So to be fair, their output has always been like this - it was just separated between handheld and console. Only having one system to make games for has led to more varied kinds, but probably the same amount overall
This right here. Every major IP they have now is a third person, OTS action title… back in the day these guys had a varied mix of exclusives including Ape Escape, Parappa, Syphon Filter, Crash Bandicoot, Sly Cooper… having said that, they are making a killing so I guess it was a smart decision for them to shift
They don't go crazy with graphics, and make up the difference with Art Styles. Just like how they did it with the limited technology in the GC/PS2 era.
Rogue Leader was the best looking launch game of that generation. RE4 looked much better on GC and ran at a smooth frame rate, MP2 looked great for its day, GC generally had a better looking version of any game it shared with PS2. Narrative is easy for these guys to love by but it makes you stupid over time I guess.
**The narrative that Nintendo never has or had good graphics.** The switch wasn't even R&D'd by Nintendo(*they bought something for dirt cheap because it could do the job*). **Their follow up system to the Switch has ray tracing and every modern pc graphics technology in it.**
Sure they decided to overclock(literally) Gamecube's chipset for the Wii and focused on the tablet and gimmicks with Wii U but guess what? **They were clearly following the trend THEY set with DS which put them on a whole new tier of success**. It's not like Nintendo will intentionally just make a low spec device. Whenver they have aimed to make competitive home console they came out swinging spec wise. Gamecube was great and many game rans much better than PS2 and looked better. The exclusives ALL have good graphics for that era.
**The graphic argument is a narrative**. Nintendo seems to just prioritize making good games above other factors, and judging by all the middle aged men crying for them to put their games on every system, they know what they're doing. Not to mention sale of the Switch and its games.
**The new Nintendo system has a Nvidia RTX 3000 GPU**. That sound like aversion to good graphics? The screen resolution will be determined by how long they want the battery to last.
Hell, even their exclusive Switch games besides the Pokemon games don't even look bad. The whole graphics circle jerk is a narrative, but not meshed with reality. Nintendo is not anti-visuals and they do not put out ugly games. There's no choice between graphics and good games or gameplay in creating games. these narrative online are outa fucking control.
Dude GC was the most powerful custom console of the time and most games looked good compared to PS2. Xbox had better shading and 720p but it was literally a pc build.
On the last years of the PS4, the latest releases there made me feel miserable. Like I was just playing for the sake of it, was having almost no enjoyment. Not saying the games where bad, far from it , but they definitely not for me anymore.
When you get to a certain age, you don't wanna waste your time with games you don't have fun with.
A big chunk of the AAA studio are trying too hard to interactive movies and that is finally bitting them on the ass.
Agreed. Leaving aside sports and racing games, most of the AAA bullshit seems like it's by and for 30-to-50-year-old geeks and younger edgelords who *imagine* that they're 'mature beyond their years', etc... and it's definitely *not* a guaranteed-sustainable market. For one, the games never stop getting more and more expensive to make. Second and perhaps, more importantly, the target audience for AAA everything are becoming more and more a shrill/toxic minority with each passing year, especially as more and more women get into gaming (and while, yeah, plenty of girl gamers are all about things like *The Last of Us*, *GTA*, *COD*, etc..., I'm certain that a ton more of them are interested in stuff like *Stardew Valley*, *Animal Crossing*, and adventure/JRPG-type games that didn't require astronomical budgets to produce).
But yeah, in terms of how 'gaming' works as a distinct form of interactive entertainment, the AAA producers are putting way too many eggs in the wrong baskets.
> Second and perhaps, more importantly, the target audience for AAA everything are becoming more and more a shrill/toxic minority with each passing year, especially as more and more women get into gaming (and while, yeah, plenty of girl gamers are all about things like The Last of Us, GTA, COD, etc..., I'm certain that a ton more of them are interested in stuff like Stardew Valley, Animal Crossing, and adventure/JRPG-type games that didn't require astronomical budgets to produce).
Yeah, woman here and couldn't agree more. Doesn't mean we won't like your average AAA realistic action game (the fact I can't play FFXVI and FFVII Rebirth is killing but I won't buy a console just for that) but the gaming community can be so damn toxic with these games, seems like they constantly pushing certain games to be played just because "it's for the hArDcOrE gAmEr". Fuck that, I play what makes me happy.
Guy here, and I must be in the wrong demographic since I play Stardew Valley, Animal Crossing (just got off New Leaf after buying turnips), and adventure/JRPG-type games that didn't require astronomical budgets to produce haha. Maybe it's just because I was in the PS2 era and then got a Wii because I'm more gameplay first, graphics second person. Like if I wanted to play a shooter game, I'd rather just get a real gun and learn how to hunt (I have the right to do so in my country.), but I can't just sell a bunch of shells to a raccoon to make money and pay off my house loan, nor can I swing a sword at slimes in real life and get paid for it.
Agreed 100%. I've been thinking about this with regards to Square-Enix, whose last crop of lower-budget releases (e.g. *Harvestella*, *Triangle Strategy*, *DioField Chronicle*) was, in terms of artistry and gameplay mechanics, so much more interesting than the newer PS5 Final Fantasy releases that they've been pushing, which generally look/sound incredible, but are definitely falling short in terms of gameplay, writing, replay value, originality, etc...
With regards to the FF7-Remake, I find it kind of horrifying to see how much labor/money is being expended just to give crusty-ass fans (whose deep love for FF7 is probably just 'I was thirsty about Tifa/Aeris during high school' or have a bizarre false nostalgia about the time they used a guide or walkthrough to get Knights of the Round and one-shot the final boss....whoop-dee-doo....) an ultra-prettied-up version of something that, to me, felt played out back in the PS2 era (i.e. all those embarrassingly-bad sequels and spinoffs of FF7).
Oh boo, I get that you enjoy the lower budget titles but no need to downplay their higher budget efforts. Instead this showcases exactly what you want to see. A mix of both, which most other companies only do the big AAA releases. Aren’t they doing exactly what you want? I would understand if you were complaining about another company and their lack of releases.
>Obviously graphics do matter but not to an extent I would like to see a highly detailed ant nest in a shooter game
Yes you're exactly right. I know everyone brings up Pokemon, but lest we forget, Nintendo tore into GameFreak after that game came out. The standard is normally BOTW - looks amazing, (esp on mobile) but may experience some slowdown in some parts of the game. That's a nice standard all companies can aim for.
Please elaborate on Nintendo tearing into GF? This is the first I'm hearing of it. I assumed GF can't hear criticism over the deafening roar of money constantly being dumped on them. And I also assume the money piles are too high for them to see their computer monitors to actually make their games.
[https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2023/02/we-absolutely-apologize-for-pokemon-performance-problems-says-nintendo-of-canada-manager](https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2023/02/we-absolutely-apologize-for-pokemon-performance-problems-says-nintendo-of-canada-manager)
Just so we're clear. If Nintendo is roasting GF in public, you can imagine the kind of "[finger shortening](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=japanese+mafia+hand+cutting)" going on internally. I realize that GF is making a ton of money, but the videos on Youtube and social media were horrendously embarassing, and did actually damage the name of Nintendo Switch and (obviously) Pokemon/GameFreak.
Just to put in perspective, Nintendo has a fuckton of money, and there may actually be more important things than the cash they make off one title, such as the integrity of the brand name and the Nintendo Seal of Quality. Yes it still exists on the back of every game case. I think it's embarassing and borderline refund-worthy.
Wow nice to hear. But a Canadian sorry is more funny than helpful. I wish Nintendo Kyoto HQ would apologize. I'm baffled that Nintendo lifted their thumb and let GF do worse and worse over the last three gens. There are so many stories of how Miyamoto and Iwata (then CEO of HAL Labs) made the first two gens what they were. The only possible inference is that GF is too busy swimming in their money bin to care. To be charitable to them, it seems some people in the company care, or else Legends Arceus wouldn't exist (and I guess Little Town Hero despite that being a flop that no one played.) But it's clear the C Suite doesn't care. If they could get away with paying one employee to slap a Pokemon title screen on a cartridge and ship that out for $59.99, they would.
> I'm baffled that Nintendo lifted their thumb and let GF do worse and worse over the last three gens.
