Discussion Do you think that Nintendo's partners and subsidiaries have management issues?

[VintoWin]

It's a very common practice for developers who're working on new games to take into consideration feedback from fans and critics alike of previous works in order to deliver the best experience possible. However, it seems that most of Nintendo’s partners and subsidiaries avoid this.

Take Next Level Games, for example. They launched Luigi's Mansion 3, a game that was universally lauded. It was met with incredible success which was assuredly one of the factors that led to them being acquired by Nintendo. Despite this success, they went on to develop Mario Strikers Battle League, a game that was met with mixed to negative reception, earning it the worst score in the Strikers series and the worst score for a Mario Sports title on Nintendo Switch. It was seen as a big step pack from Charged and the original title.

Furthermore, look at Intelligent Systems. They launched Fire Emblem Three Houses, one of the highest rated and the best selling Fire Emblem game. Despite this, they shifted from the design aspects of Three Houses that were lauded in order to produce Fire Emblem Engage. Engage was met with mixed response which led to it selling considerably less than 3H. The same could be said for the reception from Wario Ware Move It and Get It Together! when compared to Gold.

There are more examples to this. Pokemon Scarlet and Violet (the worst rated mainline Pokemon generation by critics and user scores), Bayonetta 3 (lowest mainline Bayonetta game and the most divisive entry amongst fans), Mario Gold Super Rush (seen as a step down from World Tour), Endless Ocean Luminous being panned by critics, etc. There's other cases such as Super Mario Party and The Origami King which, although improved on their predecessors, the reception to the quality of these titles remains mixed. And then there are other cases such as Retro Studios where they haven't been able to produce a new original title in over a decade.

There are outliers to this, such as HAL or Monolith Soft, but the issue persists with most of Nintendo affiliates.

When a brand new Nintendo game is being released by EPD Tokyo or the Zelda team, there’s usually a sense of comfort as there is no doubt that they’ll be able to deliver an enjoyable title. However, for the aforementioned studios, the quality of their products are too inconsistent for them to receive the benefit of the doubt.

What do you think?

Next Level:

I don't think this is related. A studio is allowed to make more than one game. Idk if a sports title can live up to Luigi's Mansion 3 tbh.

Intelligent Systems:

I mean do we expect them to make FE Hogwarts/GoT forever? -- What was lost in engage? IMO the Fire Emblem games all kind of blur together anyways.
I think Engage had a cheaper looking concept; idk if the gameplay was that different to be honest. It wasn't as cool of a story concept. But idk
I thought I heard the gameplay was just as solid as it always is.

Pokemon:

We've been saying they don't want to take risks for years and years now. They don't need to change to be successful.

 

[PixelKnight]

I never said they haven't greenlit smaller games this generation, as you listed they have and with some previouly handheld centric franchises (I wouldn't count 2D Mario, Fire Emblem, and Animal Crossing as examples of such franchises though, but semantics)..

FE Engage is literally the sequel to FE Awakening and Fates after Three Houses was largely put together by Koei Tecmo. Seeing as FE was resurgent on 3DS, Engage is absolutely a continuation from that team, with the customisation of the ring system a development of previous ‘descendent characters’ from Awakening/Fates.

 

[Ricimer]

FE Engage is literally the sequel to FE Awakening and Fates after Three Houses was largely put together by Koei Tecmo. Seeing as FE was resurgent on 3DS, Engage is absolutely a continuation from that team, with the customisation and replayability of the ring system a development of previous ‘descendent characters’ from Awakening/Fates.

I'm thinking larger picture that Fire Emblem has always seen both console and handheld entries. But I understand your point about Engage being a continuation of those handheld entries.

 

[PixelKnight]

I'm thinking larger picture that Fire Emblem has always seen both console and handheld entries. But I understand your point about Engage being a continuation of those handheld entries.

I think FE and Animal Crossing are a bit like Monster Hunter (stop laughing at the back!), in that they started out on home consoles but really blew up on portables, and many years later the gameplay loops have both portable and home console elements running through it. And then they all landed on a hybrid system anyway which has finally blurred the lines to the point where what’s a ‘portable gameplay loop’ doesn’t really matter any more when you can play 500 hours of multiplayer MonHun on the TV and massive rpgs like Skyrim on a device with sleep mode on the train.

 

[Onosume]

It's a very common practice for developers who're working on new games to take into consideration feedback from fans and critics alike of previous works in order to deliver the best experience possible. However, it seems that most of Nintendo’s partners and subsidiaries avoid this.

