A very good read, check it out.
http://cube.ign.com/articles/561/561400p1.html
Introduction
Nintendo has, perhaps, the richest history of any company in the video game industry. It resurrected that industry in the early 1980s, breathing life and vitality back into a market barely afloat on a sea of worn-out ideas and unrealized potential. Its games defined a generation and the stars of those games, even today, remain as some of the most powerful icons in gaming history. Nevertheless, since its days of dominance Nintendo has defined and redefined little more than its own past. Today, Nintendo is not in the dominant position it was ten years ago, nor is it defining any new generations. It continues to create some of the best games on the market, but mainly designs those games for its own niche audience - an audience that seems to grow less diverse with each passing year.
Nintendo remains one of the top software publishers in the world and still dominates the handheld industry it created in 1989 with the Game Boy, but it is nowhere near the powerful force that it once was. Its last two home consoles, the Nintendo 64 and GameCube, have each seen steep sales declines over their respective predecessors. This trend doesn't appear to be on the eve of change either.
Nintendo has always been an innovator. It is responsible for a number of hardware and gameplay innovations throughout the last two decades. Without it, the industry would be relatively aimless, possibly ending up much like it did with the crash of the video game business in the early 1980s. However, today much of its innovation goes largely unrecognized. A considerable segment of the mainstream media and gamers today almost completely ignore the GameCube. It is one thing to be hated, but Nintendo has been almost entirely phased out of the collective consciousness of millions. This is a far worse fate. But why is this? Nintendo continues to make some of the best games on the market, so why must it fight an uphill battle to attract a new audience? The answer is both relatively simple and highly complex.
Nintendo has entered the business of developing games for its own fans. With an audience that was once fairly broad, this strategy worked well for some time, but trying to constantly recapture the same audience with the same techniques, game styles, and the same brands can only work for so long. Sooner or later that audience will dwindle. Nintendo needs to loosen up and reach out to new gamers. It needs to start creating entirely original games for every segment of the diverse gaming population if it ever hopes to rekindle the fires of success. Nintendo needs to stop playing it safe and start recognizing its full potential in the gaming world of the 21st century.
Core Brands for Core Audiences
The success of a Nintendo system has historically rested on Nintendo's shoulders. Pretty much every console or system the company has ever released has been pulled along by the might and power of Nintendo's many successful brands. The GameCube is no different. The overwhelming majority of the GameCube's best selling titles are developed by Nintendo itself. On top of that, virtually every one of those games is based on an existing franchise (or brand). Core franchises like Super Mario, The Legend of Zelda, F-Zero, Metroid, Star Fox, and Mario Kart defined the Super Nintendo in the early 90s, they defined the Nintendo 64 (excluding Metroid) in the late 90s, and they continue to define the GameCube today. While these franchises continue to sell well, their appeal is limited in today's market. Nintendo cannot hope to appeal to vast new audiences by banking on the success of aging franchises.
Super Mario Sunshine, Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, Metroid Prime, Mario Kart: Double Dash, and Super Smash Bros.: Melee represent the direct continuations of Nintendo's largest and most profitable franchises and are five of the best selling titles on the GameCube. One might even venture to say that they are the five best selling games for the Cube and, without hesitation, I would back that assumption. They are also likely to be the only games on the system (by any publisher) to sell over a million units in the United States.
Yet, none of those games have come close to even matching the popularity and sales of their predecessors. Of course there are many reasons for this, but when it comes down to it, these games (with the exception of Metroid Prime) are little more than categorical updates to their Nintendo 64 predecessors, in terms of gameplay. While, this strategy of updating and polishing worked well for games like Super Smash Bros.: Melee (the top selling GameCube title), Nintendo's choices in art style and design for the other three were hit and miss with even the most devoted of fans.
Super Mario Sunshine was definitely a better game then Super Mario 64 in many respects, but its childish theme and overall difficulty attracted few newcomers to the series. Though I thoroughly enjoyed the game, I don't believe I'm alone in saying that, at times, it didn't even feel like a Mario game. The characters were there, the baddies looked familiar, but the essence of what has always made Mario so great was notably absent throughout the majority of the adventure. I also know I'm not the only one who found the platforming cave levels to be some of the best parts of the game. Those levels were classic Mario fun, yet their style clashed distinctly from the rest of the game. Mario Kart: Double Dash followed closely in the footsteps of Sunshine. Though it featured a few new ways to play, many felt it to be uninspired in some areas, even bordering on lackluster when compared to its predecessors. Regardless, both games were designed almost strictly for the Nintendo fan and had limited appeal to the rest of the gaming population.