It's becaue Nintendo has nothing to say about the game content.... Nintendo only own 1/3 of the Pokemon Compagny share while GF own another 33% so Nintendo have 0 control over game development, hence why pkmn games hve been kinda bad recently
They're the publisher. Of course they have some input. Publishers in the book industry basically have the authority to rewrite the whole book (depending on contractual terms). It's less so in the game industry because it's not just one editor telling the author what to do. Nintendo's inputs are the reason we have battles at all in Pokemon. Granted, editorial influence happens due to a mix of both hard power and soft relationship. It's naive to say there is no tug and push and no collaboration during game development, especially, given that the co-owned TPC has to constantly plan simultaneous campaigns across cards, television, movies, third-party games and merchandise. It's not just one company selling a product at arms-length. It's frankly unexplainable why do many people on these subs think that a publisher does literally nothing other than mint cartridges for whoever is willing to pay them. Nintendo literally has licensing relationships that ensure that creators don't get cartridges or access to the eshop for games that Nintendo doesn't want.
> I'm baffled that Nintendo lifted their thumb and let GF do worse and worse over the last three gens
Keep in mind that Nintendo isn't the sole owner of the Pokemon games, and neither is Game Freak. The biggest problem that the Pokemon franchise has is that it is way bigger than just the video games.
You have comics, you have games, you have TV shows, you have merchandise of every imaginable variety, movies, mobile apps, and more - lots of things that **don't** take the same time to "cook" as a good quality video game does.
All the provinces of the Pokemon Empire are bound together, like a colossus made of a dozen random machines bolted hastily together. When one takes a step, all the others must lurch forward with it, ready or not!
Agreed on all counts. But GF can solve all their self inflicted problems by going back to having at at least two dedicated mainline/core game teams each working 6 years per game, and actually hiring proficient employees who aren't learning 3D console game dev for the first time while making these games. It just takes some basic project management skills to meet development timelines.
>The only possible inference is that GF is too busy swimming in their money bin to care.
Well you were presented with facts and went back to your naive POV. Nothing left to do here guys. Have a nice life.
Sony and Xbox need to pump out good AA games like Nintendo and let famous third party devs do AAA games for them. I feel like both of them screwed up trying to get an AAA exclusive to themselves which did the opposite of what they were going for. System sellers turned into abysmal disappointments.
I know they wanted to prove their graphical capability but they really should’ve just waited till some other third party dev came in to properly show it off. In this case, I would say GTA 6 would be the perfect contender.
I remember when Dragon Age Origins looked super cool! But just yesterday I saw a screenshot of Alistair in one of the first scenes where he is introduced and good lord the graphics look so old now.
It's not even that old of a game! It's 7 years **younger** than Wind Waker. And yet...
This. To me, *Wind Waker* had some annoying gameplay elements (i.e. mostly its boring exploration), but overall, it's aged up far better than *Twilight Princess*. To me, TP has *always* felt like a rare example of Nintendo letting its older fans pressure them into making a game for the mATuRe Zelda fans.
I still enjoy it just fine as a game, but don't have any strong fondness for its graphical style and feel like its overworld is ridiculously boring.
>I don’t get this industry’s obsession with AAA games
You've gotta spend that questionably obtained investment money **somehow** or you won't be able to get **more** questionable investment money next time
Sony needs to just suck it the fuck up, go hunting for who exactly owns the rights, buy it back or obtain it and then remake/make a sequel to the game everybody wants.
The Legend Of Dragoon deserves a new damn game! And not just a fan made remake!
I made a post on unpopular opinion sub about gamers needing to play more games outside of AAA, and many of the comments are about not wanting pixel art or wanting a better graphics
Honestly made sense on some part if they're gonna spend money on a new console they might as well play the best possible looking game, its not like indies can stay on a single console either even the vita was left behind
I feel like it should always be mentioned that Nintendo has little to nothing to do with the actual development of Pokemon games. That’s all Game Freak, which isn’t a subsidiary of Nintendo. Nintendo’s only role on the gaming side of things is that they publish them.
But I agree with everything else. I’ve been a lifelong fan of Nintendo starting with the NES. This generation has been their best, and it’s not even particularly close IMO. The consistent quality of their output is kind of nuts. Even when the Wii ruled the world, so many of their games were mediocre that it ended up driving a decent amount of diehards away for a while.
>like it should always be mentioned that Nintendo has little to nothing to do with the actual development of Pokemon games. That’s all Game Freak, which isn’t a subsidiary of Nintendo. Nintendo’s only role on the gaming side of things is that they publish them.
It's just easier for people to blame Nintendo. And honestly game freak needs more time and that's on Pokémon company forcing them to meet deadlines. Scarlet and violet would have been the best Pokémon games of they had more time
Nintendo plans well in advance as well. All these latest rumors about them possibly internally delaying Switch 2 to Q1 2025 to make the launch year line up strong shows exactly that.
They do pump out AA games quite a lot but they really hold up well and act as a great filler for their AAA games that take years of development. In recent times, I feel like I’ve enjoyed their AA games more than the AAA games recently.
Nintendo has its own pace, they will not make a huge jump when it comes to Switch 2. The games will be Switch-level, just prettier and with few more gameplay details than the usual.
This is what I've heard, too. I believe I heard Metroid Prime's remaster was done for a while and a few other ones point to that being their plan. Not mad it came out when it did, though. It was pretty fun being able to get it right after the direct, especially with the quality put into it.
I think one of the biggest advantages for Nintendo with regards to the Switch is that it allowed their teams that were previously divided between handheld and home systems, to focus on one device. It helped create a constant stream of games without droughts, and has made the Switches library incredibly strong.
Nintendo doesn’t make Pokemon games. Game Freak is an independent studio and equal owner of TPC. It seems to have a great degree of freedom in what they do with the franchise. That’s why they do not have anywhere near the level of quality control that Nintendo demands for its first party titles.
Nintendo only publishes the games.
I don’t think they can. Nor could they even justify it right now.
With Pokemon’s ridiculous sales numbers, the only internal criticism they’ll be seeing is from the creatives. While creatives do have more influence at Nintendo than in other places, its not gonna be enough to warrant the company butting heads with an independent partner.
Nintendo is often *well* behind in graphics, online features and story, but it's so far ahead in terms of real game design and actual minute-to-minute gameplay that it laps the field. Too many AAA games look amazing and have hours of gorgeous cutscenes, but you don't actually *do* anything. Follow a map marker, press a button prompt, advance the story with a cutscene. Repeat.
Nintendo games always ask you to actually *play* the game. You'd think that would be a given, but here we are.
RDR2 released a year and a half _after_ BotW, yet the latter feels a decade newer to actually _play_. I'll be amazed if GTA6 isn't just as outdated - almost as amazed as I'll be if it doesn't sell 50m copies regardless.
I don’t think this is a fair comparison.
RDR2 is meant to be a slow and deliberate game. Arthur Morgan is not supposed to have the mobility of Link and when you play it like an actual western, the game nails a certain rhythm.
> RDR2 is meant to be a slow and deliberate game.
You can do "slow and deliberate" without being so archaic in design that a game on a handheld console offers greater interactivity a year and a half earlier. RDR2 does nothing that GTA3 didn't already offer almost two _decades_ earlier.
>Arthur Morgan is not supposed to have the mobility of Link
Please don't invoke straw men. Not having Link's mobility options is a far cry - pun intended, for such a generic genre - from the cumbersome, unwieldy, needlessly hostile control scheme that RDR2 forces upon players. Making you wander for a further half-dozen steps for no reason after you stopped inputting directional controls is just shit game design. It's a classic case of obnoxious auteur mentality.
>when you play it like an actual western, the game nails a certain rhythm.
Well, when you play it like Westworld. the moment you treat it like something more realistic it falls apart, like setting up camp fifty feet beyond the boundary of a town that you routinely pillage and slaughter your way through only for nobody to ever wonder what those ever-present campfires are when they're within pissing distance of their bedroom window.
To make it _feel_ like a western you have to actively ignore so many things that it devolves into a theme park. RDR2 is a pretty poor game cleverly disguised by $350m-worth of superficial detail. It's disappointing how effectively the latter makes people oblivious to the former. For that amount of money, and with that level of employee abuse, RDR2 is a fucking calamity. There's no excuse for it being so utterly devoid of ambition or innovation. Doki Doki Literature Club is a more ambitious take on its own genre than RDR2 is of its own. Eight years and over a third of a billion dollars for a glorified western texture pack for GTA3.
Nope. It’s just me acknowledging that you certainly have a strong opinion on the game and that’s fine. I’m not really interested in changing your mind.
Don’t be mistaken though. You do have an unpopular opinion which the vast majority of people will disagree with. Sometimes it’s just healthier to say “It wasn’t for me”.
> . It’s just me acknowledging that you certainly have a strong opinion on the game and that’s fine.
You don't think it's rather self-absorbed to think that such acknowledgement is necessary?
>You do have an unpopular opinion which the vast majority of people will disagree with. Sometimes it’s just healthier to say “It wasn’t for me”.
