"The Divide" - Nintendo vs Third Parties, and Gameplay vs Cinematography

[Wolfe]

Industry analyst Michael Pachter was interviewed by GameInformer this week, and they asked him to comment on Nintendo. It's nothing that hasn't been said before, but I want to talk about this...

The problem is I think they did a bad job with third parties with the Wii and they’ve done an abysmal job with third parties with the Wii U, so I don’t think third parties would come back for a new console. If they come out with a new console and it is essentially identical programming language with the Xbox so the cost to port a game is zero, I’m still skeptical that third parties would support it.

They possibly would, but only if the cost was so low. And that’s the problem. Ubisoft got really burned on the Wii U making dedicated titles like ZombiU. Activision stopped making Call of Duty for the Wii U, and EA hasn’t ever made a game for the Wii U. I don’t think they come back.

...as well as another excerpt from an interview with former Nintendo executive Dan Adelman...

There have been cases where companies decided to pull out the stops and make a great game for Nintendo platforms only to find that consumers weren’t interested. And it could be because consumers have been burnt by third party games on Nintendo platforms before.

...because I read stuff like this, and I think to myself, "I don't play zombie games. I don't want Call of Duty. I wasn't interested in Most Wanted U." (I don't know why Pachter said there are no EA games for Wii U)

I have an Xbox 360, and even though it's been my go-to gaming platform a lot of the time, I never played many of the most-popular games on PS3/XB360, and didn't care much for the ones I tried. I figured that was just me, but with these failures on the Wii U, I've been wondering if other Nintendo fans never cared much for zombie games or competitive online FPSs, either.

So what good could it ever do for a publisher to go out of their way to bring Xbox/Playstation best-sellers to the Wii U, if Nintendo fans simply prefer other kinds of games (not just because of Nintendo branding)? All those companies do is try the same formulas that appeal to Playstation/Xbox audiences, then whine when it doesn't pan out.

PROTIP: I'm pretty sure we don't all like the same things.

I'm not talking about dark/mature versus cute/colorful, either, although those elements do play into part of the divide I'm thinking of. Nintendo fans prioritize tight gameplay over a photorealistic aesthetic, and cartoony-looking games can get away with jumps, attacks, or other actions that would look relatively absurd in a photorealistic game. Meanwhile, photorealistic games have been moving toward rigidly scripted actions and prompts that allow for realistic animations or exciting camera angles.

I don't expect publishers like Ubisoft/EA to come around, but I'm curious to hear what you guys think. Maybe you prefer "modern" games and disregard "old school" games? Is Nintendo behind the times, or is the rest of the industry so enamored with mimicking Hollywood films or simulating gritty realism that they aren't even competing for a chunk of the market?

Have we become well and truly segregated by platform over differing gameplay principles?

 

[BKGlover]

It seems that way.

I'm for enjoying my time in a game. Dark games can be as enjoyable as light-hearted ones, uber-realistic can be as entertaining as any ultimate fantasy, and I don't need photorealistic graphics. Unfortunately this opinion is few and far between, as many I've talked to who main Playstations and XBoxes rank graphics as the highest priority in majority, giving a passing thought if the thing even 🤬 works, then get upset when they blow 60+ on that new shiny turd that won't play right for the next three updates. Those on Nintendo definitely look more at everything except graphics, but many of them want the same things they've been getting with some different layouts.

One consistency for all, including PC, a VAST majority REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THERE IS ANY ALTERNATIVE TO WHAT THEY HAVE. Are you 🤬 kidding me, humanity is STILL embroiled in this pettiness? We live in the future, why do people still draw battlelines for 🤬 that has no interest in us?

 

[Tornado]

Nintendo spent so many years being openly hostile towards groups that didn't work for them directly that I'm surprised the period of time where third parties even bothered with the Wii in the first place was so long, despite its raw sales. It's little surprise that they basically abandoned the Wii U as soon as the Xbone/PS4 both launched.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Yeah, it all really started in the 80s when the original NES launched world wide. They had so many restrictions on third parties (to name a few, you could only release five games a year, each game had to be played by Nintendo staff for "approval", and they, Nintendo, had a slight for any Western developers because of "racism") Both Nintendo and Sega had an exorbitant fee that a publisher had to pay to get a game to market. Not to mention the whole EA reverse engineering issue against Sega.

