright scorn, respectively. It probably shocked Sony and Microsoft into realizing that copying Nintendo was not in their best interest. Perhaps the other companies have learned what they could and have moved on to develop their own ideas? Of course not. That would be responsible and prudent. Just need to wait for another profitable idea to copy. That is how business works, after all.

Despite all of this, Nintendo still has two advantages that the other two companies do not. Their systems always turned a profit, with the exception of the Wii U, and their characters are easily recognizable.

There would never be a Mario game on a Xbox, nor a Zelda game on a Sony system. And gamers should be grateful for this. Imagine the corporate meddling! The bleak and banal backgrounds comprised of only gun metal grey and dog turd brown! The DLC that gives the option to jump over the pits for the low, low price of two US dollars!

Miyamoto's cry for help.

Go Go, Nintendo Rangers?

As previously stated, Nintendo is a gaming company. They make games. Games that have a simple interface, are colorful, and are, above all, fun. Is it ever a wonder why there have been 9 Mario Party games with a 10th on the way? The same can be said for the Mario Kart games. There is also an evergreen quality about Nintendo’s franchises that, even in their less than successful iterations, still hold a place of fondness in the minds, if not hearts of gamers. Barring a few exceptions, of course.

The bottom line is, Nintendo was able to cultivate much of the current innovation from the experiences they crafted back in the NES to today. Dare the people imagine what a world would be like without them? Without Mario?

Gaming, for one thing, would have died out as a fad and the hobby that many enjoy today would have either gone to different paths or not found their voices with the medium. Nintendo has inspired more than one generation of gamers and to think it is time to let it go and move on is akin to madness.

If E3 has proven anything, that Sony and Microsoft can be even more risk averse than Nintendo has with their heterosexual military man-death shooters, allegedly open world man shooters, and murder-death-kill simulators that attempt to be serious while all sporting the same ugly, pasty, and stubble faced white guys that have all the personality of a turnip as they are supposedly located in a power suit of armor the size of a mac truck, stabbing other hideous and nondescript white guys on Planet X!

In conclusion; if Nintendo dies, one of the most important parts, if not the most important part, of the industry dies with it.

6 Comments

  1. Lusipurr
    Posted 2014.06.20 at 19:16 | Permalink

    if Nintendo dies, one of the most important parts, if not the most important part

    I think this might have been more true a decade ago than it is now. Indies–not big devs like Nintendo–are now the forefront of innovation and creativity. That doesn’t mean that *all* indies accomplish that, but that the best examples of innovation and creativity are found there–not, I’m afraid to say, at Nintendo. Nintendo, for all of its ‘evergreen’ quality that you mention, produces largely derivative titles. MK8 is a good example of this: what ‘new’ does it bring to kart racers? Nothing. It’s MK Wii with a worse battle mode.

    Nintendo does occasionally turn out something creative or innovative, but more and more this seems to happen by accident in the same way that, sometimes, EA comes up with something neat for their grey-brown shooter franchise. ‘Even a broken clock is right twice per day,’ as the saying goes. But that doesn’t mean we should grant accolades to the broken clock for its accuracy, even if–in the distant past–it worked just fine.

    The industry no longer needs Nintendo. It has sure and steady support from indies that do more–and, they do more with less. No big budgets, no five-year development cycles. Tiny teams on tiny budgets that turn out some of the most amazing games we’ve ever seen.

    To put this another way, if I were to name the five most innovative, creative, and fun games since the year 2000, not one of them would be a Nintendo-developed title. In fact, I doubt any of them would even be on a Nintendo platform. That wouldn’t be the case pre-2000, but this is the new reality. It’s best to accept it, rather than to look longingly at the past, believing that the monstrous developers of the present are still the friendly developers of a time long-gone.

  2. Christian 'Iliya Morumetz' Clark
    Posted 2014.06.21 at 23:12 | Permalink

    While you are correct on these points, Lusipurr, a factor was brought to my attention just yesterday as to why I believe you are wrong.

    Nintendo, despite their faults, and which are many, brings in new blood. This is not something Sony, Microsoft, nor the Indie Scene can do.

    I would put for that the indie scene, while excellent and vital to the survival of game design in the industry, is not made for newcomers.

    Yes, it can lead to the easily labeled ‘casual’ or ‘for kids’ games, but the fact of the matter is Nintendo makes games that are mechanically simple and easy to pick up. Especially for younger players.