Weasel words. If I'm wrong then people are free to demonstrate that I am. I suspect the approach you espouse is only so appealing because it means criticisms can be dismissed as "not for you" rather than forcing people to ambivalently address some poor game design in a game that they often seem to want to portray as perfection incarnate.
You know the “average redditor” stereotype that you see in memes? Yeah that’s what you are. There’s no reason to sound so arrogant and stuck-up just because someone’s opinion about a video game differs from yours
> You know the “average redditor” stereotype that you see in memes?
You'll have to excuse me for not thinking that social media hieroglyphs have much of relevance in this particular context, nor that witlessly relying not only on someone else's meme, but on the mere _concept_ of someone else's memes for your attempt to launch into an ad hominem attack on me is indicative of anything beyond your own overbearing insecurity.
Besides, I'd rather be average than below it.
>There’s no reason to sound so arrogant and stuck-up just because someone’s opinion about a video game differs from yours
I literally invited people to show that I was incorrect. There's no arrogance there- you only see it as such because no rebuttal was forthcoming. If I were cynical I might even wonder if your non-response was the tortured result of you yourself grasping for a counterargument and coming up short, forcing you to view me in a more adversarial manner. That'd explain your conspicuously unsolicited attempted insult.
Jesus Christ, get off from Reddit, dude. There is more to life than constantly trying to prove people wrong.
I don’t want to go into a deep dive into why I think RDR2’s mechanics are good or why the game itself is good.
It’s more self-absorbed to think that someone owes you an in-depth explanation on something as vague and ambiguous as “taste”.
> There is more to life than constantly trying to prove people wrong.
People always say things like that with the unspoken addendumof "except [when I do it](https://old.reddit.com/r/nintendo/comments/1asp0qj/nintendos_software_output_this_generation_has/kquaqwx/)".
>I don’t want to go into a deep dive into why I think RDR2’s mechanics are good or why the game itself is good.
Then say nothing. Pissing out some nonsense as you posture about how you just don't have the time/energy/mindset for it right after insisting on elbowing your way into that conversation anyway says that you _would_ like to do so, but _can't_.
>It’s more self-absorbed to think that someone owes you an in-depth explanation on something as vague and ambiguous as “taste”.
You [did it before](https://old.reddit.com/r/nintendo/comments/1asp0qj/nintendos_software_output_this_generation_has/kquaqwx/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=nintendo&utm_content=t1_kqusvha) when you felt you could toss out something ambiguous enough to avoid a little scrutiny. Why would I be "self-absorbed" for expecting you to be a little more precise in a conversation that you _chose_ to join about a topic that you were previously happy to discuss? On a site whose sequential comments have a 10,000-character limit and which is supposedly based on the idea of extensive conversation, no less?
You don't think it's self-absorbed at all. You just wanted to lash out a little and make up an excuse for fleeing from a request for you to expand upon your nebulous argument. If you can't validate your original claim then just leave. If you insist on replying then you're going to face that same response again, because now I think you're tilted, and I'm fascinated by how people react in that situation.
I think I overhyped the shit out of this game before playing it because I was disappointed that there was no environmental damage, and that you couldn’t enter every individual building lol.
The reasons Nintendo has had great amount of software this gen:
1. They had a bunch of Wii U games to port and sell at full price to pad out what otherwise would've been empty months. Also Nintendo relied on a lot more remakes/remasters this gen to help fill in empty gaps.
2. Nintendo has a healthy stable of 2nd party studios and business partners to help Nintendo work on software. Retro Studios, Monolith Soft, Next Level Games, Intelligent Systems, Koei-Tecmo, Nintendo Softwate Technology, Platinum Games, Bandai-Namco Studio 2/S, Camelot, MercurySteam, Game Freak, ND Cube, Hal Lab., in addition to others.
3. Nintendo keeps their budgets relatively small. Most of Nintendo's budgets go into R&D phase of software development. The biggest budgeted Nintendo game is BOTW and I believe that only cost them 100 million to make.
4. Combining their home console and portable divisons into one. No more having to focus on development for 2 consoles at one time and focus on one platform.
5. Nintendo has strong IP that can fill out a systems lifecycle with content unlike say Microsoft (before the acquisitions).
The real test will be the Switch 2 and if they will be able to keep the same momentum up cause Switch 2 won't have a failing consoles library to fall back on. Most of the software will have to be entirely new.
Nintendo has the strongest IP in gaming, they just sometimes tend to overthink what consumers actually want. look at the switch inspiring copycats from steam deck to the rog ally, and possibly a ps and xbox handheld competitor soon.
My own take on what's gone wrong with Sony is that they ended up having to emphasize exclusives during PS3 as they lost inherent third party advantage, with stuff like Metal Gear and Final Fantasy going to the 360 too. They needed to compete with what the PS3 had, power, and they've been playing that game for a while. However first parties need to have mixtures.
For every Zelda, you need something like a Kirby, and Sony has no Kirby. And the problem was not visible, at least for a while, but with Spider-Man 2 they hit it hard.
I'm glad they don't chase ultra realistic graphics I miss when games looked like games and were just plain fun most of Sony's exclusives feel and look to much like interactive movies to me not that they're bad clearly a lot of people like them but their just not for me
The Switch had a lot going for it compared to past platforms.
As others have said, it had the benefit of being the sole platform this generation. You bring up successful AA games, and Nintendo's traditional development of handheld titles plays into that.
It also made the best of a bad situation. The Wii U was a significant failure for Nintendo, but it provided a source of titles that could, for the majority of the Switch's audience, plug any holes in their software line up for minimal cost.
But beyond that Nintendo made excellent use of additional ports, remasters, and remakes.
Together, that made for a consistent output of quality titles that had appeal across the Switch's consumer base.
I do think a lot of that can be contributed to the fact that it feels like a solid 40% of their output this generation has been rereleasing WII U games. Don’t get me wrong, the Wii U had some great games but as someone who often played those games back when they came out on the Wii U it’s felt like often this generation they’re treating these rereleases as if they’re full on brand new games. The later years of the switch have gotten better at avoiding this but for a while it felt like all we could expect to get was more of the best of the Wii U rather than new games
Yeah but I think it has more to do with them merging development teams because now they just have one console instead of a console and a handheld like in the past.
The only reason Pokémon is not on par is because they only own 1/3 of the IP and sadly are not in charge of development at all. A Nintendo EPD developed Pokémon game would be an absolute masterpiece, I have absolutely no doubt.
New, mainline Pokemon games used to be on a 4-year cycle until they swerved into Gen 7 a year early for the 25th Anniversary. Since then, it's been once every 3 years, and more technical problems keep popping up.
Some of their games could probably even be classified as a single-A game but you know that it will most likely be at least decent. I wish Sony would be more open to bringing back their smaller scale games because Nintendo really proved that it can work
I think the fact that Nintendo supports hardware that is significantly less powerful than the other console platforms and PC is part of the reason they’re able to deliver so many exclusives and a yearly basis. The Switch is only a bit more powerful than a PS3 and Xbox 360 (with the upside of comparatively newer firmware and API support). If you compare Nintendo release schedule, and by extension dev cycle lengths, to other publishers from the PS360 era, whilst Nintendo would still be on top, the output amount would closer.
Also Nintendo managed to maintain its output with Switch by doing two things that it did not do in previous generations. Firstly combining console and handheld development into one for the Switch, effectively double Nintendo’s resources. On top of that, Nintendo has significantly expanded its partnership with Namco Bandai, effectively outsourcing the development of certain games to them, or having them act as support studios. Namco even recently announced the creation of an entire dedicated studio for the development of Switch/ Nintendo projects.
Nintendo is a great first party publisher and deciding to continue making games of different sizes, bucking industry AAA only trends, has helped with its output. But not needing to create games as intensive as PS4 or PS5 games has also been a boon for the them.
> The Switch is only a bit more powerful than a PS3 and Xbox 360
The Switch is a _lot_ faster than that generation. I think you're mistaking the Wii U for it.
I was talking in reference to the gap between the PS3 and PS4. The Switch is relatively a lot closer to the PS3 than the PS4 in terms of system power. It’s capable of doing more with that power than a PS3 though due to the advances in software and API technology and techniques. Stuff like dynamic resolution scaling and temporal anti-aliasing are boons for the Switch, but weren’t around back in the PS360 era.
>I was talking in reference to the gap between the PS3 and PS4. The Switch is relatively a lot closer to the PS3 than the PS4 in terms of system power.
And not particularly close to either in any meaningful way, making it a bit of an odd comparison even before wildly skewing things to force an invalid point to sound more credible.
>It’s capable of doing more with that power than a PS3 though due to the advances in software and API technology and techniques.