The original Playstation really changed the game in favor of third parties. If memory serves, licensing fees were a flat $10, they brought the more powerful hardware to the party(the N64 still used cartridges) and basically did everything superior in marketing the hardware than Nintendo and Sega.

This begs the question, why would the N64 use cartridges instead of CDs? This video sums up the whole argument:

 

[Brend]

When it comes to Nintendo consoles and 3rd party, I never really get involved these days purely because a lot of time the games don't appeal to me, in fact I've stated quite often that I ignore most 3rd party offerings from any of the consoles I own because usually they don't interest me and run like 🤬 . The PS3 version of Skyrim a prime example of this. I've always been big on Sony consoles and it wasn't until I got a DS that I also started to really enjoy Nintendo games alongside Playstation, I was a SEGA kid when I was younger so I missed out on a lot of titles and flat out didn't enjoy 2D Mario(still dont, probably the games I least enjoy on the market are Mario 2D platformers. I love Sonic, Rayman and Donkey Kong for example, however). When I think about the best games I've played in my gaming years 99% of the time they turn out to be exclusives or first-party. I've just personally never found 3rd party titles to be worth my gaming money. So, when it comes to Nintendo they are certainly very apprehensive about 3rd party developers for whatever reasons they have but I don't think that 3rd party developers will 'never' return to Nintendo. All Nintendo need to do is go down the route of the other 2 and create nearly identical consoles that barely differ aside from petty arguments about processors and the like. It may sound selfish, but I'd rather they didn't do that, I love the breath of fresh-air Nintendo bring to the industry. Wether their strange policies hurt their chances of huge success or not, theres no doubt in my mind that the 9 million Wii U owners all play it because it offers a key difference; polish, fewer games than the other 2, but polish none the less.

 

[Wolfe]

@Tornado @Sanji Himura -- For sure, there are the politics involved, but I made this thread because I was curious what others thought of the "old school" style of games that have a home on Wii U, and whether third parties are even trying to compete with that -- not on Wii U, but on PS4/XBone. What are the games Nintendo fans want that they can't get on Wii U? Why should Nintendo court publishers for the third party games they're missing if Nintendo fans won't buy them, Sony/Microsoft fans won't buy a Nintendo console to play them, and multiplatform gamers will generally buy them for Playstation/Xbox instead?

What I see is a divide that isn't worth trying to patch, contrary to what the analysts/experts/journalists think. Pachter even admitted at the end of the linked interview that he has no idea what motivates people to buy the games they buy.

@Classic -- I like how Nintendo tries different things with hardware, but it's the software that really matters. Fewer games? I already have more indie eShop games than the number of PS4/XBone games that truly interest me.

I'm with you on Sony-published games, though. I've been thinking of getting a PS3 for some of those, and the only upcoming PS4 game I'm jealous of is an SCE game.

Those on Nintendo definitely look more at everything except graphics, but many of them want the same things they've been getting with some different layouts.

Okay, that's one affinity both sides share.

 

[Brend]

I always find it hard to believe the people who shout Nintendo fans only want the same stuff as they line up to buy FPS-shooty game 175343.

 

[Sanji Himura]

@Wolfe: The issue at hand isn't whether or not third parties would want to develop for Nintendo's console, they do. The issue that is at hand is whether or not Nintendo can get head out of ___ [you fill in the blank] and become more forward thinking in their technology.

Nintendo doesn't really doesn't have a eight or a ten year plan when it comes to their hardware. If they did, they would have crushed rumors of a new console (sourced directly from Miyamoto himself) that were springing up a few weeks ago.

They really need to stop thinking that the same old song and dance will pull them through generation after generation because sooner or later, I'll bet sooner, Nintendo will become another third party just like Sega did.