Take Next Level Games, for example. They launched Luigi's Mansion 3, a game that was universally lauded. It was met with incredible success which was assuredly one of the factors that led to them being acquired by Nintendo. Despite this success, they went on to develop Mario Strikers Battle League, a game that was met with mixed to negative reception, earning it the worst score in the Strikers series and the worst score for a Mario Sports title on Nintendo Switch. It was seen as a big step pack from Charged and the original title.

Furthermore, look at Intelligent Systems. They launched Fire Emblem Three Houses, one of the highest rated and the best selling Fire Emblem game. Despite this, they shifted from the design aspects of Three Houses that were lauded in order to produce Fire Emblem Engage. Engage was met with mixed response which led to it selling considerably less than 3H. The same could be said for the reception from Wario Ware Move It and Get It Together! when compared to Gold.

There are more examples to this. Pokemon Scarlet and Violet (the worst rated mainline Pokemon generation by critics and user scores), Bayonetta 3 (lowest mainline Bayonetta game and the most divisive entry amongst fans), Mario Gold Super Rush (seen as a step down from World Tour), Endless Ocean Luminous being panned by critics, etc. There's other cases such as Super Mario Party and The Origami King which, although improved on their predecessors, the reception to the quality of these titles remains mixed. And then there are other cases such as Retro Studios where they haven't been able to produce a new original title in over a decade.

There are outliers to this, such as HAL or Monolith Soft, but the issue persists with most of Nintendo affiliates.

When a brand new Nintendo game is being released by EPD Tokyo or the Zelda team, there’s usually a sense of comfort as there is no doubt that they’ll be able to deliver an enjoyable title. However, for the aforementioned studios, the quality of their products are too inconsistent for them to receive the benefit of the doubt.

What do you think?

I think there's been larger production and design issues internally at Nintendo for some of their first party output in general. I'd say these issues are:

• Rushing games to market before they are complete
• Reliance on patches and DLC to "finish" games off
• A bland, characterless, and uniform design philosophy without room for creativity

This has hurt certain games, particularly the likes of Animal Crossing and the Mario sports games, where you can instantly feel at launch that they weren't ready and I think this is where the feeling of games being a step back from their predecessors has come from. Meanwhile the latter point in my list has been a particular pain for Mario spin-offs, as they all look and feel the same and there's the lack of that magic sparkle of fun that games in the GameCube/GBA and Wii/DS eras had.

Re: Wario Ware, I think its reception was more based on the fact that the Switch's motion controls can't match up to what Smooth Moves had with the Wiimote.

Re: Fire Emblem, both games are fantastic but they are aiming at very different audiences. TH plays into the trends set out by Persona, leaning more into the social sim aspects and story while simplifying the battle mechanics. Engage plays to the fans of the "classic" games pre-Awakening as a nostalgia heavy anniversary title, with a simpler story but reverting to the traditional battle mechanics. Social sim aspects in RPGs are really hot right now, so Engage's dumbing down of these to focus on the battles was seen by some as a bad thing. Both are fun and amazing games, which one you prefer just depends on what you are after, story or gameplay.

Re: Pokémon, not a Nintendo problem. As widely discussed this is due to the aggressive marketing strategy at The Pokémon Company forcing the games to be an annual release.

Re: Retro, I'd say poor management from Nintendo's side. They are a Nintendo subsidiary but they seem to be treated like an independent studio where I think more direction from Nintendo and Nintendo taking the reins more would benefit them. Nintendo mis-stepped with trying to outsource Metroid Prime 4 and should have gave it to Retro in the first place. But they need to look after their subsidiaries better. Monolith is heavily integrated into the Nintendo machine now and does a lot of support development as well as working on the Xeno series. They'd do well in doing the same for Retro and Next Level.

 

[jariw]

I never said they haven't greenlit smaller games this generation, as you listed they have and with some previouly handheld centric franchises (I wouldn't count 2D Mario, Fire Emblem, and Animal Crossing as examples of such franchises though, but semantics).

The greater point was their consolidation of the handheld and console hardware was done specifically to prevent game droughts. And it's been a failure considering the Switch's output is on par with previous solo systems, droughts and all. It doesn't match the pure number of games from the combined forces of the GBA+NGC, DS+Wii, 3DS+Wii U eras.

Some of that is due to HD development taking longer. A larger part is handheld franchises and smaller games haven't been prioritized as much as their console counterparts with larger scopes and different design philosophies. And that's disappointing.

If you look at units sold instead of number of games released, you get a different picture. Releasing too many games a year makes it harder to market and can saturate the market.