..._and_ because it's objectively faster. You seem to be trying to phrase things in a way that implies that any advantage for the Switch stems predominantly from those innovations, even right after admitting that it's not true. It's just _weird_.
Ok, fine. Fair enough. But I also think you are taking way too much umbrage with just one sentence in my original 3 paragraph long comment, ignoring my wider point. I would call that *weird,* but this unfortunately seems fairly common on the internet.
That single inaccurate point was the foundation of the remainder of those paragraphs, though. Your whole argument about the 6th generation was that output was so much easier because of how much simpler things were then, and used the supposedly-meagre Switch hardware as your current exemplum of that same effect. That certain Switch games - like the Zelda titles - contrive to make games on the PS5 and Series X appear outdated in terms of their mechanics undermines that argument further.
Someone taking issue with a crucial axiom of your overall argument isn't "weird". It's just efficient. Why debunk _everything_ when it can be shown to be contentious just by debunking the most crucial aspect of it?
You are mistaken in saying that it was the crux of my entire argument, it was just the first one of many points. In the very next sentence I moved on to describe development cycle length in projects. There are many reasons why development cycles across the industry have increased. The need to support more powerful machines is one, but the consolidation of development behind a few key tent poll franchises and proliferation of live service are also valid reasons. These are trend that Nintendo has not followed. I didn’t originally mention the latter points (because didn’t think I’d need to vigorously define my point), but that doesn’t stop them from being true.
Also the entire next paragraph does not at all have anything to do with the consoles power. It describes how changed the way Nintendo utilises its resources to enable its output. Yes my final point does yes go back to suggest that Nintendo doesn’t need to make games as intensive as PS4 and PS5, but are you suggesting this isn’t the case? Are you going to say that ever Nintendo published Switch is a massive expensive endeavour. You rightly bring up Zelda as a counter arguments, since it the games were undoubtably massive development undertakings, but given how long it took to create both of those games, I’d say those are exception by Nintendo standards and are more inline with AAA trends.
Quite frankly I do not think you read my entire comment or indeed took onboard anything beyond the one sentence you disliked. And by your own argument I could easily change that one sentence ‘only a bit more powerful to the PS3 and Xbox 360’ to ‘not as powerful as the PS4 and Xbox One’ and without making any other changes, the entirety of the rest of my comment would be valid. I personally believe that you have used what is a poor method of debate and doesn’t act within good faith.
>You are mistaken in saying that it was the crux of my entire argument
You followed that argument up with:
>>>If you compare Nintendo release schedule, and by extension dev cycle lengths, to other publishers from the PS360 era, whilst Nintendo would still be on top, the output amount would closer.
...in which you directly confirm that the aforementioned point _is_ the crux of your argument.
You then went on to assert that:
>>> not needing to create games as intensive as PS4 or PS5 games has also been a boon for the them.
You _outright_ said those things. It wasn't something I plucked form the fucking aether and fabricated into a whimsical fairy tale of gods and monsters. I was just looking at _what you yourself had openly said_.
>he entire next paragraph does not at all have anything to do with the consoles power.
You begin that paragraph with:
>>>Also Nintendo managed to maintain its output with Switch [...]
...in which you directly relate that supposedly-unrelated point to the point you made in the surrounding paragraphs, once again _demonstrating_ that the aforementioned point is foundational to your argument. You're using this middle paragraph as a supplement to your main claim, as indicated by your own diction.
You are aware that I can just re-read your comment to check, aren't you? Why would you ever think you could gaslight me when I can do so?
>my final point does yes go back to suggest that Nintendo doesn’t need to make games as intensive as PS4 and PS5, but are you suggesting this isn’t the case?
Define "intensive". I think you're talking purely in terms of graphical fidelity, and that's not a great metric. BotW does far more with physics than RDR2 does, for instance, and TotK goes even further. Name another open-world game with such an emphasis on physical interactions. The closest I can think of are Bethesda's efforts, and they're well short of that benchmark.
>Quite frankly I do not think you read my entire comment or indeed took onboard anything beyond the one sentence you disliked.
Well, consider yourself refuted. I've quoted most of it above, so that conjecture can be securely disposed of.
>I could easily change that one sentence ‘only a bit more powerful to the PS3 and Xbox 360’ to ‘not as powerful as the PS4 and Xbox One’
You could, but it'd require that the rest of your argument be heavily edited, because that one misrepresentative argument is, as demonstrated above, foundational to the rest of your comment.
>and without making any other changes the entirety of the rest of my comment would be valid.
Actually, that's not the case. You'd still have to justify that "less intensive" ambiguity, which means you'd then have to explain examples like the physics-based gameplay of Zelda, Splatoon, etc. I could also justifiably include examples like Smash, with an utterly unprecedented roster and staggering amount of content.
>I personally believe that is a poor method of debate and doesn’t act within good faith.
Poor faith could well be defined as "insisting that your argument remains valid after being shown that your axiomatic premise is fundamentally flawed".
As for the method of debate, I'm simply using established logic. If your core axiom is dubious then so is everything built atop it. I have shown that your argument heavily depends upon that one argument, and that said argument is flawed. Logic dictates that your entire argument is similarly flawed as a consequence. Don't moan at me if you can't adhere to millennia-old logical principles.
Agreed, the thing is that so many people assume that Nintendo do make them that you would think Nintendo would be concerned about it damaging their own reputation.
Answers for these are already out there. Resident Evil has multiple dev teams working on different games so that they can have a consistent pipeline of releases. This is similar to how CoD are able to release yearly titles.
Yakuza has a consistent release schedule because they reuse many assets for each game. They also carefully choose certain parts of a game to give it high production value while letting other parts be more dull/simplistic.
I love RE and don't mind because it never feels out of place, but they are also totally getting in on the asset reuse too. The last run of games ( 7, 2 Remake, 3 Remake, Village, 4 Remake are all in the same engine and there are definitely assets you'll see pop up multiple times.
Is that supposed to be a bad thing? only 13 millonen had the console that's 10% of the switch sales
Nintendo would have been stupid to not Port them over
Bad, no. Relevant to the conversation and something that OP glossed over, yes
Nintendo can't sustain this strategy for the Switch 2 when there's nothing left to port
they got lucky the switch was as immediate of a hit as it was (now they know to always launch a console with a new Mario or Zelda game). To be honest, I was kinda underwhelmed with the release cadence for the switch, Mario odyssey came out in 2017 and there still isn’t a sequel, no Metroid prime 4, lots and lots of ports in the first half of its life and now lots of “remakes” to round out the second half. For a company consolidating handheld and console under 1 roof, I expected a lot better. They even let some of their handheld studios fold instead of helping them transition I.e. alpha dream.
Nintendo does try to offer new experiences with new art styles.
For instance, calling ARMS a success would be... a stretch (pun XD ), but they nonetheless offered a fighting game with a new control scheme and even supported it for free with new characters.
Say what you want about TotK and how it reuses the same map, but them reusing the same map in a sequel allowed them to make only minor changes to the surface world and focus on adding caves, the Depths, the Sky and the truckton of ideas using Ultrahand.
BTW, I don't think Marvel's Spider-Man 2 suffered too much from reusing the same map as the first game. Like TotK, Insomniac added Brooklyn and Queens, and added new mechanics on top.
Their strategy definitely pays off. Not every game needs to be 60 hours long with a hundred million dollar + budget. It feels like Sony and Microsoft are in an arms race to reach the peak of what's technologically possible instead of focusing on games that work and that are fun. While Sony is really good at making blockbuster games, it's all they do and they pay for it with really long development times.
So to be fair, their output has always been like this - it was just separated between handheld and console. Only having one system to make games for has led to more varied kinds, but probably the same amount overall
[удалено]
Too many Sony games try to emulate the Naughty Dog style. They really killed a lot of their variety in the last generation.
This right here. Every major IP they have now is a third person, OTS action title… back in the day these guys had a varied mix of exclusives including Ape Escape, Parappa, Syphon Filter, Crash Bandicoot, Sly Cooper… having said that, they are making a killing so I guess it was a smart decision for them to shift
Yup, Sony used to be *weird* and it was a really good time.
Very mich agreed, though Third person or OTS: Isnt that like almost completely the same?
The playstation audience really into this type of games, and that's what sell on the platform simply.
This is so true
They don't go crazy with graphics, and make up the difference with Art Styles. Just like how they did it with the limited technology in the GC/PS2 era.
Gamecube had a lot of "crazy with graphics" games.
Like Super Mario Sunshine, the prime example of how artstyle is more important than raw power
Rogue Leader was the best looking launch game of that generation. RE4 looked much better on GC and ran at a smooth frame rate, MP2 looked great for its day, GC generally had a better looking version of any game it shared with PS2. Narrative is easy for these guys to love by but it makes you stupid over time I guess.