 

[Brend]

As long as portable gaming(not including mobile phone gaming) exists as a profitable industry, Nintendo will be just fine. Nothing can touch the handhelds and Sony have found that out. Capcom choosing to put something like Monster Hunter on 3DS(which is less suited for that type of game, should really be on the Vita) highlights that more than anything.

 

[Wolfe]

^ Not to mention Nintendo has enough cash to blunder about for years.

@Sanji Himura -- You're kind of missing the point of the thread, but your post is an example of what I mean. Everyone says Nintendo is getting left behind, becoming irrelevant, failing to compete with Sony/Microsoft. I think the lack of competition is mutual.

While Sony and Microsoft duke it out, Nintendo has been covering a chunk of the market that Playstation/Xbox hardly even touch. Not the casual market that bought the Wii (and then evaporated), not just fans of Nintendo's IPs, but fans of a gaming philosophy that eschews über-graphics and cinematography in favor of delivering a quality experience (on day one) which hews to traditional sensibilities that Playstation/Xbox devs seem to have forgotten or discarded. You don't need hardware parity for that.

As a fan, I absolutely agree Nintendo makes bone-headed decisions, but I think they also know their audience better than their critics. To summarize and generalize a bit, this is what Nintendo stands for:

...Miyamoto doesn’t see himself as a storyteller, and worries that the video game business is now so hung up on providing film-like experiences, with grand themes and complex storylines, that the essence of play is being lost.

In films, he explains, the director and the creator are one and the same person, dictating what happens, carving out the story’s arc. But in games, he believes the director should be the player – his job as a designer is simply to equip them with the toys to direct. As a creative philosophy it’s pretty much the opposite of auteurism – though ironically, it’s one that has made him the best-known games designer on the planet.

"These younger game creators, they want to be recognised," he sighs. "They want to tell stories that will touch people’s hearts. And while I understand that desire, the trend worries me. It should be the experience, that is touching. What I strive for is to make the person playing the game the director. All I do is help them feel that, by playing, they’re creating something that only they could create."

...

When I ask him if he thinks the games industry can learn anything from cinema, he seems mildly horrified at the thought.

"When you play a game, one moment you’re just controlling it and then suddenly you feel you’re in its world," he says. "And that’s something you cannot experience through film or literature. It’s a completely unique experience."

And this is the direction Playstation/Xbox games seem to be headed (I'm aware it's not a third party game):

"...one of the big things we want to tackle with this game, that kind of seamless-ness, that constant question that you have of whether or not what you’re looking at is a cinematic or are you playing the game."

It was critically important for Ready at Dawn to structure The Order: 1886 in this way, Weerasuriya said, because it affords a deeper level of immersion.

"Yes, at some points we do take control away from you just like other games do for cinematics," he said. "We give it back to you when you don't expect it sometimes. There might be a moment, just a single moment in a cinematic where you have something to do."

"It might not mean much, but to us it means a lot. It's just that level of interaction that you have--even if it's one button prompt in a cinematic, what it means is that you are still involved, you're still there," Weerasuriya added. "Your attention, your immersion is still there and without it this experience wouldn't be what it is."

This is not to say that both types of games can't coexist on the same platform. But it's an extremely telling distinction.

 

[BKGlover]

*snip*And this is the direction Playstation/Xbox games seem to be headed (I'm aware it's not a third party game):*snip*

One little addition that interview touched on...

"Yes, at some points we do take control away from you just like other games do for cinematics," he said. "We give it back to you when you don't expect it sometimes. There might be a moment, just a single moment in a cinematic where you have something to do."

Did anyone tell this person that is called a quick-time-event? Or that having to suddenly start beating on a button in a fashion that could easily be compared to a jackhammer, is about as far from immersion as I am from the center of Andromeda?

The longer this thread goes, the more I realize I lean toward Nintendo's stance on this to an extent. Third party games are needed to a point, but if the game in question is as linear as a trajectory arc with no real freedoms or options, it isn't a game I'd want as a person or a company.