Also, why would people buy a smaller-scope Nintendo game for $30-40, when it's possible to get 5+ eShop games from other developers of the same scope for the same price? (At eShop sales, the ratio gets even bigger.)

 

[meatbag]

It doesn't match the pure number of games from the combined forces of the GBA+NGC, DS+Wii, 3DS+Wii U eras

Saying Switch has to match the output of their previous home+handheld combos has always been a misguided notion that is not rooted in reality. Even small-scale games take longer to make nowadays.

 

[JorgenRaft]

I think there are only so many ways to make the wahoo man playing Tennis/Golf/Soccer refreshing and interesting again when it happens basically every console generation.

If Switch 2 is backwards compatible, I kind of hope they just skip those 3 that generation and let the respective devs make something new instead with that time.

 

[DecoReturns]

Actually been thinking their management has been largely on point during this Switch era lol.

Opinions aside on games lacking content and whatnot. It’s more they’ve been able to deliver a whole mess of games and high quality ones at that at a consistent rate. And those that are on the lowest budget end are still selling much better then what they’ve expected.

Especially at a time when we’ve seen how much other devs have struggled.

 

[Seven]

Nintendo has no problems supporting 2D and 3D sub franchises as evidenced by Mario and Metroid. That shouldn't be different for Zelda. I think they've just become so infatuated with the open air formula they've put too many resources towards those games and they left everything else by the wayside.

The DS duology is pretty traditional 2D Zelda, don't know your point.

Nintendo supports 2D & 3D Mario because that's their mascot character and there are multiple people there dedicated to bringing their ideas to those series. As for Metroid, the latest 2D game was developed by a third party partner after Sakaguchi spent years trying to get the project off the ground and the only 3D game we have for now is a remake of the first Prime game.

The DS Zelda duology was completely stylus-controlled, had very little overworld, and mainly centered on one major dungeon with a time mechanic. That's as far from "traditional" as you can get.

Honestly, people need to move away from this idea that handheld games need to be these short, bite-sized titles. That was true in the old days when system limitations prevented home console-like titles from being feasible on handhelds, but these days handhelds are more then capable of delivering games on par with home consoles and features like sleep mode and cloud saves make longer games more palatable on handhelds.

I'm thinking larger picture that Fire Emblem has always seen both console and handheld entries. But I understand your point about Engage being a continuation of those handheld entries.

The last home console Fire Emblem game was Radiant Dawn back in 2007. After that, the series has been mainly handheld-centric.

 

[ngpdrew]

You know I love the Cube. It's practically my gimmick! But there's no world where its output is even remotely comparable to the Switch. You can toss in GBA games if you want but the scale of those was so much smaller than modern titles that it's a classic apple and orange situation.

Just say "I don't like the output on Switch!" That's fine! But some of us lived through actual droughts on the N64, Gamecube, Wii, and Wii U. This ain't it.

 

[Ricimer]

Saying Switch has to match the output of their previous home+handheld combos has always been a misguided notion that is not rooted in reality. Even small-scale games take longer to make nowadays.

I'm not expecting a complete match, but I expect better than simply matching the output of previous solo consoles. The Switch's output feels like that of one standard Nintendo system, not a beefed up one.

Either way one of the main points of the consolidation was to prevent software droughts and it's been an inarguable miss on that point.

 

[meatbag]

I expect better than simply matching the output of previous solo consoles. The Switch's output feels like that of one standard Nintendo system, not a beefed up one

Again you're removed from the reality of game development. Nintendo is already one of, if not THE, most prolific publisher in the business.

Quite frankly, you need to recalibrate your expectations. You are only setting yourself up for disappointment.

Either way one of the main points of the consolidation was to prevent software droughts and it's been an inarguable miss on that point.

It is not "inarguable". Plenty of people disagree that there has been a drought.

 

[Ricimer]

You know I love the Cube. It's practically my gimmick! But there's no world where its output is even remotely comparable to the Switch. You can toss in GBA games if you want but the scale of those was so much smaller than modern titles that it's a classic apple and orange situation.

Just say "I don't like the output on Switch!" That's fine! But some of us lived through actual droughts on the N64, Gamecube, Wii, and Wii U. This ain't it.

The scale was smaller but has the game design inherently improved with these protracted development times and scope increases? A lot of Nintendo franchises saw their best entries in the GameCube/Wii eras. F-Zero with GX, Paper Mario with TTYD, Zelda with TP, Pikmin with 2, Mario Tennis with Power Tennis, Mario Golf with Toadstool Tour, Fire Emblem with Path of Radiance, Smash Bros with Melee, Metroid with Prime 1/2 etc.