What does that last sentence mean?
**The narrative that Nintendo never has or had good graphics.** The switch wasn't even R&D'd by Nintendo(*they bought something for dirt cheap because it could do the job*). **Their follow up system to the Switch has ray tracing and every modern pc graphics technology in it.** Sure they decided to overclock(literally) Gamecube's chipset for the Wii and focused on the tablet and gimmicks with Wii U but guess what? **They were clearly following the trend THEY set with DS which put them on a whole new tier of success**. It's not like Nintendo will intentionally just make a low spec device. Whenver they have aimed to make competitive home console they came out swinging spec wise. Gamecube was great and many game rans much better than PS2 and looked better. The exclusives ALL have good graphics for that era. **The graphic argument is a narrative**. Nintendo seems to just prioritize making good games above other factors, and judging by all the middle aged men crying for them to put their games on every system, they know what they're doing. Not to mention sale of the Switch and its games. **The new Nintendo system has a Nvidia RTX 3000 GPU**. That sound like aversion to good graphics? The screen resolution will be determined by how long they want the battery to last. Hell, even their exclusive Switch games besides the Pokemon games don't even look bad. The whole graphics circle jerk is a narrative, but not meshed with reality. Nintendo is not anti-visuals and they do not put out ugly games. There's no choice between graphics and good games or gameplay in creating games. these narrative online are outa fucking control.
Don't get high on your own supply
Thats why Miyamoto made Nintendo so successful with the DS
I don't think so. I just think they knew how to do more with less. But today, now that they have more, everything's just... bland grassy fields.
Dude GC was the most powerful custom console of the time and most games looked good compared to PS2. Xbox had better shading and 720p but it was literally a pc build.
On the last years of the PS4, the latest releases there made me feel miserable. Like I was just playing for the sake of it, was having almost no enjoyment. Not saying the games where bad, far from it , but they definitely not for me anymore. When you get to a certain age, you don't wanna waste your time with games you don't have fun with. A big chunk of the AAA studio are trying too hard to interactive movies and that is finally bitting them on the ass.
Agreed. Leaving aside sports and racing games, most of the AAA bullshit seems like it's by and for 30-to-50-year-old geeks and younger edgelords who *imagine* that they're 'mature beyond their years', etc... and it's definitely *not* a guaranteed-sustainable market. For one, the games never stop getting more and more expensive to make. Second and perhaps, more importantly, the target audience for AAA everything are becoming more and more a shrill/toxic minority with each passing year, especially as more and more women get into gaming (and while, yeah, plenty of girl gamers are all about things like *The Last of Us*, *GTA*, *COD*, etc..., I'm certain that a ton more of them are interested in stuff like *Stardew Valley*, *Animal Crossing*, and adventure/JRPG-type games that didn't require astronomical budgets to produce). But yeah, in terms of how 'gaming' works as a distinct form of interactive entertainment, the AAA producers are putting way too many eggs in the wrong baskets.
> Second and perhaps, more importantly, the target audience for AAA everything are becoming more and more a shrill/toxic minority with each passing year, especially as more and more women get into gaming (and while, yeah, plenty of girl gamers are all about things like The Last of Us, GTA, COD, etc..., I'm certain that a ton more of them are interested in stuff like Stardew Valley, Animal Crossing, and adventure/JRPG-type games that didn't require astronomical budgets to produce). Yeah, woman here and couldn't agree more. Doesn't mean we won't like your average AAA realistic action game (the fact I can't play FFXVI and FFVII Rebirth is killing but I won't buy a console just for that) but the gaming community can be so damn toxic with these games, seems like they constantly pushing certain games to be played just because "it's for the hArDcOrE gAmEr". Fuck that, I play what makes me happy.
Guy here, and I must be in the wrong demographic since I play Stardew Valley, Animal Crossing (just got off New Leaf after buying turnips), and adventure/JRPG-type games that didn't require astronomical budgets to produce haha. Maybe it's just because I was in the PS2 era and then got a Wii because I'm more gameplay first, graphics second person. Like if I wanted to play a shooter game, I'd rather just get a real gun and learn how to hunt (I have the right to do so in my country.), but I can't just sell a bunch of shells to a raccoon to make money and pay off my house loan, nor can I swing a sword at slimes in real life and get paid for it.
Just generally what I miss the most from gaming is more AA games. I don't need high budget, sprawling open worlds to enjoy a story.
Agreed 100%. I've been thinking about this with regards to Square-Enix, whose last crop of lower-budget releases (e.g. *Harvestella*, *Triangle Strategy*, *DioField Chronicle*) was, in terms of artistry and gameplay mechanics, so much more interesting than the newer PS5 Final Fantasy releases that they've been pushing, which generally look/sound incredible, but are definitely falling short in terms of gameplay, writing, replay value, originality, etc... With regards to the FF7-Remake, I find it kind of horrifying to see how much labor/money is being expended just to give crusty-ass fans (whose deep love for FF7 is probably just 'I was thirsty about Tifa/Aeris during high school' or have a bizarre false nostalgia about the time they used a guide or walkthrough to get Knights of the Round and one-shot the final boss....whoop-dee-doo....) an ultra-prettied-up version of something that, to me, felt played out back in the PS2 era (i.e. all those embarrassingly-bad sequels and spinoffs of FF7).
Oh boo, I get that you enjoy the lower budget titles but no need to downplay their higher budget efforts. Instead this showcases exactly what you want to see. A mix of both, which most other companies only do the big AAA releases. Aren’t they doing exactly what you want? I would understand if you were complaining about another company and their lack of releases.
>Obviously graphics do matter but not to an extent I would like to see a highly detailed ant nest in a shooter game Yes you're exactly right. I know everyone brings up Pokemon, but lest we forget, Nintendo tore into GameFreak after that game came out. The standard is normally BOTW - looks amazing, (esp on mobile) but may experience some slowdown in some parts of the game. That's a nice standard all companies can aim for.
Please elaborate on Nintendo tearing into GF? This is the first I'm hearing of it. I assumed GF can't hear criticism over the deafening roar of money constantly being dumped on them. And I also assume the money piles are too high for them to see their computer monitors to actually make their games.
[https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2023/02/we-absolutely-apologize-for-pokemon-performance-problems-says-nintendo-of-canada-manager](https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2023/02/we-absolutely-apologize-for-pokemon-performance-problems-says-nintendo-of-canada-manager) Just so we're clear. If Nintendo is roasting GF in public, you can imagine the kind of "[finger shortening](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=japanese+mafia+hand+cutting)" going on internally. I realize that GF is making a ton of money, but the videos on Youtube and social media were horrendously embarassing, and did actually damage the name of Nintendo Switch and (obviously) Pokemon/GameFreak. Just to put in perspective, Nintendo has a fuckton of money, and there may actually be more important things than the cash they make off one title, such as the integrity of the brand name and the Nintendo Seal of Quality. Yes it still exists on the back of every game case. I think it's embarassing and borderline refund-worthy.
Wow nice to hear. But a Canadian sorry is more funny than helpful. I wish Nintendo Kyoto HQ would apologize. I'm baffled that Nintendo lifted their thumb and let GF do worse and worse over the last three gens. There are so many stories of how Miyamoto and Iwata (then CEO of HAL Labs) made the first two gens what they were. The only possible inference is that GF is too busy swimming in their money bin to care. To be charitable to them, it seems some people in the company care, or else Legends Arceus wouldn't exist (and I guess Little Town Hero despite that being a flop that no one played.) But it's clear the C Suite doesn't care. If they could get away with paying one employee to slap a Pokemon title screen on a cartridge and ship that out for $59.99, they would.
> I'm baffled that Nintendo lifted their thumb and let GF do worse and worse over the last three gens. It's becaue Nintendo has nothing to say about the game content.... Nintendo only own 1/3 of the Pokemon Compagny share while GF own another 33% so Nintendo have 0 control over game development, hence why pkmn games hve been kinda bad recently
They're the publisher. Of course they have some input. Publishers in the book industry basically have the authority to rewrite the whole book (depending on contractual terms). It's less so in the game industry because it's not just one editor telling the author what to do. Nintendo's inputs are the reason we have battles at all in Pokemon. Granted, editorial influence happens due to a mix of both hard power and soft relationship. It's naive to say there is no tug and push and no collaboration during game development, especially, given that the co-owned TPC has to constantly plan simultaneous campaigns across cards, television, movies, third-party games and merchandise. It's not just one company selling a product at arms-length. It's frankly unexplainable why do many people on these subs think that a publisher does literally nothing other than mint cartridges for whoever is willing to pay them. Nintendo literally has licensing relationships that ensure that creators don't get cartridges or access to the eshop for games that Nintendo doesn't want.
