Super Non-Stop Debate

Andyman:

Journey one of my favourite games ever due to its unique emotional story that it delivers.

Alright, next topic is up! I'd like to leave the opening 'argument' to Masofdas who kindly made the suggestion for this weeks discussion.

It's a point I have not thought about much as both a Wiiu and 3ds owner. I usually do stick to first party releases on a Nintendo system, quality is almost guaranteed with such games.

I usually avoid third party on Wiiu through lack of interest, therefore I probably have missed a few games I may have enjoyed otherwise.

So, is having such a fortified position of Nintendo greats possibly a bad thing for the consoles catalogue of games and overall wellbeing? I look forward to your answers with intrigue.

Right this all came from this from Balla: Did just watch the IronFall trailer, and it supports my feeling that Ninty should stay away from shooters (or take the genre in new and interesting ways, like Splatoon).

And I’ve seen a few others on other sites already dismiss IronFall due to its looks.

The game to me looks fine, uses the New 3DS hardware well and likely only going to be £14.99 at the most and broadens the 3DS library with a genre we don’t really have on the 3DS or on Nintendo systems in general.

But why is this game dismissed Splatoon isn’t for instance which is a game of lovely bright colours from Nintendo there self’s not some western studio.

And is that the reason that it’s not from Nintendo, doesn’t have anything to do with Nintendo like if you put Samus in it & made it Hunters 2 would that make it appealing, or is that it’s not got lovely bright colours as even Monster Hunter a darker game then most on Nintendo systems the Monsters can be lovely & colourful or is it from a western studio the issue as most of the popular games on Nintendo systems & what’s coming that isn’t indie is from Japan.

As take Ubisoft or Activision both tried bring games to the U like AC & COD and both done dismal on the U that both stopped bring their games that aren’t Just Dance or Skylanders to the U.

Ubisoft have even said that Nintendo gamers only buy Mario and is that true, I know I only buy (well if I wasn’t collecting Wii U games) Nintendo games on the system as I would buy my 3rd party games on the PS4 but likes of Zero (Sorry if not true about you) & Balla and other Nintendo Only Fans dismissing IronFall and games like it without trying them or giving them a fair chance to me is what has made the Wii U’s library for instance so small & most Nintendo fans branded with only liking “kids” games .

The way I see it Nintendo only fans can be a right stubborn bunch but I think that comes the constant stream of quality that Nintendo themselves adhere to so in some ways it's expected for third parties to match that but most rarely get close, I wouldn't say it's an unfair expectation either and as far as wii U goes I don't think most big third party developers gave it a fair crack before giving up. (The exceptions for me being Capcom, Ubisoft & Platinum games)

However I don't think it's fair to say "Nintendo fans only buy Mario" as if your game shows promise/true quality then it will get snapped up, things like Guacamelee, shovel knight, Bayonetta come to mind so I'd say the mascots don't limit the third party support & the attitudes are down to what each person simply prefers to play.

I'm quoting Ubisoft on Nintendo fans only buy Mario games hence why they've left.

The games you bring up is a colourful metroidvania, a mega man style game and a quirky Japanese game that all appeal to Nintendo fans but like I said take COD a huge game that sells gang-busters on everything but doesn't on the Wii U.

Also Capcom has brought like 1 game to the Wii U and Platinum games game were bought, I still think Warner is the best supporter but still only LEGO games which again is colourful platformers.

Also take Hyrule Warriors & Warriors Orochi both on U and both from Koei but only one did well the one with added Nintendo.

I'm sure this isn't how you meant it to come across, Mas, but right now your post is reading, "So this entire debate is an opportunity to attack Balla's point of view."

I've got something to say about the topic in hand, but I'll need to give it some thought. For the moment, though, I'll say only this: that I was trying to look at IronFall through the eyes of a shooter fan (difficult, but not impossible), rather than the colour-obsessed Nintendo fanboy that I am. And frankly, it didn't look good either way.

No I'm not trying to attack anyone's view I'm just saying I've seen posts like why do I want this shit gears of war knock-off on my console etc

And I can only see more games is a good thing especially of a genre that isn't represented on the 3DS and that the game hasn't even been given a chance before it's even came out, it might not be good we don't know yet but surely we should wait and see.

As it's doing some cool stuff with the 3D when there's a flash-bang for instance the 3D goes all fussy, so it's like your dazed.

But I still believe if it was metroid hunters 2 for instance we wouldn't be having this conversation as everyone would be going yay new metroid yay.