Does that make any sense? I've retyped it about eight times already, but I don't know if it's saying what I'm trying to convey.

 

[Sanji Himura]

I ain't really buying what people(not necessarily you people) are selling here. The whole need for different consoles back 20-25 years ago was to grab exclusives from third parties. Believe it or not, Sega was in the same boat Nintendo is in now when they launched the Master System(their NES competition). They had to rely on getting first party games out the door fast, but unlike Nintendo, which was basically the only source of entertainment for the rest of the world at the time, they changed their business practices to be more third party friendly by the time the Genesis/Mega Drive launched in 1989. As a result, a some third party publishers, not all though, shifted some what would be Nintendo exclusives over to the Genesis.

Nintendo, on the other hand, has indeed focused on first party titles, but the difference here is that when they release the handful of titles that they are going to release, they move on to "new" hardware.

 

[Wolfe]

@BKGlover -- That's what dawned on me as the PS3/XB360 matured and games like this began appearing with greater frequency. The Order: 1886 is a very extreme case, though.

More traditional games have also been suffering from a glut of cinematography, like Assassin's Creed III. The game takes hours to get going as it plods through the narrative -- for the entire backstory of your character! -- and the gameplay can become dull fairly quickly.

I actually like the AC games, and scrambling from rooftop to rooftop is pretty neat, but if you pull back from the "cinematic" definition of immersion Ru Weerasuriya described, what are you actually doing? Pointing the analog stick and holding a button or two. Once you get used to counterattacking, even the combat is almost a QTE minigame and it doesn't take much practice to become nearly unstoppable. Which is entertaining, for a little while.

There's a reason for the "detached" way AC plays, and I touched on it in the OP:

Nintendo fans prioritize tight gameplay over a photorealistic aesthetic, and cartoony-looking games can get away with jumps, attacks, or other actions that would look relatively absurd in a photorealistic game. Meanwhile, photorealistic games have been moving toward rigidly scripted actions and prompts that allow for realistic animations or exciting camera angles.

This is the cost of "mature" games.

I'm not claiming there's no place for games like AC or TO:1886, and I'm trying to avoid picking on them. But few people seem to comprehend how Nintendo's games stand apart, or what it is that Nintendo fans expect from the games they play.

So how well did the Assassin's Creed games do on Wii U, anyway?

Nintendo consumers don't buy Assassin's Creed games in significant numbers, and as such, Ubisoft will not release more mature games for Wii U after this year's Watch Dogs...

...Don't expect Ubisoft to give up on Nintendo altogether, however. Instead of leaving the platform behind, [CEO Yves Guillemot] said Ubisoft will adjust its emphasis, instead focusing on Just Dance games and "more of the types of games they are interested in." Just Dance 2015 is coming to Wii U this fall.

In the immediate future, Ubisoft is launching Watch Dogs for Wii U later this year. It will be the last "mature" game Ubisoft ships for the console for the foreseeable future.

All those companies do is try the same formulas that appeal to Playstation/Xbox audiences, then whine when it doesn't pan out.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Nintendo sort of dug its own grave. They refused to take into account that their target audiences do grow up. Now I am not advocating that children should play COD or anything like that, but when you consider the fact that there is a lack of even mature games (does not necessarily have to be ports) on the system, you could never escape that Mickey Mouse reputation that you are bound to get.

The fact of the matter is that when I want to go to Walt Disney World, I'll pick up a Nintendo game. If I wanted to be at Six Flags, I'll go for my PS4/XBO.

 

[Wolfe]

@Sanji Himura -- Based on Nintendo's trailing sales numbers for the Wii U, I would actually guess there are more children and teenagers playing games like Call of Duty or GTA V than Nintendo games. Those are often the sort of games they want to play the most, anyway. Minors tend to flock to "mature" titles and reject anything colorful or "cute" on face value, in a desperate, impatient bid to shed their adolescence. The trash-talking 12 year old on Xbox Live is a well-known trope.