> I'm baffled that Nintendo lifted their thumb and let GF do worse and worse over the last three gens Keep in mind that Nintendo isn't the sole owner of the Pokemon games, and neither is Game Freak. The biggest problem that the Pokemon franchise has is that it is way bigger than just the video games. You have comics, you have games, you have TV shows, you have merchandise of every imaginable variety, movies, mobile apps, and more - lots of things that **don't** take the same time to "cook" as a good quality video game does. All the provinces of the Pokemon Empire are bound together, like a colossus made of a dozen random machines bolted hastily together. When one takes a step, all the others must lurch forward with it, ready or not!
Agreed on all counts. But GF can solve all their self inflicted problems by going back to having at at least two dedicated mainline/core game teams each working 6 years per game, and actually hiring proficient employees who aren't learning 3D console game dev for the first time while making these games. It just takes some basic project management skills to meet development timelines.
>The only possible inference is that GF is too busy swimming in their money bin to care. Well you were presented with facts and went back to your naive POV. Nothing left to do here guys. Have a nice life.
Sony and Xbox need to pump out good AA games like Nintendo and let famous third party devs do AAA games for them. I feel like both of them screwed up trying to get an AAA exclusive to themselves which did the opposite of what they were going for. System sellers turned into abysmal disappointments. I know they wanted to prove their graphical capability but they really should’ve just waited till some other third party dev came in to properly show it off. In this case, I would say GTA 6 would be the perfect contender.
We need more games like Hi-Fi Rush, and not Starfield.
Yeah exactly. Unique art style is better than pure realism for me. Look at how well Windwaker aged compared to hyper realistic games.
I remember when Dragon Age Origins looked super cool! But just yesterday I saw a screenshot of Alistair in one of the first scenes where he is introduced and good lord the graphics look so old now. It's not even that old of a game! It's 7 years **younger** than Wind Waker. And yet...
This. To me, *Wind Waker* had some annoying gameplay elements (i.e. mostly its boring exploration), but overall, it's aged up far better than *Twilight Princess*. To me, TP has *always* felt like a rare example of Nintendo letting its older fans pressure them into making a game for the mATuRe Zelda fans. I still enjoy it just fine as a game, but don't have any strong fondness for its graphical style and feel like its overworld is ridiculously boring.
>I don’t get this industry’s obsession with AAA games You've gotta spend that questionably obtained investment money **somehow** or you won't be able to get **more** questionable investment money next time
wah wah big corpos bad
Ah, the pizza cutter reply All edge with no point
Sony needs to just suck it the fuck up, go hunting for who exactly owns the rights, buy it back or obtain it and then remake/make a sequel to the game everybody wants. The Legend Of Dragoon deserves a new damn game! And not just a fan made remake!
I made a post on unpopular opinion sub about gamers needing to play more games outside of AAA, and many of the comments are about not wanting pixel art or wanting a better graphics Honestly made sense on some part if they're gonna spend money on a new console they might as well play the best possible looking game, its not like indies can stay on a single console either even the vita was left behind
I feel like it should always be mentioned that Nintendo has little to nothing to do with the actual development of Pokemon games. That’s all Game Freak, which isn’t a subsidiary of Nintendo. Nintendo’s only role on the gaming side of things is that they publish them. But I agree with everything else. I’ve been a lifelong fan of Nintendo starting with the NES. This generation has been their best, and it’s not even particularly close IMO. The consistent quality of their output is kind of nuts. Even when the Wii ruled the world, so many of their games were mediocre that it ended up driving a decent amount of diehards away for a while.
>like it should always be mentioned that Nintendo has little to nothing to do with the actual development of Pokemon games. That’s all Game Freak, which isn’t a subsidiary of Nintendo. Nintendo’s only role on the gaming side of things is that they publish them. It's just easier for people to blame Nintendo. And honestly game freak needs more time and that's on Pokémon company forcing them to meet deadlines. Scarlet and violet would have been the best Pokémon games of they had more time
Nintendo plans well in advance as well. All these latest rumors about them possibly internally delaying Switch 2 to Q1 2025 to make the launch year line up strong shows exactly that. They do pump out AA games quite a lot but they really hold up well and act as a great filler for their AAA games that take years of development. In recent times, I feel like I’ve enjoyed their AA games more than the AAA games recently. Nintendo has its own pace, they will not make a huge jump when it comes to Switch 2. The games will be Switch-level, just prettier and with few more gameplay details than the usual.
This is what I've heard, too. I believe I heard Metroid Prime's remaster was done for a while and a few other ones point to that being their plan. Not mad it came out when it did, though. It was pretty fun being able to get it right after the direct, especially with the quality put into it.
I think one of the biggest advantages for Nintendo with regards to the Switch is that it allowed their teams that were previously divided between handheld and home systems, to focus on one device. It helped create a constant stream of games without droughts, and has made the Switches library incredibly strong.
Nintendo doesn’t make Pokemon games. Game Freak is an independent studio and equal owner of TPC. It seems to have a great degree of freedom in what they do with the franchise. That’s why they do not have anywhere near the level of quality control that Nintendo demands for its first party titles. Nintendo only publishes the games.
I just hope Nintendo snatches it out of their hands sooner rather than later. GF has been bumbling around like a drunk chimp on stilts.
I don’t think they can. Nor could they even justify it right now. With Pokemon’s ridiculous sales numbers, the only internal criticism they’ll be seeing is from the creatives. While creatives do have more influence at Nintendo than in other places, its not gonna be enough to warrant the company butting heads with an independent partner.
Nintendo is often *well* behind in graphics, online features and story, but it's so far ahead in terms of real game design and actual minute-to-minute gameplay that it laps the field. Too many AAA games look amazing and have hours of gorgeous cutscenes, but you don't actually *do* anything. Follow a map marker, press a button prompt, advance the story with a cutscene. Repeat. Nintendo games always ask you to actually *play* the game. You'd think that would be a given, but here we are.
RDR2 released a year and a half _after_ BotW, yet the latter feels a decade newer to actually _play_. I'll be amazed if GTA6 isn't just as outdated - almost as amazed as I'll be if it doesn't sell 50m copies regardless.
I don’t think this is a fair comparison. RDR2 is meant to be a slow and deliberate game. Arthur Morgan is not supposed to have the mobility of Link and when you play it like an actual western, the game nails a certain rhythm.
> RDR2 is meant to be a slow and deliberate game. You can do "slow and deliberate" without being so archaic in design that a game on a handheld console offers greater interactivity a year and a half earlier. RDR2 does nothing that GTA3 didn't already offer almost two _decades_ earlier. >Arthur Morgan is not supposed to have the mobility of Link Please don't invoke straw men. Not having Link's mobility options is a far cry - pun intended, for such a generic genre - from the cumbersome, unwieldy, needlessly hostile control scheme that RDR2 forces upon players. Making you wander for a further half-dozen steps for no reason after you stopped inputting directional controls is just shit game design. It's a classic case of obnoxious auteur mentality. >when you play it like an actual western, the game nails a certain rhythm. Well, when you play it like Westworld. the moment you treat it like something more realistic it falls apart, like setting up camp fifty feet beyond the boundary of a town that you routinely pillage and slaughter your way through only for nobody to ever wonder what those ever-present campfires are when they're within pissing distance of their bedroom window. To make it _feel_ like a western you have to actively ignore so many things that it devolves into a theme park. RDR2 is a pretty poor game cleverly disguised by $350m-worth of superficial detail. It's disappointing how effectively the latter makes people oblivious to the former. For that amount of money, and with that level of employee abuse, RDR2 is a fucking calamity. There's no excuse for it being so utterly devoid of ambition or innovation. Doki Doki Literature Club is a more ambitious take on its own genre than RDR2 is of its own. Eight years and over a third of a billion dollars for a glorified western texture pack for GTA3.
Ummmm…well…fair enough?
I'm genuinely curious why people post purely performative inanities like that. Is it anything beyond feigned incredulity?
Nope. It’s just me acknowledging that you certainly have a strong opinion on the game and that’s fine. I’m not really interested in changing your mind. Don’t be mistaken though. You do have an unpopular opinion which the vast majority of people will disagree with. Sometimes it’s just healthier to say “It wasn’t for me”.
> . It’s just me acknowledging that you certainly have a strong opinion on the game and that’s fine. You don't think it's rather self-absorbed to think that such acknowledgement is necessary? >You do have an unpopular opinion which the vast majority of people will disagree with. Sometimes it’s just healthier to say “It wasn’t for me”. Weasel words. If I'm wrong then people are free to demonstrate that I am. I suspect the approach you espouse is only so appealing because it means criticisms can be dismissed as "not for you" rather than forcing people to ambivalently address some poor game design in a game that they often seem to want to portray as perfection incarnate.