    It is how they were able to bring in a lot more players with the Wii and the handhelds. The indie scene, for all its leaps and all, does not have the capability to bring in fresh blood like Nintendo can.

    If they were to be relegated to such a role, then so be it. However, I still maintain that Nintendo’s place in the gaming industry is a vital one. Even it ends up being a pastiche for most players. And say what you will, but this year’s E3 made me want to purchase a WiiU and a 3DS because of the games they announced.

  3. Wolfe
    Posted 2014.06.22 at 00:15 | Permalink

    Nice piece, Christian. I agree with most of it’s points too. I wouldn’t like seeing a gaming world without Nintendo.

  4. Lusipurr
    Posted 2014.06.22 at 01:23 | Permalink

    “Nintendo, despite their faults, and which are many, brings in new blood. This is not something Sony, Microsoft, nor the Indie Scene can do.

    I would put for that the indie scene, while excellent and vital to the survival of game design in the industry, is not made for newcomers.”

    Not only is this untrue, it is massively and demonstrably untrue. The vast majority of indie titles are made precisely for newcomers. The ‘hardcore’ angle is a tiny side of the industry. Remember that most iOS/Android titles are indie productions.

    Far, far more people play indie games regularly than those who ever bothered to consider purchasing a Wii. More ‘new gamers’ come from those titles than from Nintendo–the massive disparity in hardware ownership ensures that.

  5. Ethan 'Ethos' Pipher
    Posted 2014.06.23 at 12:16 | Permalink

    I wouldn’t necessarily make the points Iliya’s making, but I ultimately agree with his conclusion. I think Nintendo is returning to the bleeding edge of game design but it’s easy for most of us to ignore because it is coming in very familiar packaging. While gaming absolutely needs the indie scene and the industry “needs” it more in terms of innovation and raw creativity – a point I firmly agree with Lusipurr on – I think that Nintendo has the most refined, forward-thinking, lasting gameplay in their recent titles. Forward-thinking in the sense that their games are designed to be played for years and years and not just in the exciting launch month that most gamers are used to thinking about games these days.

    Lusipurr is also correct about indie being newcomer-friendly and the hardware discrepancy is also a notable fact, but I do think that while the indie scene brings in more new blood, Nintendo games are better suited to train life-long gamers.

    I feel Nintendo’s biggest disconnect with modern gamers comes from the fact that we’re so familiar with the franchises, and because Nintendo is so frustratingly stubborn to swap out that which is unnecessarily familiar (8 cups in Mario Kart! 4 new, 4 classic! Forest, volcano, desert in Zelda! Same order of worlds in every side scrolling Mario!) that the games aren’t usually played in the long-form that it takes to get the most out of them. The way we did when we were younger. Seeing so much familiar tends to trigger a valid “NOT THIS AGAIN” reaction which makes it easier to ignore that Mario Kart 8 actually has tremendous balance and track design, turned up what’s needed to be skilled, and then rewards that skill in a way that is simply not present in recent iterations. The problem is that it’s not easy to see that at first, and being pummelled with shell after shell gets frustrating when veterans assume they should be instantly experts.

    Nintendo has returned to rewarding skill in games in recent years, but has disguised this fact behind stubborn faces. I do think gaming needs Nintendo and I think game designers need Nintendo as something to aspire to, but gaming sure as hell needs not-Nintendo too so that everything can stop being so unified and palatable for “all ages”. Nintendo also, apparently, needs the reality check of terrible sales to stop jacking themselves off every few years.

  6. KisakiProject
    Posted 2014.06.23 at 15:59 | Permalink

    I think, as far as I am aware, Nintendo is the only gaming company that still has most of its key people from the 80s and 90s. Everywhere else the talented creators fled the horrific AAA corporate monstrosities. See Sega, Square, Capcom, Blizzard etc. I think this is both good and bad. You haven’t seen the utter destruction of their franchise quality, like say everything Sega, but they are often stuck in their ways. Nintendo seems focused on game mechanics still whereas everyone else is either focus-test feature packing or trying to be “deep interactive media.” Neither of these things appeal to me. I think Nintendo has different desires for what they want to create and it’s why I, despite their incompetence at making hardware, like them best. I think without them you would see the last “game mechanic” focused major company go.