No doubt, any console's library is healthier with a variety of genres and aesthetics, but a mature theme isn't everything. Prevailing opinion says photorealistic games are "hardcore" while something like Super Mario 3D World is "casual". That's superficial. I argue SM3DW is more "hardcore" than some of the gritty, violent experiences on Playstation/Xbox. It's accessible, yes, but also provides much more room to develop skills and master the game, because you're always in control, not just pressing a button to execute the next animation in an interactive cutscene. Proficiency in SM3DW must be earned, even if you don't have to be very skilled at the game to watch the credits roll. It won't calculate and execute every jump for you like Assassin's Creed.

To be clear, I'm not claiming that demanding games don't exist on Playstation/Xbox. But I certainly find New Super Luigi U more demanding than, say, GTA V. I was cussing up a storm on NSLU and loving every minute of it.

I won't deny that Nintendo's family-friendly image turns off audiences who find bright colors and cheerful characters horrifying (teenagers most of all). But are you implying Nintendo's games are unsuitable for adults, period? If so, why?

 

[Sanji Himura]

No, but I'll humor you anyways. Nintendo games, generally speaking, don't really offer a lot in terms of difficulty, for lack of a better term. In other words, the games are aligned in such a way to where an apt player can clear the game in a relatively short amount of time. The charity Awesome Games Done Quick proves that with a bit of practice, and determination, you can clear any Nintendo published game quickly.

Have Nintendo been more thoughtful about their older audiences, they could easily improved some of the latest games by just using a simple difficulty options.

 

[Wolfe]

@Sanji Himura -- I just linked to a speed run in my last post, in support of the point that Nintendo's games generally offer a higher skill ceiling than story-driven "cinematic" games...well, I'm a clumsy amateur compared to those AGDQ guys, and even I can crank through Super Metroid -- widely credited as a textbook study of masterful game design -- in about an hour and a half. My record in Shovel Knight is 1:38ish, and that was my personal GOTY 2014. So you're right about how quick the games can be, but what does that prove with regard to older audiences or the quality of gameplay? I also think you aren't giving the AGDQ players enough credit.

I agree that some Nintendo games could benefit from more options for varying skill levels -- Skyward Sword desperately needed a "shut the 🤬 up Fi, I already figured that out" setting -- but gameplay that's innately fun for both experts and novices alike is Nintendo's specialty. My wife and I can both enjoy Super Mario 3D World together, but games that bore me on Playstation/Xbox are also too much for her to handle. It's not just about the challenge, or the time required to reach the end.

 

[Brend]

Your analogy is pretty spot on too since XBone/Ps4 games feel faceless and suffer from a lack of character on the most part. Nintendo games can be noutoriously difficult when they want to be. I challenge anyone to do Champions Road on Mario 3D World with less than 50 tries, that 🤬 is insane. I consider myself decent at games but I spent hours trying to beat that single level, not once could I blame bad design or control issues. As contrived and concentrated as Mario 3D world is, it is also a gaming masterclass and one of the best platformers ever made. You can paint it like 'Nintendo never grew up' for sure, but that is totally subjective and an opinionated conclusion. Not fact, and Nintendo haven't 'dug their own grave' by any means. Pokemon as a video game is larger than ever and series like Animal Crossing, Smash and Kart will always outsell any equivollance on the Sony or Microsoft console. My opinionated conclusion is that Nintendo stick to what they are good at. Upcoming games like Splatoon are new iPs still placing emphasis on that.

Nintendo sort of dug its own grave. They refused to take into account that their target audiences do grow up. Now I am not advocating that children should play COD or anything like that, but when you consider the fact that there is a lack of even mature games (does not necessarily have to be ports) on the system, you could never escape that Mickey Mouse reputation that you are bound to get.

The fact of the matter is that when I want to go to Walt Disney World, I'll pick up a Nintendo game. If I wanted to be at Six Flags, I'll go for my PS4/XBO.