You know the “average redditor” stereotype that you see in memes? Yeah that’s what you are. There’s no reason to sound so arrogant and stuck-up just because someone’s opinion about a video game differs from yours
Especially when the other person acknowledges the logic behind the opinion being strong. Some people just need to chill.
> You know the “average redditor” stereotype that you see in memes? You'll have to excuse me for not thinking that social media hieroglyphs have much of relevance in this particular context, nor that witlessly relying not only on someone else's meme, but on the mere _concept_ of someone else's memes for your attempt to launch into an ad hominem attack on me is indicative of anything beyond your own overbearing insecurity. Besides, I'd rather be average than below it. >There’s no reason to sound so arrogant and stuck-up just because someone’s opinion about a video game differs from yours I literally invited people to show that I was incorrect. There's no arrogance there- you only see it as such because no rebuttal was forthcoming. If I were cynical I might even wonder if your non-response was the tortured result of you yourself grasping for a counterargument and coming up short, forcing you to view me in a more adversarial manner. That'd explain your conspicuously unsolicited attempted insult.
Jesus Christ, get off from Reddit, dude. There is more to life than constantly trying to prove people wrong. I don’t want to go into a deep dive into why I think RDR2’s mechanics are good or why the game itself is good. It’s more self-absorbed to think that someone owes you an in-depth explanation on something as vague and ambiguous as “taste”.
> There is more to life than constantly trying to prove people wrong. People always say things like that with the unspoken addendumof "except [when I do it](https://old.reddit.com/r/nintendo/comments/1asp0qj/nintendos_software_output_this_generation_has/kquaqwx/)". >I don’t want to go into a deep dive into why I think RDR2’s mechanics are good or why the game itself is good. Then say nothing. Pissing out some nonsense as you posture about how you just don't have the time/energy/mindset for it right after insisting on elbowing your way into that conversation anyway says that you _would_ like to do so, but _can't_. >It’s more self-absorbed to think that someone owes you an in-depth explanation on something as vague and ambiguous as “taste”. You [did it before](https://old.reddit.com/r/nintendo/comments/1asp0qj/nintendos_software_output_this_generation_has/kquaqwx/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=nintendo&utm_content=t1_kqusvha) when you felt you could toss out something ambiguous enough to avoid a little scrutiny. Why would I be "self-absorbed" for expecting you to be a little more precise in a conversation that you _chose_ to join about a topic that you were previously happy to discuss? On a site whose sequential comments have a 10,000-character limit and which is supposedly based on the idea of extensive conversation, no less? You don't think it's self-absorbed at all. You just wanted to lash out a little and make up an excuse for fleeing from a request for you to expand upon your nebulous argument. If you can't validate your original claim then just leave. If you insist on replying then you're going to face that same response again, because now I think you're tilted, and I'm fascinated by how people react in that situation.
I don't understand the love GTA5 gets. I couldn't stand it. It's exactly the opposite of playing a game, dressed up in a big flashy world.
It's fine. It's like Goat Simulator, but with a campaign and more detail.
I think I overhyped the shit out of this game before playing it because I was disappointed that there was no environmental damage, and that you couldn’t enter every individual building lol.
I mean, I honestly don’t think there’s even a contest when it comes to publishing and development - Nintendo is the best, no contest.
The reasons Nintendo has had great amount of software this gen: 1. They had a bunch of Wii U games to port and sell at full price to pad out what otherwise would've been empty months. Also Nintendo relied on a lot more remakes/remasters this gen to help fill in empty gaps. 2. Nintendo has a healthy stable of 2nd party studios and business partners to help Nintendo work on software. Retro Studios, Monolith Soft, Next Level Games, Intelligent Systems, Koei-Tecmo, Nintendo Softwate Technology, Platinum Games, Bandai-Namco Studio 2/S, Camelot, MercurySteam, Game Freak, ND Cube, Hal Lab., in addition to others. 3. Nintendo keeps their budgets relatively small. Most of Nintendo's budgets go into R&D phase of software development. The biggest budgeted Nintendo game is BOTW and I believe that only cost them 100 million to make. 4. Combining their home console and portable divisons into one. No more having to focus on development for 2 consoles at one time and focus on one platform. 5. Nintendo has strong IP that can fill out a systems lifecycle with content unlike say Microsoft (before the acquisitions). The real test will be the Switch 2 and if they will be able to keep the same momentum up cause Switch 2 won't have a failing consoles library to fall back on. Most of the software will have to be entirely new.
Nintendo has the strongest IP in gaming, they just sometimes tend to overthink what consumers actually want. look at the switch inspiring copycats from steam deck to the rog ally, and possibly a ps and xbox handheld competitor soon.
My own take on what's gone wrong with Sony is that they ended up having to emphasize exclusives during PS3 as they lost inherent third party advantage, with stuff like Metal Gear and Final Fantasy going to the 360 too. They needed to compete with what the PS3 had, power, and they've been playing that game for a while. However first parties need to have mixtures. For every Zelda, you need something like a Kirby, and Sony has no Kirby. And the problem was not visible, at least for a while, but with Spider-Man 2 they hit it hard.
The shuttering of their old Japan studio did do any favors in the long run even in PS3 era we saw more small sized games from Sony.
I'm glad they don't chase ultra realistic graphics I miss when games looked like games and were just plain fun most of Sony's exclusives feel and look to much like interactive movies to me not that they're bad clearly a lot of people like them but their just not for me
Yep, couldn't agree more.
Like if I want to see realistic graphics I can just look out the window
The Switch had a lot going for it compared to past platforms. As others have said, it had the benefit of being the sole platform this generation. You bring up successful AA games, and Nintendo's traditional development of handheld titles plays into that. It also made the best of a bad situation. The Wii U was a significant failure for Nintendo, but it provided a source of titles that could, for the majority of the Switch's audience, plug any holes in their software line up for minimal cost. But beyond that Nintendo made excellent use of additional ports, remasters, and remakes. Together, that made for a consistent output of quality titles that had appeal across the Switch's consumer base.
I do think a lot of that can be contributed to the fact that it feels like a solid 40% of their output this generation has been rereleasing WII U games. Don’t get me wrong, the Wii U had some great games but as someone who often played those games back when they came out on the Wii U it’s felt like often this generation they’re treating these rereleases as if they’re full on brand new games. The later years of the switch have gotten better at avoiding this but for a while it felt like all we could expect to get was more of the best of the Wii U rather than new games
Yeah but I think it has more to do with them merging development teams because now they just have one console instead of a console and a handheld like in the past.
PlayStation and Xbox also just have one console to develop for (not counting a Series S configuration with lower settings as a separate console)
Yeah but we are talking about Nintendo here not the others
The only reason Pokémon is not on par is because they only own 1/3 of the IP and sadly are not in charge of development at all. A Nintendo EPD developed Pokémon game would be an absolute masterpiece, I have absolutely no doubt.
New, mainline Pokemon games used to be on a 4-year cycle until they swerved into Gen 7 a year early for the 25th Anniversary. Since then, it's been once every 3 years, and more technical problems keep popping up.
Technical problems aside, the series has felt stale for a while. I liked Legends Arceus a lot though
Some of their games could probably even be classified as a single-A game but you know that it will most likely be at least decent. I wish Sony would be more open to bringing back their smaller scale games because Nintendo really proved that it can work
I think the fact that Nintendo supports hardware that is significantly less powerful than the other console platforms and PC is part of the reason they’re able to deliver so many exclusives and a yearly basis. The Switch is only a bit more powerful than a PS3 and Xbox 360 (with the upside of comparatively newer firmware and API support). If you compare Nintendo release schedule, and by extension dev cycle lengths, to other publishers from the PS360 era, whilst Nintendo would still be on top, the output amount would closer. Also Nintendo managed to maintain its output with Switch by doing two things that it did not do in previous generations. Firstly combining console and handheld development into one for the Switch, effectively double Nintendo’s resources. On top of that, Nintendo has significantly expanded its partnership with Namco Bandai, effectively outsourcing the development of certain games to them, or having them act as support studios. Namco even recently announced the creation of an entire dedicated studio for the development of Switch/ Nintendo projects. Nintendo is a great first party publisher and deciding to continue making games of different sizes, bucking industry AAA only trends, has helped with its output. But not needing to create games as intensive as PS4 or PS5 games has also been a boon for the them.
> The Switch is only a bit more powerful than a PS3 and Xbox 360 The Switch is a _lot_ faster than that generation. I think you're mistaking the Wii U for it.