This isn't a matter of my personal tastes, most of these installments are wildly regarded as some of, if not the, best games in their franchises by respective fanbases.

You don't necessarily need these huge scopes with 6+ year dev times to make franchise-best games. That's my point. Nintendo casting away their smaller scoped design philosophy, inherented both from the limitations of past generations and hardware limitations of handhelds, is having a negative affect on their modern lineup.

Of course there's some game design that is only possible nowadays with better hardware/longer dev times, like BOTW, and that's fine! But it should be a balance between huge games like that and smaller projects. And Nintendo has done a poor job at supporting the smaller side this generation. It hasn't been non-existent support but it's been poor.

 

[NBOctoling]

The scale was smaller but has the game design inherently improved with these protracted development times and scope increases? A lot of Nintendo franchises saw their best entries in the GameCube/Wii eras. F-Zero with GX, Paper Mario with TTYD, Zelda with TP, Pikmin with 2, Mario Tennis with Power Tennis, Mario Golf with Toadstool Tour, Fire Emblem with Path of Radiance, Smash Bros with Melee, Metroid with Prime 1/2 etc.

This isn't a mafter of my personal tastes, most of these installments are wildly regarded as some of, if not the, best games in their franchises by respective fanbases.

You don't need these huge scopes with 6+ year dev times franchise-best games. That's my point. Nintendo casting away their smaller scoped design philosophy, inherented both from the limitations of past generations and hardware limitations of handhelds, is having a negative affect on their modern lineup.

I'm sorry, this IS Personal Taste. You are a huge fan of the GameCube era, that's fine. My favorite Star Fox is Assault, another GameCube classic. But you are using your love for this era to bash all others.

Especially that list. I'm sorry but in what world is Pikmin, Fire Emblem, Smash, and Metroid not contested as the best games? There are some that have their best game the generation before (Super Metroid), many afterwards (Pimin 3, Fire Emblem in general) and some that make no sense (Twilight Princess is considered the best Zelda of all time universally? In what universe because as a TP fan I KNOW that's not true).

 

[Ricimer]

Again you're removed from the reality of game development. Nintendo is already one of, if not THE, most prolific publisher in the business.

Quite frankly, you need to recalibrate your expectations. You are only setting yourself up for disappointment.


It is not "inarguable". Plenty of people disagree that there has been a drought.

They are the best although that's more of a testament to the bad decisions on Sony and Xbox's game development devisions.

Just because they're the best doesn't mean it wasn't better before and could be better now

 

[Hailinel]

I mean do we expect them to make FE Hogwarts/GoT forever? -- What was lost in engage? IMO the Fire Emblem games all kind of blur together anyways.
I think Engage had a cheaper looking concept; idk if the gameplay was that different to be honest. It wasn't as cool of a story concept. But idk
I thought I heard the gameplay was just as solid as it always is.

Not every FE needs to have a story as in depth as Three Houses, but Engage barely has a story to the extent that it's best moments are largely just references to other, better FE games. The game spends an inordinate amount of the story with Alear, Alfred, Diamant, Ivy, and Timerra (and no one else) running into the Four Hounds like they're a particularly ridiculous Team Rocket. And then there's just moments ike Zephia's big speech right before she dies that is both an insane reason to hold onto the idea of Sombron for a thousand years while also being laser-targeted at the ghost of Shinzo Abe.

Engage's story is so awful that I'd argue Fates, for as much of a cluster of nonsense as that story is, is at least better for the fact that it had obvious ambitions that the devs failed to meet. Yes, it's gameplay is fantastic, but the story of Engage is the worst that FE has ever been.

And I'm barely scratching the surface here, as I could be far more specific with moment to moment issues like awful cutscene framing, Framme and Clanne's behavior around Alear being an embodiment of many peoples' issues with FE avatars, or a pointless time travel paradox in the late game that makes no sense.

I was so put off by the experience of that story that I still haven't bothered with the Fell Xenologue DLC.

Again, not every FE should aspire to be Three Houses. But the story should demonstrate an aspiration for something. Engage's story doesn't really have anything to hold on to except nostalgia for what came before it.

 

[Polmo]

The scale was smaller but has the game design inherently improved with these protracted development times and scope increases? A lot of Nintendo franchises saw their best entries in the GameCube/Wii eras. F-Zero with GX, Paper Mario with TTYD, Zelda with TP, Pikmin with 2, Mario Tennis with Power Tennis, Mario Golf with Toadstool Tour, Fire Emblem with Path of Radiance, Smash Bros with Melee, Metroid with Prime 1/2 etc.