I think Jas put it best with right stubborn bunch and because of that is why the next Nintendo system like the Wii U & even the 3DS will get some 3rd party games at launch then go away because fans won't buy them. As I would love to have a system like the GameCube again back then you didn't really need a PS2, X-Box or DC as you got FIFA, Timesplitters, Splinter Cell, Prince of Persia, WWE games etc but that has all gone..

Balladeer wrote:

I've got something to say about the topic in hand, but I'll need to give it some thought.  For the moment, though, I'll say only this: that I was trying to look at IronFall through the eyes of a shooter fan (difficult, but not impossible), rather than the colour-obsessed Nintendo fanboy that I am.  And frankly, it didn't look good either way.  

Exactly this. A good game is a good game either way, but Ironfall really looked like a lackluster shooter. It reminds me of The Conduit back on Wii, which went against the grain of what you'd expect on Wii. Many Wii owners were trying to rally people to buy it solely because they wanted more games like that on the console, despite the fact that the game honestly wasn't that good. In the words of the great Matthew Castle:

Matthew Castle on the 12th July 2009, back on the old forums wrote:

Accepting second rate actioners will only spawn more second rate actioners.

masofdas wrote:

I'm quoting Ubisoft on Nintendo fans only buy Mario games hence why they've left.

The games you bring up is a colourful metroidvania, a mega man style game and a quirky Japanese game that all appeal to Nintendo fans but like I said take COD a huge game that sells gang-busters on everything but doesn't on the Wii U.

Also Capcom has brought like 1 game to the Wii U and Platinum games game were bought, I still think Warner is the best supporter but still only LEGO games which again is colourful platformers.

Also take Hyrule Warriors & Warriors Orochi both on U and both from Koei but only one did well the one with added Nintendo.

I knew you were quoting Ubi which is why I myself put it in quotations but their output was still better than most other third parties.

I don't see the problem if the games I mentioned are similar to other Nintendo franchises as that's smart business sense to me as they are an easy sell to that audience & they are still third party games, CoD not selling "gang-busters" as you put it on wii U isn't a surprise to me as the majority of the Nintendo fan base are families and young kids.  (not teenagers)

It seems what you are saying above is that those games don't count, I hope not but that's the way it seems to me, anyhow like I said it's like some third party devs want an easy time of it (most of their output isn't questioned for PS/xbox) and they throw their toys out the pram when Nintendo fans don't bite & they don't bite because a certain quality is expected.

Yeah quality is expected but take Namco whom have a great relationship with Nintendo yet they don't bring Dark Souls 2 to the console they bring some awful Pac-Man game which even got a sequel on the Wii U, so the 360 version of that gets ported over but the Dark Souls 2 doesn't. I know you put about family own Wii U's etc that's why Skylanders sells on it but I'm talking more about the core Nintendo fans like us lot on here fro instance.

What about fatal frame 5 it's out in Japan and isn't coming to the west as they reckon it won't sell here, I would love to own that game but due to what it is only a handful will buy it here as it's not what most Nintendo fans want they want bright and colourful splatoons of this world.

So my real point is I would like Nintendo fans & consoles to be more diverse in there games.

Also this topic has worked though it's caused a debate.

The simple reason they don't sell is because people like us are in the minority, as for the Namco/Dark souls thing I doubt they have much say in what systems the game comes to, yes they are the publisher for the rest of the world but From Soft still happily self publish in Japan.

masofdas wrote:

Also this topic has worked though it's caused a debate.

Oh, I'm not denying that it's worked. It's a good question. I'm just a little miffed that it came out of a misunderstanding of my post that would have been cleared up quickly had you asked in-thread.


Righty-hoo, let's give this one a crack. So, we've got two questions: do Nintendo mascots limit third-party support, and do they limit our attitudes towards it? Only of course they're linked: if third-party publishers think games won't sell, they won't bring them to Nintendo consoles.

Or will they? I actually think that there are two far bigger problems: architecture, and success. The Wii U was viewed by many as dead-in-the-water at launch, and Nintendo's architecture is famously difficult for people to port software across, be the reason power, or sheer Nintendo stubbornness. I think that if the Wii U were successful, we'd see a lot more third-party offerings on it: the Wii had lots, although most was shovelware. Not ports of the big games, natch, because they required power.


So we have the other question: do they limit Nintendo fans' attitudes towards third-party games? Well, I only dare to speak for myself. I dare not get inside the mind of the rabid Nintendo fanboy, and I'm sure there are some out there who will prize a game with Mario over an identical one without. Personally, I don't think so.