 

[Tornado]

Now that everyone has clarified their positions, I gotta say the entire implication is built on a false premise. Especially this sentiment:

While Sony and Microsoft duke it out, Nintendo has been covering a chunk of the market that Playstation/Xbox hardly even touch. Not the casual market that bought the Wii (and then evaporated), not just fans of Nintendo's IPs, but fans of a gaming philosophy that eschews über-graphics and cinematography in favor of delivering a quality experience (on day one) which hews to traditional sensibilities that Playstation/Xbox devs seem to have forgotten or discarded. You don't need hardware parity for that.

The difference between people who cast in with Sony/Microsoft (moreso the former, admittedly) and those who cast in with Nintendo isn't that one likes "mature" games and one likes colorful fun games. It's that the former actually have a choice (even though they predominantly choose dudebro games), and the latter really hasn't for over a decade. And, yes, it is because Nintendo dug themselves into a hole at some point in the past (you can set the date at the Gamecube, like I do; or more recently if you'd like).

The question has been raised about why Nintendo fans should be upset about losing games they aren't buying. The answer is that they shouldn't be since they haven't been buying them anyway, because they'd rather own the better versions of them rather than the gimmicky downgraded ports that they would have to get if they bought it on a Wii U; which Sony/Microsoft will happily benefit from. And that is something that is on Nintendo.

 

[Wolfe]

I've decided I want to talk more about the trend of games like The Order: 1886 more than I originally anticipated, so I have changed the title of the thread accordingly. The topic still includes the polarization of gameplay/genre preferences by platform. I think the two subjects are linked, given how illustrative the quotes in post #10 are.

The Order: 1886 releases on Friday, so it's in the headlines this week. While there have been similar games before it, it has ignited debate about "interactive movies" and their place in the industry. It also keeps generating juicy quotes like this one:

So of the three key aspects of a game - visuals, gameplay and story - which would you say was your priority with The Order 1886?

"I think story and visuals are very high. Gameplay is something that... it's a game, we make games, we can't get around it. We love games, but we also love telling stories, so I think story is always going to be at the top because it's what we start with. It's at the top of the pyramid and everything else supports that. I think it'd be more challenging to make a game for the gameplay's sake, then try to make a story that fits in there."

Depending on which side you're on, this is either complete madness or advancing the medium. I'm seeing reactions of both kinds. It's actually very interesting.

There's a YouTube playthrough that shows it's possible to complete this game in around 5 hours, and it's reported about half of that time is spent on unskippable cutscenes. Like I said above, short games aren't bad, but it's worth mentioning.


@Tornado -- My premise wasn't meant to be built upon mature/colorful, but I foresaw that as an inevitable talking point so I decided to address it right off the bat, and it does factor into the gameplay/genre on a technical level. I never denied that Nintendo dug themselves a hole with third parties, and I already mentioned Nintendo fans with more than one console who'd generally rather play multiplatforms on faster hardware.

I'm just not convinced there are enough multi-console gamers out there to account for the dismally low sales of these third party games on Wii U. Especially this time compared to last gen, considering the Wii U was actually getting the best version of some of those games. Anecdotally, you have gamers like @Classic and me, who own or have owned multiple consoles and still find Nintendo's games more compelling than the average third-party title.

I expanded the scope of the thread because TO:1886 is such a stark contrast from what Nintendo stands for (you see what Miyamoto said), and a highly anticipated technological showcase with the sort of qualities that other mainstream AAA titles on Playstation/Xbox have been successfully aspiring to for years...it's just not a third-party-published title itself. There's more here than just mature/colorful aesthetics and fanboys who lack choices.

 

[Brend]

Now that everyone has clarified their positions, I gotta say the entire implication is built on a false premise. Especially this sentiment:

The difference between people who cast in with Sony/Microsoft (moreso the former, admittedly) and those who cast in with Nintendo isn't that one likes "mature" games and one likes colorful fun games. It's that the former actually have a choice (even though they predominantly choose dudebro games), and the latter really hasn't for over a decade. And, yes, it is because Nintendo dug themselves into a hole at some point in the past (you can set the date at the Gamecube, like I do; or more recently if you'd like).