This isn't a matter of my personal tastes, most of these installments are wildly regarded as some of, if not the, best games in their franchises by respective fanbases.

You don't necessarily need these huge scopes with 6+ year dev times franchise-best games. That's my point. Nintendo casting away their smaller scoped design philosophy, inherented both from the limitations of past generations and hardware limitations of handhelds, is having a negative affect on their modern lineup.

Of course there's some game design that is only possible nowadays with better hardware/longer dev times, like BOTW, and that's fine! But it should be a balance between huge games like that and smaller projects. And Nintendo has done a poor job at supporting the smaller side this generation. It hasn't been non-existent support but it's been poor.

Fzero had no game after GX practically
Zelda is debatable and so is FE
Pikmin 2 is very liked but also is criticised a lot, depend to who you ask and pretty much every Pikmin game have an even preference (Pikmin 1 for the survival, 2 for the precudral generated cave, 3 for the strategy, 4 for it's content and different gameplay type).
Prime had 2/3 of the games only on Gamecube
Mario Tennis Aces is pretty much a contender for PT and the 3DS Mario Golf is the best title.
Smash... no
Paper Mario is just a subseries, it's normal that given their amount some of them land on one console and the other on another

 

[Forks]

A lot of Nintendo franchises saw their best entries in the GameCube/Wii eras.

Ehhhhhhh

Fire Emblem with Path of Radiance

I love Path of Radiance but this isn't true at all lmao

 

[NBOctoling]

They are the best although that's more of a testament to the bad decisions on Sony and Xbox's game development devisions.

Just because they're the best doesn't mean it wasn't better before and could be better now

So what is better? How many games a month should they be making? 2? 3? 20? Because as someone who lived through that era, I'm not seeing how much more they can improve beyond enslaving the entire Nintendo team to work 24 hours a day to pump games.

 

[Ricimer]

I'm sorry, this IS Personal Taste. You are a huge fan of the GameCube era, that's fine. My favorite Star Fox is Assault, another GameCube classic. But you are using your love for this era to bash all others.

Especially that list. I'm sorry but in what world is Pikmin, Fire Emblem, Smash, and Metroid not contested as the best games? There are some that have their best game the generation before (Super Metroid), many afterwards (Pimin 3, Fire Emblem in general) and some that make no sense (Twilight Princess is considered the best Zelda of all time universally? In what universe because as a TP fan I KNOW that's not true).

I didn't say they were undisputably the single best games, I said the fanbases held them as some of (if not the) best games in the franchise. You ask a Smash fan what the best Smash games are, most will will say Melee and Ultimate.

Like yeah the fanbase consensus for games like Metroid Prime 1/2, Melee, TTYD, F-Zero GX, Path of Radiance, Power Tennis/Toadstool Tour etc. are that they're some of the best installments in their series.

My point was you don't need huge scopes to make franchise-beat games fans will be satisfied with and will sell well. Big titles like BOTW are amazing and unique as a result of their scope, but it's a balance and they could be doing more titles with smaller scopes too. They haven't supported the smaller side as well this generation leading to less games.

 

[meatbag]

Just because they're the best doesn't mean it wasn't better before and could be better now

And how, exactly, do you propose they reach your preferred level of output given the current climate of game development?

A lot of Nintendo franchises saw their best entries in the GameCube/Wii eras

Highly debatable. Please don't try to pass this off as a universal consensus.

 

[Forks]

Not every FE needs to have a story as in depth as Three Houses, but Engage barely has a story to the extent that it's best moments are largely just references to other, better FE games.

We can say the same thing about Three Houses. What if I told you the Crests thing was really just a rebranding of Jugral Holy Blood, but even more inconsequential from a story and gameplay perspective - and that the lord trio of 3H are really just subversions of existing character archetypes. I can't believe Intelligent Systems can't come up with anything more than cynical nostalgia bait damn it!!

 

[Hailinel]

We can say the same thing about Three Houses. What if I told you the Crests thing was really just a rebranding of Jugral Holy Blood, but even more inconsequential from a story and gameplay perspective - and that the lord trio of 3H are really just subversions of existing character archetypes. I can't believe Intelligent Systems can't come up with anything more than cynical nostalgia bait damn it!!

Three Houses has its own references, but does interesting and new things with them. Engage doesn't. Simple as that.