It's just that Nintendo games have a lot of qualities that I go for:

• I prefer colourful games to dark and gloomy ones on the whole;
  
• I don't like shooters, because I've never been able to aim;
  
• I much prefer fantasy settings to reality. Reality's outside if I want a bit of that;
  
• Simply, I like good games, and a Nintendo mascot can frequently be considered a sign of quality.

Now, I can't say which way the causation went. I started on Nintendo at an early age: if I'd started on driving sims, would I have turned out different? Who knows? That's the nature vs. nurture debate, a much more complicated debate than this one.

What I can say is that it works this way now, and when a Nintendo game lacks some of these qualities (ironically, the aforementioned Metroid Prime Hunters is one such - not too colourful, a shooter, and not all that if you ask me), I'll cast them aside.

And it works the other way too: if a game comes my way that has these qualities, yet doesn't have a recognised Nintendo mascot, I'll snap it up. Examples include Rayman Legends, Guacamelee, Child of Light - even Nintendo games without recognised mascots, like Xenoblade and Splatoon (which is a shooter, but is also colourful and fantastical and hopefully good). Want other platforms? I very much like the look of Ori and the Blind Forest, and even Sunset Overdrive caught my eye for a bit.

So, no, I don't think Nintendo mascots limit my gaming choices. I would hope that the same is true for many Nintendo fans, but undoubtedly not all.

That's a very good response to the question Balla.

Yeah your post was a misunderstanding but like I said seen similar type posts else where which got me thinking about it and why we miss things most notable thinking about is Soul Calibur 2 HD which we all know the original sold best on cube and was that due to having link, but Wii U doesn't get the HD version and would taht be because it might be missing link, so Namco wouldn't think it would sell.

I can't say what goes on in the minds of publishers, just as I can't say what goes on in the minds of Nintendo fans.

Actually, SCII is a good counterexample to my argument. Link was a major contributing factor to me getting the game: I'd already seen games like Soul Edge and decided I liked them, but having a character I knew and liked definitely helped!

However, I was twelve at the time, and think I have matured significantly since then in my choices of games. But I'm sure there are several who haven't.

Do Nintendo mascots limit third party support and our attitudes towards it?

This is really two questions. The answer to limiting third party support is 'yes'. All gamers only have a limited pool of money - because of that, Mario will always beat Rayman, for example (despite the fact that Rayman Legends trounces NSMBU). If third party games don't sell on the system, they won't be made. Having said that, I'm sad that there was no support for FIFA, for example. Nintendo do not make serious football games (and even their non-serious ones are questionable) so that's an open goal. Can't explain that one.

As for our attitudes towards third party support, that's totally different. I can only speak for myself and my favourite Wii U game is still a third party one. If it's quality - and in a genre that I enjoy, which limits me painfully sometimes - I'll buy it. My gut tells me that's not necessarily the case for other Nintendo fans.

Balladeer wrote:

 I started on Nintendo at an early age: if I'd started on driving sims, would I have turned out different?  Who knows?  That's the nature vs. nurture debate, a much more complicated debate than this one.

I haven't really had the time to participate fully so far in this debate but this piece by Balladeer made me think. My first console was actually the PS1 the first game being 'Driver' and 'Driver 2'. I don't really touch racing games anymore and Nintendo is definitely my favourite out of 'the big three'.

I think a clear distinguishable feature for me is that I 'wasn't' a one console player. For me, Nintendo systems were bought purely for the exclusives without much care for anything else. Especially in the Wii/360/Ps3 Era in which I also owned a 360, which was necessary to play games I liked at the time (Dark Souls , Fifa.. )

So for me, while Nintendo characters aren't directly causing me to pass on certain games, the association that Nintendo simply don't offer a wide selection of titles remains ingrained in my mind.

Due to this, I haven't looked at Ironfall, I probably won't look at Ironfall. The same attitude as I had for both Watch Dogs and Assassins Creed.  So to say that they are completely irrelevant would be false, I think for third party to reach the majority of Nintendo gamers, Nintendo themselves are going to have to do the majority of the legwork in promoting games. I don't see them doing this.

Sorry about the double post, new topic! Its on the first page, go read it!

My first thought are that yes, there is obviously a market for 'gaming' as a 'sport'. There is already a lot of events and competitions live-streamed but it hasn't really made the breakthrough to be accepted as such.

Although I can see the potential, I really hope gaming doesn't reach that point. I find playing games competitively dull and if more games are designed in a way to incorporate this intense desire for competition I can only see this as a bad thing.