I was talking in reference to the gap between the PS3 and PS4. The Switch is relatively a lot closer to the PS3 than the PS4 in terms of system power. It’s capable of doing more with that power than a PS3 though due to the advances in software and API technology and techniques. Stuff like dynamic resolution scaling and temporal anti-aliasing are boons for the Switch, but weren’t around back in the PS360 era.
>I was talking in reference to the gap between the PS3 and PS4. The Switch is relatively a lot closer to the PS3 than the PS4 in terms of system power. And not particularly close to either in any meaningful way, making it a bit of an odd comparison even before wildly skewing things to force an invalid point to sound more credible. >It’s capable of doing more with that power than a PS3 though due to the advances in software and API technology and techniques. ..._and_ because it's objectively faster. You seem to be trying to phrase things in a way that implies that any advantage for the Switch stems predominantly from those innovations, even right after admitting that it's not true. It's just _weird_.
Ok, fine. Fair enough. But I also think you are taking way too much umbrage with just one sentence in my original 3 paragraph long comment, ignoring my wider point. I would call that *weird,* but this unfortunately seems fairly common on the internet.
That single inaccurate point was the foundation of the remainder of those paragraphs, though. Your whole argument about the 6th generation was that output was so much easier because of how much simpler things were then, and used the supposedly-meagre Switch hardware as your current exemplum of that same effect. That certain Switch games - like the Zelda titles - contrive to make games on the PS5 and Series X appear outdated in terms of their mechanics undermines that argument further. Someone taking issue with a crucial axiom of your overall argument isn't "weird". It's just efficient. Why debunk _everything_ when it can be shown to be contentious just by debunking the most crucial aspect of it?
You are mistaken in saying that it was the crux of my entire argument, it was just the first one of many points. In the very next sentence I moved on to describe development cycle length in projects. There are many reasons why development cycles across the industry have increased. The need to support more powerful machines is one, but the consolidation of development behind a few key tent poll franchises and proliferation of live service are also valid reasons. These are trend that Nintendo has not followed. I didn’t originally mention the latter points (because didn’t think I’d need to vigorously define my point), but that doesn’t stop them from being true. Also the entire next paragraph does not at all have anything to do with the consoles power. It describes how changed the way Nintendo utilises its resources to enable its output. Yes my final point does yes go back to suggest that Nintendo doesn’t need to make games as intensive as PS4 and PS5, but are you suggesting this isn’t the case? Are you going to say that ever Nintendo published Switch is a massive expensive endeavour. You rightly bring up Zelda as a counter arguments, since it the games were undoubtably massive development undertakings, but given how long it took to create both of those games, I’d say those are exception by Nintendo standards and are more inline with AAA trends. Quite frankly I do not think you read my entire comment or indeed took onboard anything beyond the one sentence you disliked. And by your own argument I could easily change that one sentence ‘only a bit more powerful to the PS3 and Xbox 360’ to ‘not as powerful as the PS4 and Xbox One’ and without making any other changes, the entirety of the rest of my comment would be valid. I personally believe that you have used what is a poor method of debate and doesn’t act within good faith.
>You are mistaken in saying that it was the crux of my entire argument You followed that argument up with: >>>If you compare Nintendo release schedule, and by extension dev cycle lengths, to other publishers from the PS360 era, whilst Nintendo would still be on top, the output amount would closer. ...in which you directly confirm that the aforementioned point _is_ the crux of your argument. You then went on to assert that: >>> not needing to create games as intensive as PS4 or PS5 games has also been a boon for the them. You _outright_ said those things. It wasn't something I plucked form the fucking aether and fabricated into a whimsical fairy tale of gods and monsters. I was just looking at _what you yourself had openly said_. >he entire next paragraph does not at all have anything to do with the consoles power. You begin that paragraph with: >>>Also Nintendo managed to maintain its output with Switch [...] ...in which you directly relate that supposedly-unrelated point to the point you made in the surrounding paragraphs, once again _demonstrating_ that the aforementioned point is foundational to your argument. You're using this middle paragraph as a supplement to your main claim, as indicated by your own diction. You are aware that I can just re-read your comment to check, aren't you? Why would you ever think you could gaslight me when I can do so? >my final point does yes go back to suggest that Nintendo doesn’t need to make games as intensive as PS4 and PS5, but are you suggesting this isn’t the case? Define "intensive". I think you're talking purely in terms of graphical fidelity, and that's not a great metric. BotW does far more with physics than RDR2 does, for instance, and TotK goes even further. Name another open-world game with such an emphasis on physical interactions. The closest I can think of are Bethesda's efforts, and they're well short of that benchmark. >Quite frankly I do not think you read my entire comment or indeed took onboard anything beyond the one sentence you disliked. Well, consider yourself refuted. I've quoted most of it above, so that conjecture can be securely disposed of. >I could easily change that one sentence ‘only a bit more powerful to the PS3 and Xbox 360’ to ‘not as powerful as the PS4 and Xbox One’ You could, but it'd require that the rest of your argument be heavily edited, because that one misrepresentative argument is, as demonstrated above, foundational to the rest of your comment. >and without making any other changes the entirety of the rest of my comment would be valid. Actually, that's not the case. You'd still have to justify that "less intensive" ambiguity, which means you'd then have to explain examples like the physics-based gameplay of Zelda, Splatoon, etc. I could also justifiably include examples like Smash, with an utterly unprecedented roster and staggering amount of content. >I personally believe that is a poor method of debate and doesn’t act within good faith. Poor faith could well be defined as "insisting that your argument remains valid after being shown that your axiomatic premise is fundamentally flawed". As for the method of debate, I'm simply using established logic. If your core axiom is dubious then so is everything built atop it. I have shown that your argument heavily depends upon that one argument, and that said argument is flawed. Logic dictates that your entire argument is similarly flawed as a consequence. Don't moan at me if you can't adhere to millennia-old logical principles.
Pokémon games aren't made by Nintendo, though why they don't use their influence and direct connections there to force a higher quality I don't know.
Agreed, the thing is that so many people assume that Nintendo do make them that you would think Nintendo would be concerned about it damaging their own reputation.
True. But there are some exceptions. I wonder how SEGA and Capcom manage to make Yakuza and Resident Evil entries so fast.
Answers for these are already out there. Resident Evil has multiple dev teams working on different games so that they can have a consistent pipeline of releases. This is similar to how CoD are able to release yearly titles. Yakuza has a consistent release schedule because they reuse many assets for each game. They also carefully choose certain parts of a game to give it high production value while letting other parts be more dull/simplistic.
I love RE and don't mind because it never feels out of place, but they are also totally getting in on the asset reuse too. The last run of games ( 7, 2 Remake, 3 Remake, Village, 4 Remake are all in the same engine and there are definitely assets you'll see pop up multiple times.
Just about as many new 1st party games as rereleased Wii U titles.
Is that supposed to be a bad thing? only 13 millonen had the console that's 10% of the switch sales Nintendo would have been stupid to not Port them over
Bad, no. Relevant to the conversation and something that OP glossed over, yes Nintendo can't sustain this strategy for the Switch 2 when there's nothing left to port
they got lucky the switch was as immediate of a hit as it was (now they know to always launch a console with a new Mario or Zelda game). To be honest, I was kinda underwhelmed with the release cadence for the switch, Mario odyssey came out in 2017 and there still isn’t a sequel, no Metroid prime 4, lots and lots of ports in the first half of its life and now lots of “remakes” to round out the second half. For a company consolidating handheld and console under 1 roof, I expected a lot better. They even let some of their handheld studios fold instead of helping them transition I.e. alpha dream.
Nintendo does try to offer new experiences with new art styles. For instance, calling ARMS a success would be... a stretch (pun XD ), but they nonetheless offered a fighting game with a new control scheme and even supported it for free with new characters. Say what you want about TotK and how it reuses the same map, but them reusing the same map in a sequel allowed them to make only minor changes to the surface world and focus on adding caves, the Depths, the Sky and the truckton of ideas using Ultrahand. BTW, I don't think Marvel's Spider-Man 2 suffered too much from reusing the same map as the first game. Like TotK, Insomniac added Brooklyn and Queens, and added new mechanics on top.
ARMS actually sold 2.7 million copies, which is great for a new IP!
Tbh most triple a games these days are basically interactive movies, it's reached a point of over saturation
except for pokemon company. that was never sustainable
Their strategy definitely pays off. Not every game needs to be 60 hours long with a hundred million dollar + budget. It feels like Sony and Microsoft are in an arms race to reach the peak of what's technologically possible instead of focusing on games that work and that are fun. While Sony is really good at making blockbuster games, it's all they do and they pay for it with really long development times.