 

[Ricimer]

And how, exactly, do you propose they reach your preferred level of output given the current climate of game development?


Highly debatable. Please don't try to pass this off as a universal consensus.

By greenlighting games with smaller scopes.

You gonna argue that the Metroid fanbsse doesn't regard Prime 1/2 as some of the best games in the series? Similarly for games like TTYD, Toadstool Tour/Power Tennis, Smash Melee, F-Zero GX, etc? Of course it's preference but all these games ranking highly are pretty wildly held consensus within their fanbases. That's not really a controversial statement.

Again the point was you don't need huge scopes/dev times to make franchise best games. Ignoring the GameCube/Wii era just look at Pokemon for another example. Gens 3-5 are frequently considered the best in the series yet were done on systems with way more limited hardware. Not every title needs 5+ years of dev time, which is frequently becoming the case for Nintendo.

 

[NBOctoling]

Not every FE needs to have a story as in depth as Three Houses, but Engage barely has a story to the extent that it's best moments are largely just references to other, better FE games. The game spends an inordinate amount of the story with Alear, Alfred, Diamant, Ivy, and Timerra (and no one else) running into the Four Hounds like they're a particularly ridiculous Team Rocket. And then there's just moments ike Zephia's big speech right before she dies that is both an insane reason to hold onto the idea of Sombron for a thousand years while also being laser-targeted at the ghost of Shinzo Abe.

Engage's story is so awful that I'd argue Fates, for as much of a cluster of nonsense as that story is, is at least better for the fact that it had obvious ambitions that the devs failed to meet. Yes, it's gameplay is fantastic, but the story of Engage is the worst that FE has ever been.

And I'm barely scratching the surface here, as I could be far more specific with moment to moment issues like awful cutscene framing, Framme and Clanne's behavior around Alear being an embodiment of many peoples' issues with FE avatars, or a pointless time travel paradox in the late game that makes no sense.

I was so put off by the experience of that story that I still haven't bothered with the Fell Xenologue DLC.

Again, not every FE should aspire to be Three Houses. But the story should demonstrate an aspiration for something. Engage's story doesn't really have anything to hold on to except nostalgia for what came before it.

To be absolutely fair, Engage's problem isn't that the story is simple, it's that it's done poorly. Unicorn Overlord has a very basic story (well, for the most part), but it's executed so well with the visuals, Voice Acting, and characters that it doesn't feel like a retread. I have no doubt that if Engage actually took the time to tell that story well and flesh out the characters instead of giving them 20-minute speech as they lay bleeding, it probably would have been better received.

 

[meatbag]

By greenlighting games with smaller scopes.

Games nowadays typically take at least four years to make, even with smaller scopes. That is the reality of current video game development.

 

[franzen23]

Nintendo has never released 100% bangers all the time- there are always some games/series that are more successful, polished, and content heavy than others.
Most if not all of their franchises have never been more successful than on Switch. Even the ones which aren't well received were still commercially successful.

People just have rose colured glasses for the past- every gen Nintendo has had some stinkers.

 

[Hailinel]

To be absolutely fair, Engage's problem isn't that the story is simple, it's that it's done poorly. Unicorn Overlord has a very basic story (well, for the most part), but it's executed so well with the visuals, Voice Acting, and characters that it doesn't feel like a retread. I have no doubt that if Engage actually took the time to tell that story well and flesh out the characters instead of giving them 20-minute speech as they lay bleeding, it probably would have been better received.

You're probably right about that. I've followed along with the Engage manga adaptation (though I haven't read it myself), and it works off the same notes, but is a much better-told story.

 

[Ricimer]

Games nowadays typically take at least four years to make, even with smaller scopes. That is the reality of current video game development.

I don't think that's necessarily true. You can make games with smaller scopes that take less time. The new WarioWare Switch games prove Nintendo can make games with 2-3 year dev cycles. Even the sequel to Star Wars: Fallon Order only took 3 years and that's a huge AAA game made during COVID. The devs were simply smart with their resources and knew how to interate and reuse assets from the first game.

I realize the days of games made in 1 year are done with. That doesn't mean everything requires 4 years minimum. I think there's a balance to had with games with 2-3 year dev times.

 

[AngryAlchemist]

The "smaller handheld games" point feels so weirdly disingenuous .... tons of Nintendo franchises were both handheld and home console before the Switch, so you can just exclude a ton of handheld series that did get sequels on Switch. And 2D Zelda isn't really "small" at all.