Well 32 Million people watched League final, so eSports are here but I can't really watch them apart from fighters at a push as I sooner be playing games.

With other sports like football, I can play it everyone can but not 11v11 at a good standard that's the difference I think.

Luke mas says, the difference, at least to an observer, between me and my mate playing street fighter and the world champions isn't that pronounced whereas the difference between me and the lads having a kickabout of an evening and the Premier League is night and day.

For me, video games were meant to be played, not watched. I can appreciate the skill levels involved but it's simply not as exciting to me as the more traditional sporting competitions.

Proper sport is so very, very boring and eSport takes it to an all time high of boring. I am sorry, but I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone watches another person play video games. Even a small part, maybe 60 seconds of watching that on a proper television programme on games is bad enough. I can understand watching your friend play a game when you are in the room with them, but even then, that gets old really quickly. I have seen people play at anime conventions, and that might have been fun for a participant, but I went off to find something interesting to do. Nope, not for me, not even slightly, I could never be that bored.

I've never really watched any FPS or MOBA tournaments, but I love fighting game tournaments. I think Drunka's point about there being less of a difference between eSports players and the common player and real sports players and the common player is true to a point, but I still think there's such a gulf in class between eSports professionals and the common player. Watch the first few minutes of this video and you'll get an understanding of what I mean.

Actually, that documentary makes a great point in its final episode - the reason eSports are so successful and deserve to be appreciated as a legitimate competition is because anybody can realistically do it. It's a competition for we, the pasty nerds, to become something. It's very difficult for the average joe to be a top player in regular sports - you either have to be born with a good physique or train your entire life to reach the pinnacle of a sport. With eSports, it's certainly still difficult, but it's attainable for everyone. One of the top Smash Bros. Melee players looks like this - basically, your archetypal geek. The ease of relating to these top players is a huge factor in its success, I think.

That's not to discredit these top players of eSports games - there is a level of technical skill required that you have to learn over a long period of time. To use Smash Bros Melee as an example again, at the highest level players input around 5 inputs per second. My personal Smash experience is probably less than 1 input per second. There are advanced techniques that have to be learned. There is an admirable level of skill needed to play at the highest level.

You don't have to watch or enjoy eSports, but I simply think you're wrong if you don't recognise these events as legitimate, especially in this day and age where eSports pulls in hundreds of thousands of viewers.

I wouldn't really call video games sport, unless we all agree that competitive chess and spelling is a sport. They are a competition, but I associate sport with proper physical activities, so no that doesn't include rhythmic gymnastics or synchronised swimming, or dancing in any for to be honest (they are more competitive arts). People watching it doesn't make it a sport, nor calling it a sport does so either, it is as I have said, just a competition. This isn't to denigrate the skills of the players, nor the fans who enjoy it. If it is commercially viable, great, it will grow, just like any form of entertainment. In conclusion, calling it a sport is a stretch.

oldschool wrote:

They are a competition, but I associate sport with proper physical activities, so no that doesn't include rhythmic gymnastics or synchronised swimming, or dancing in any for to be honest (they are more competitive arts).

I think it's unfair to try and compare gaming to sports in the Olympic sense, because it'll never be that. It simply doesn't require the same level of athleticism. The CEO of League of Legends said that he thinks the game will be in the Olympics one day - that's bullshit. It's not a sport in that sense. But I think it's still a sport, and that's where the distinction between sports and eSports needs to be made.

You define sports as requiring physical effort - athleticism, in short. I think by this you mean sports in the Olympic sense. eSports is a similar beast to sports because they share the competitive aspect, the ease of recreation (yet the difficulty to master), strategy and the need for mental fortitude when competing at the highest level. Yet, whereas sports require athleticism, eSports require dexterity. I mentioned earlier the amount of inputs per second required in Super Smash Bros. Melee - this is the same for Starcraft 2, League of Legends, Counterstrike and a plethora of other top competitive games. A footballer has to keep control of the ball, make precision passes and more in front of a huge crowd, and is treated as a star because of this. A professional gamer has to perform hundreds of inputs a minute, strategise and more in front of a huge crowd, and, with the exception of South Korean Starcraft players, is stigmatised and dismissed as mere entertainment because of this.

This stigma exists around gaming as a whole to an extent, and is likely the reason it's so difficult to see gaming as a sport in the conventional sense. I agree - it's near impossible to do so. That's why I believe the word "eSports" needs to be seen in a different way - the focus shouldn't be on the "sports" part of the word, but on the word as a whole. eSports are something different to sports - not sports in a conventional sense, but still "proper" and still legitimate.