The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker is in a slightly different boat. The game featured a dramatically different artistic approach than either of its predecessors on the N64, which were host to a more realistic and adventurous graphical style. The Wind Waker looked, and still looks, like nothing else on the market. The game was designed to be a vast, epic, and interactive cartoon. Predictably, this massive change in art style brought with it many who criticized the game for its graphics alone. However, aside from the new art direction, the game remained incredibly similar to its N64 predecessors. At times, it even bordered on unoriginal and formulaic. Though it ranks as my favorite Legend of Zelda title, The Wind Waker did little to reach out to new fans. I'd venture to say that it wouldn't have even sold as well as is has, had Nintendo not offered the original Ocarina of Time as an incentive to preorder the game.
At this point, I do not believe it is possible for Nintendo's core franchises to attract a myriad of new gamers. Their purpose will remain what they should have been for some time: support. Franchises like Mario and Zelda regained a lot of lost momentum when Nintendo successfully reinvented them in the three dimensional realm, but not even the colossal success of games like Ocarina of Time and Super Mario 64 were enough to keep the Nintendo 64 on equal footing with the PlayStation. Even if the next Legend of Zelda for GCN matches the critical acclaim and popularity of Ocarina of Time what help will that be in the long run? The GameCube will have a hit game, great. A few big hits didn't save the Nintendo 64. The most that games like Mario and Zelda can do is try to match their past successes. An awesome new Mario game will attract back fans of Super Mario 64 and an awesome new Zelda will bring back fans of Ocarina of Time. It is obvious that Nintendo needs to knock on a few new doors. Its core franchises will always be important, but cannot be solely relied upon to reach out to new audiences. Nintendo needs to start developing new franchises for a new generation.
Attracting New Game(r)s
Nintendo has done little to attract new gamers to the GameCube. It has taken no real risks, developing the same games it always has with the same familiar faces it always has, and releasing them just as it always has. While things might have been better had there been only the PlayStation 2 to compete with, Microsoft's Xbox has further dissolved Nintendo's fan base and impacted sales quite a bit. Combined with Nintendo's complete lack of online support, this has led to the GameCube being the odd man out when developers are choosing platforms for games with online play or features. The complete elimination or postponement of a number of GameCube titles has resulted. Truly excellent games like Burnout 3 can now only be played on the XBX and PS2 and many games, like Mortal Kombat: Deception, have been delayed for the GameCube and stripped of online functionality. Examples like these are common and only further diminish the status of Nintendo's system in the eyes of gamers and the media alike.
However, Nintendo has been working together with 3rd party developers much more than they probably ever have before. This is definitely a good thing and will help the company a great deal in the future. The deal with Capcom that led to the GameCube getting the likes of Viewtiful Joe, Resident Evil 4, P.N.03, and Killer 7 was definitely a step in the right direction. If only there were more such examples. The majority of deals Nintendo has been making with 3rd parties involve little more than the creation of games using established Nintendo brands. Titles like F-Zero GX and the upcoming Star Fox GC were developed by Sega and Namco respectively. Aside from quenching the appetites of thirsty Nintendo fans, these types of partnerships do little to bolster hardware sales or reach new audiences. Instead of pooling the collective talent of Sega and Nintendo together, what we have is Sega making a Nintendo game. As great as it may be, it is but a shadow of what could have been.
Namco's Soul Calibur II is another issue entirely. I'm sure many consider the inclusion of Link in the GCN version of Soul Calibur II to be a very positive thing, but what message is it sending? That third party titles can sell better on the GCN than their PS2 and XBX counterparts, but only if Nintendo hands over its most revered mascot character? It is almost depressing to think of just how niche the user base of GameCube (and Nintendo consoles in general) has become. An incredible fighter like Soul Calibur II would have sold worst on the GameCube if not for the inclusion of Link. Nintendo's audience is so segmented that sports games, role-playing games, and a multitude of other genres are under represented on the Cube because, well, they don't sell. In other words, they aren't Nintendo games. If Nintendo doesn't start taking serious steps to attract fans of all genres, it is going to find itself fighting a continual uphill battle in the years to come.