I get wanting more low budget games but honestly .... we already get that a lot? Advance Wars, Another Code, Endless Ocean. But I guess Endless Ocean wouldn't count because it's home console, right? Honestly if you just said Eshop games I could understand the point more, because we are missing out on Eshop games, they definitely got scaled back compared to 3DS. But Nintendo already does tons of AA games, I'm not sure they'd ever release at the same frequency no matter how much they greenlit. Even if I get being disappointed with how boring 2024 is to you. I think it's more reasonable to just ask where the hell is 2D Zelda.

 

[Seven]

I'm not expecting a complete match, but I expect better than simply matching the output of previous solo consoles. The Switch's output feels like that of one standard Nintendo system, not a beefed up one.

Either way one of the main points of the consolidation was to prevent software droughts and it's been an inarguable miss on that point.

The Switch is a standard Nintendo system.

The main point of the consolidation was to make it easier for personnel to shift from one project/team to another if necessary. This is especially important these days since HD development is much more time-consuming then developing on the SD systems.

 

[Ricimer]

The Switch is a standard Nintendo system.

The main point of the consolidation was to make it easier for personnel to shift from one project/team to another if necessary. This is especially important these days since HD development is much more time-consuming then developing on the SD systems.

The Switch has the output of a standard Nintendo system when it absorbed the output of two systems. That is the issue.

A pure doubling of games isn't realistic with HD dev times, but I would expect something more than just the standard.

 

[Hailinel]

The Switch has the output of a standard Nintendo system when it absorbed the output of two systems. That is the issue.

A pure doubling of games isn't realistic with HD dev times, but I would expect something more than just the standard.

So you're annoyed Nintendo isn't making double the games for a single platform when that wasn't the point of the consolidation at all?

 

[Ricimer]

So you're annoyed Nintendo isn't making double the games for a single platform when that wasn't the point of the consolidation at all?

I literally said a pure doubling of games isn't realistic...

 

[ngpdrew]

The scale was smaller but has the game design inherently improved with these protracted development times and scope increases? A lot of Nintendo franchises saw their best entries in the GameCube/Wii eras. F-Zero with GX, Paper Mario with TTYD, Zelda with TP, Pikmin with 2, Mario Tennis with Power Tennis, Mario Golf with Toadstool Tour, Fire Emblem with Path of Radiance, Smash Bros with Melee, Metroid with Prime 1/2 etc.

This isn't a matter of my personal tastes, most of these installments are wildly regarded as some of, if not the, best games in their franchises by respective fanbases.

You don't necessarily need these huge scopes with 6+ year dev times to make franchise-best games. That's my point. Nintendo casting away their smaller scoped design philosophy, inherented both from the limitations of past generations and hardware limitations of handhelds, is having a negative affect on their modern lineup.

Of course there's some game design that is only possible nowadays with better hardware/longer dev times, like BOTW, and that's fine! But it should be a balance between huge games like that and smaller projects. And Nintendo has done a poor job at supporting the smaller side this generation. It hasn't been non-existent support but it's been poor.

I see you pandering to me with Pikmin 2 but only a True Blue Coober thinks all these games are the best in their franchise.

BUT. Thanks for the Pikmin 2 shout.

 

[Forks]

Three Houses has its own references, but does interesting and new things with them. Engage doesn't. Simple as that.

So the emblem trial chapters weren't interesting references in the slightest? Because I felt they were probably the highlight of the game for me, so I'm genuinely curious here.

 

[Hailinel]

So the emblem trial chapters weren't interesting references in the slightest? Because I felt they were probably the highlight of the game for me, so I'm genuinely curious here.

That was in relation to the point that Engage only has nostalgia.

I literally said a pure doubling of games isn't realistic...

I misread, but even so, your argument doesn't make any sense beyond "Nintendo is doing bad because I said so."

 

[FloofGaming]

I would say the only thing I could call mismanagement at Nintendo studios is how they treat updates/live service elements but also when they do them. This has caused games like ACNH to feel lacking at launch (even though I can understand it not getting that many consistent updates due to Covid) and having the updates made it feel like they were just trying to catch things up to new leaf for 3 years which still left certain things out from new leaf such as shop upgrades, legacy item series and sets, mini games and etc. I could say the same for the sports games being generally lightweight when compared to previous titles taking a couple of months to get the usual characters and modes that people would expect. I think the best way to remedy this would be to have a dedicated team to help out with update content when the main dev teams of these games have to work on other projects (but not have it be like the support teams of Activision where morale is low due to staff not being able to work on other projects in the meantime)

 

[NBOctoling]

You're probably right about that. I've followed along with the Engage manga adaptation (though I haven't read it myself), and it works off the same notes, but is a much better-told story.