Nintendo has made a few modest attempts to attract fans of different genres to its console though. The problem is that these efforts are very limited. Remakes of big PSone games like Metal Gear Solid and Resident Evil have been one strategy Nintendo has tried, but what it fails to realize is that fans of these games have already moved on. Trying to attract new audiences by rehashing games of their past, just doesn't work in the long run. The other problem with this tactic is that these are just two games. To truly attract fans of these and other genres, they have to have something to play once they finish Resident Evil. Having to wait a year or more for even a decent game of any genre isn't something gamers should have to put up with. If Nintendo truly wishes to attract a new audience, it is going to have to try a lot harder.
Direct Sequelitis
But how can Nintendo ever hope to attract a new audience and a greater variety of games, if the company itself is providing little more than a pile of direct sequels to support its system? Not only are many of its core franchises suffering from a lack of originality, its secondary franchises are feeling the burn as well. For every supposed original game Nintendo puts out, there are at least two sequels that lack any form of originality whatsoever.
Nintendo has been doing this for years, but never has it been as evident as it is this generation. The N64 was just as bad, but the intense popularity of games like Super Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time gave their respective series' a new 3D face and seemed to energize the system. The Nintendo 64 also became the home to a great deal of original titles from Rareware. Games like Goldeneye 007, Perfect Dark, Conker's Bad Fur Day, Jet Force Gemini, Blast Corps., and Banjo Kazooie went a long way to keeping Nintendo afloat at that time. Other newcomers like Wave Race 64, 1080 Snowboarding, and Star Wars: Rogue Squadron all helped to define the system as something fresh. I'll even go as far to say that games like Mario Party, Super Smash Bros., and Paper Mario were good for the system. They were new types of games and needed additions to the relatively weak library of the Nintendo 64.
The difference between then and now is that this generation we have seen an even smaller number of original games on both the gameplay and originality side of Nintendo. The Big N has dissolved its partnerships with Left Field, Silicon Knights, and Rareware and done little to make up for their absence. So gamers are now not only feeling the sting of a Nintendo unwilling to take risks and develop new brands, but also the pain of having little to no creative support on the 2nd party and 3rd party front. The vast majority of Nintendo games this generation are direct sequels to their N64 predecessors. So now we have games that lack any form of originality on all fronts. How many Mario Parties is it going to take for everyone to realize that the best one was the original? Nintendo cannot attract new audiences by releasing unoriginal games. This is something that the Nintendo of today does not understand.
The Art of Defensive Branding
Nintendo needs to loosen up and reach out to new gamers. It needs to begin taking the kind of risks that brought it to the top two decades ago and create new and original games. Today we have a Nintendo that is so fearful of mediocre sales that it rarely ever releases a new game or fresh idea without prepackaging and stamping in one of the company's many franchises or mascot characters. Pikmin and Animal Crossing aside (AC being a port of a N64 game), I can't recall one 1st party title by Nintendo that isn't a sequel or tied directly into an existing series.
Just look at how much it is milking the Donkey Kong name as I speak. Donkey Konga, Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat, and DK: King of Swing could all be considered new and inventive games. Jungle Beat alone is one of the most innovative and addictive games I've seen in years. Yet none of these are derivatives of either the classic Donkey Kong series (see Mario & Donkey Kong for that) or Rare's Donkey Kong Country trilogy. Each of those three titles could have been designed as a standalone game filled with new and original ideas, characters, and worlds. We could have seen the birth of wholly new concepts that surpass and break free of any limitations a license brings. Instead, Nintendo slapped the DK license on all three, pumped in a number of nostalgic items to make them feel like Donkey Kong, and called it a day. Resting on its past laurels with the DK series, Nintendo has ensured that all three games will sell, but also preemptively denied itself the ability to create something truly original in all facets of game design.
Many will argue that some or all three, of the games mentioned above fit the Donkey Kong license perfectly and are best off as DK games. They may be right, but the problem is that we'll never know. Nintendo doesn't think of new game ideas anymore. It develops new gameplay innovations around its many brands, preemptively shutting its eyes to entirely new game concepts. Perhaps Jungle Beat was best suited to the Donkey Kong license. Perhaps it wasn't. The world will never know because Nintendo never opened its eyes to the possibility of creating a totally new world for the game. Instead it took the safe route. Nintendo has always been an innovator in gameplay, but it falls back on the safety of its established brands more than any other company I know. A truly innovative game should be able to stand on its own.
Perhaps far worse than any recent abuse of the Donkey Kong license, is the intense and consistent profiting that has been done to the Mario license, since its inception in the mid 80s. Dr. Mario, Yoshi, Mario Pinball...these are but a few examples of the lengths Nintendo has gone to ensure the profitability of a new game concept or idea. However, that doesn't diminish the quality of the games presented. Even with the Mario license, games like Mario Tennis would quickly fade if it weren't for the quality of the titles themselves. There is also, most undoubtedly, a strong connection many gamers have toward the Mario universe and many of these games are very much worthy of existing as subsidiaries or entities of the Super Mario series. The true issue is that Nintendo pours so much into these kinds of titles that it invests no time into developing new franchises - entirely new stories, worlds, and game concepts.
The tale that unfolded around Rare's Dinosaur Planet perfectly demonstrates Nintendo's reluctance to let go and let creativity drive game development; as opposed to development following the guidelines of a set franchise. Dinosaur Planet was originally a completely new and promising adventure game in the vein of the Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. However, late in development someone at Nintendo noticed that the main character of the game somewhat resembled Fox McCloud (of Star Fox fame). What resulted was pressure from Nintendo and Rare's eventual retrofit of the game to become a Star Fox title. Renamed to Star Fox Adventures (SFA), the game was released on the GameCube in late 2002 (right after Rare officially announced its purchase by Microsoft) to mixed reviews. Though the game was pretty solid, there was no hiding the fact that it was not a Star Fox title. It was obvious that Rare had shoved Star Fox elements into a game that was designed to be something very different.
There is no greater evidence of this than the final boss battle of SFA. Gamers faced off against General Scales, who would have likely been the final boss if the game had remained Dinosaur Planet. However, the very second you swing your staff the battle ends and you hear an ominous voice that says something about General Scales no longer being needed. The General is then forced to relinquish his Krazoa spirit and falls to the ground, dead. Fox proceeds to grab the final Krazoa spirit and is warped back to the top of the palace where he surrenders it to the final Krazoa statue. Out of nowhere, a Krazoa Head begins to move and reveals itself as famed Star Fox nemesis, Andross. What's strange is that at no point in the game was Andross even mentioned, prior to this. He says something to the effect of "Now that I am reborn, I have the power to destroy the Lylat System!" Without hesitation, Fox jumps into his Arwing and players fight Andross in exactly the same way that they did in Star Fox 64.
The shocking end of the game left our own N-Sider.com Site Manager, Cory Faller, just as puzzled. "The way that all played out just left me aghast. It was as if Rare was desperately trying to tell the story of how the SF license was just tacked onto an already existing game idea out of nowhere, abruptly changing its focus, the storyline, and universe that were built for it," said Faller. I couldn't agree more with him. Gamers today will never know what Dinosaur Planet could have become had it been given a chance to shine.
In an odd way the Nintendo DS (Dual Screen) is another prime example of Nintendo's reluctance to let go and really put it all on the line. The entire concept of the new handheld system is that it offers an entirely new and completely novel way to play games. The DS hardware is very innovative and Nintendo is attempting to push the envelope with something new, yet it refuses to do so without the aid of the old and predictable. Nearly every single DS game I have seen from Nintendo is based on an already existing franchise.
Super Mario 64 DS, Animal Crossing DS, Super Mario Bros. DS, Wario Ware Inc. DS, Metroid Prime: Hunters, Mario Kart DS, Legend of Zelda: Four Swords DS, and Yoshi's Touch & Go (a new Yoshi's Island for the DS) comprise the majority of games Nintendo has announced for its upcoming handheld. While titles like these are fine and even welcome additions to the game library, they shouldn't define it. Nintendo is trying to market a brand new idea with an old face. The DS alone is the best reason Nintendo has ever had to create totally new franchises. How does Nintendo expect to convince gamers that the DS is something totally new, when it can't even come up with any totally new games to sell it? The Nintendo DS is a great looking system, but I have played all of those games before and there's no way I'm paying $149.95 for a handheld unless it features something truly unique by every definition of the word. Aside from Sega's Feel the Magic XY/XX, I have yet to see that on the Nintendo DS.