To be fair, this is true for many Nintendo games

coughReadTwilightPrincessMangacough

 

[BlackthornOrion]

By greenlighting games with smaller scopes

They do this plenty, you're just ignoring them seemingly because they aren't what you personally want

 

[Seven]

The Switch has the output of a standard Nintendo system when it absorbed the output of two systems. That is the issue.

A pure doubling of games isn't realistic with HD dev times, but I would expect something more than just the standard.

The Switch has inherited the attributes of two lines, Nintendo's home consoles and handhelds. That doesn't mean it would have the output of both, especially in the HD era.

You're even torpedoing your own argument by acknowledging that a doubling of games isn't realistic these days. If anything judging on how the rest of the industry is currently doing Nintendo is exceeding the standard.

 

[Síriocaz]

You don't judge management based solely on release output and game reception, that's, bluntly, very disingenuous.

 

[Ricimer]

The Switch has inherited the attributes of two lines, Nintendo's home consoles and handhelds. That doesn't mean it would have the output of both, especially in the HD era.

You're even torpedoing your own argument by acknowledging that a doubling of games isn't realistic these days. If anything judging on how the rest of the industry is currently doing Nintendo is exceeding the standard.

I'm not expecting a doubled output, I'm expecting an output like 1.5 or something stronger than the standard output of a solid Nintendo system. That's my personal sticking point.

Nintendo is exceeding the industry standard but that's more an issue with the rest of the industry being poopoo right now. Nintendo's is great but it could be better, it has been better in the past.

 

[Hailinel]

I'm not expecting a doubled output, I'm expecting an output like 1.5 or something stronger than the standard output of a solid Nintendo system. That's my personal sticking point.

Nintendo is exceeding the industry standard but that's more an issue with the rest of the industry being poopoo right now. Nintendo's is great but it could be better, it has been better in the past.

Your expectations are completely out of line with reality. You don't accept the issues brought by HD development, you don't seem to understand resource constraints. As best as I can understand it, you're upset that you haven't gotten a new, EPD-developed 2D Zelda in the past five years, and you're using this as evidence that Nintendo has completely mismanaged this entire console generation.

 

[Ricimer]

Your expectations are completely out of line with reality. You don't accept the issues brought by HD development, you don't seem to understand resource constraints. As best as I can understand it, you're upset that you haven't gotten a new, EPD-developed 2D Zelda in the past five years, and you're using this as evidence that Nintendo has completely mismanaged this entire console generation.

In my opinion the Switch output is on par with the Wii U, both and good years and bad years. The problem is the Switch absorbed the 3DS handheld line and it doesn't have much to show for it when the output is similar to a solo HD system like the Wii U

 

[PixelKnight]

In my opinion the Switch output is on par with the Wii U, both and good years and bad years. The problem is the Switch absorbed the 3DS handheld line and it doesn't have much to show for it when the output is similar to a solo HD system like the Wii U

I… the Switch output is similar to WiiU? How? There’s about a hundred first party games on Switch, and plenty of series never turned up at all on WiiU.

 

[Seven]

I'm not expecting a doubled output, I'm expecting an output like 1.5 or something stronger than the standard output of a solid Nintendo system. That's my personal sticking point.

Nintendo is exceeding the industry standard but that's more an issue with the rest of the industry being poopoo right now. Nintendo's is great but it could be better, it has been better in the past.

Those expectations are out of touch with nothing supporting them other then the absurd logic of "if the Switch is the combination of Nintendo's home consoles and handhelds then it should have the output of both." Nintendo's output in the past was "better" because they were developing for SD systems; not to mention many here can tell you that their home consoles post-SNES were plagued by droughts.

In the end you are ignoring the difficulties of HD development, the fact that Nintendo's employee count hasn't really expanded that much, and most importantly the fact we went through a pandemic where the repercussions are still being felt to this day.

 

[Earthbounder]

Yes, they do.

Because Good-Feel has yet to deliver the Wario Land game everyone wants and they've had 16 years to do it.

 

[Hocot8]

I'm so over this conversation.

In my opinion the Switch output is on par with the Wii U, both and good years and bad years. The problem is the Switch absorbed the 3DS handheld line and it doesn't have much to show for it when the output is similar to a solo HD system like the Wii U

You have all this time to argue with people. Go count. How many Wii U games did they make and then how many Switch games did they make?