Fresh Faces, Unseen Worlds
Undeviating reliance on established brands cannot result in the new and original games Nintendo needs to compete in this day and age. Pikmin represents one of Nintendo's sole forays into original game development in recent years. It is both a fun and charming game. Imagine if you will, what Pikmin would have been like had Nintendo instead decided to create the game based on the 128 Marios demo that it showed at Spaceworld 2001. Theoretically the two concepts are very similar, on a basic level. Sales would have been solid, being a title gracing the Mario name, but at what cost? The theme, characters, and world of Pikmin are what make the game so special. The quirky attitude and fun nature of it would have been lost had it not slipped through the cracks of Nintendo's rigorous brand association procedures. However, it was given the green light to exist and the creative imaginations of the brilliant minds at Nintendo were allowed to reign free. Because of this Pikmin is perhaps one of the most fun and exciting games to hit shelves this generation. Its sequel, Pikmin 2, only further develops and nurtures the originality and is one of the best games of the year.
Pikmin is but one of many examples I could use to illustrate this point. Viewtiful Joe is another. For all who have played it, VJ oozes character and imagination from every pore. Without a doubt, it is one of the most inventive and refreshingly entertaining titles to hit shelves in years. Nonetheless, I'm sure that at one point or another Capcom pondered the possibility of making the game yet another offshoot of its Mega Man franchise. What if it had decided to go ahead and turn the game into a new Mega Man title? I'm sure the resulting game would have probably been the best and most original Mega Man title in years. It probably would have outsold VJ as well, but at what cost? The magic that makes Viewtiful Joe so refreshing and fun would have been lost.
Pokémon is a prime example as well. Where would the Game Boy and Nintendo be today if it weren't for the phenomenal success of Pokémon Red & Blue in 1997? Pokémon almost single-handedly revived and rebuilt the Game Boy brand from the depths of stagnation. Nintendo's biggest money making franchise today is a direct result of the company being open to a totally new game idea in 1996. The power of completely new game ideas cannot be underestimated. Historically, Nintendo's biggest success stories have consistently coincided with the creation of completely new games.
Perhaps, the largest success story of this generation would have to be Halo: Combat Evolved for the Xbox. The game continues to top the charts after nearly three years on the market. Why? Because it features a polished gameplay and a completely original world and story; it was fresh, it was new, it was fun, and it was immersive. Bungie's Halo and upcoming Halo 2 exemplify everything Nintendo hasn't. Nintendo doesn't have to create the next big mature title to return to greatness in the public eye, but it shouldn't shut the door before giving projects a chance either. Viewtiful Joe (Capcom) and Beyond Good & Evil (UbiSoft) represent two of my favorite games this generation. UbiSoft"s Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time and Splinter Cell have also pushed the envelope and been met with critical acclaim. Even Sony has been one-upping Nintendo with innovative platforming hybrids like Ratchet and Clank, Jak, and Sly Cooper.
The bitter truth is that games like these would never come from the Nintendo of today. Right before its eyes, Nintendo has overseen its own diminishment. Its command over nearly every genre, of which it once held dominance, has been lost over the last two generations to competitors who have chosen to try something new. Some people play a game like Fable (XBX) and see a title that delivers few of its promises. I see a game that has barely scratched the surface of its potential. For I know how polished, alive, and amazing it could have been had Nintendo tried its hand at a title of its kind. Sadly, Nintendo is in the business of playing it safe. Developing completely original gaming worlds and concepts is not on its agenda.
Conclusion
Nintendo has been playing it safe and relying on its past; two traits that it excels at greater than any other.
For over 20 years it has been reworking, remaking, and reenergizing its core franchises, each time with immense success and critical acclaim. If the teams at Nintendo can still stretch and re-imagine 20 year old brands with such ease, it boggles the mind to fathom what kind of magic they could create if given the freedom to follow their creativity to the very epitome of imagination. Given an equal creative playing field, Nintendo has the inspiration and ingenuity to craft immersive and lively worlds beyond anything on the market today. I know this because I have known the Nintendo of yesteryear and I am intimately familiar with the Nintendo of today. What I'd like to see is the Nintendo that looks ahead. A company that values its past, but treasures what lies around the corner even more.
Mario, Link, Samus, and Donkey Kong would be nothing more than a couple of strange words had Nintendo not taken the risk on each and pushed the envelope in game design. Nintendo needs to take a look back and realize how it reached the top of its game. I can guarantee that it did not reach the highest heights of success by resting on its past. Nintendo reached the top by embracing new ideas and searching out new concepts.
That's the Nintendo I'd like to see.
#
#
#
#
#
#