The question has been raised about why Nintendo fans should be upset about losing games they aren't buying. The answer is that they shouldn't be since they haven't been buying them anyway, because they'd rather own the better versions of them rather than the gimmicky downgraded ports that they would have to get if they bought it on a Wii U; which Sony/Microsoft will happily benefit from. And that is something that is on Nintendo.

You are totally right about PS4 and Xbox owners having the 'choice' between both. The key point is that nobody can 'out Nintendo', Nintendo. Like I specified in my post above, I buy a playstation for the playstation specific experience(regardless of how bland this seems to become each year) but I also buy Nintendo consoles for the Nintendo experience. I buy a Playstation for Naughty Dog games(aside from TLOU), Gran Turismo and for the occurrences where studios realize there is a color pallet outside of brown-grey-black and when there's also gameplay genres outside of TPS, FPS and forced open-world escapades.

I buy Nintendo consoles for the experiences they provide because attempts at emulating them like this:

Go on a bum-note with, well, everyone really.

I understand that most people won't want to buy 2 consoles but since I quite like video games in general I like to think Nintendo still has it's place. For when I bore of bearded gun wielding muscle men or bald space/earth marines. Vice versa for Nintendo when I want something a bit more in-depth and in all honesty time-wasting. Playstation has a lot more games you can sink time into that aren't by any means amazing but do the job well.

I suppose I just don't have time these days for games that take weeks to patch in order to become playable or games that are just...boring. I suppose that's just the kind of thing that comes with adulthood. I miss being able to play all the games I could get my hands on.

 

[Wolfe]

My last post was still queued when you made your edit, Tornado, so I didn't see it. Allow me to clarify a little more.

The difference between people who cast in with Sony/Microsoft (moreso the former, admittedly) and those who cast in with Nintendo isn't that one likes "mature" games and one likes colorful fun games...

I never once claimed that people who cast in with Sony/Microsoft only like "mature" games. The only statements I've made about their buying preferences are that they wouldn't buy a Wii U just because it had all the same third party games, and games along the lines of The Order: 1886 tend to be successful on Playstation/Xbox. I've shifted the discussion a bit, but in every post before that I was only talking about what Nintendo fans prefer in a game, and how third party publishers just don't get it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but probably most of the "colorful fun" games available on Playstation/Xbox are first or second party games, are they not? Sony in particular has a history of publishing unique, creative titles; I'm aware of that. But those properties are a moot point in terms of third party support on Wii U, and while they aren't derivative dudebro games, they don't necessarily cover the same (traditional) bases that Nintendo does. The ones that do, simply don't pull it off to the same level of gameplay quality (in my experience), like Classic said. For example, LittleBigPlanet is creative and cool, but for a platformer it's borderline unacceptably clumsy.

I don't mean to say those games are overrated, but if Nintendo's successful "rehash" habit proves anything, it's that Nintendo fans value high quality gameplay over everything else, even if innovations are evolutionary rather than revolutionary. I fall into that category myself.

However, I raise my hands and apologize for getting carried away in the excerpt you quoted, implying that Playstation/Xbox lack "non-dudebro" games. My perspective is probably colored by the fact that I bought an XB360 instead of a PS3 -- excluding driving/racing games, I think the latter would have made me happier -- and I'm currently a little caught up about this "interactive movie" trend, which I personally think is outrageous.

 

[Sanji Himura]

@Classic: That is a bit of a low blow. If you followed the history of the development of the game, like I did, then you would have known that the game was developed with the help of Smash pros. A lot of the game's balance was based on their input, not the developers.

@Wolfe: They do get it, sort to speak. They see the sales numbers, they hear the test audiences, and above all else, they see the complaints online. You certainly can't force a developer or publisher to make excusive a game for a console unless you are willing to compensate them for lost sales had they released said title across all platforms. That is something that Microsoft and Sony have shown a decided understanding of.

 

[Brend]

@Classic: That is a bit of a low blow. If you followed the history of the development of the game, like I did, then you would have known that the game was developed with the help of Smash pros. A lot of the game's balance was based on their input, not the developers.

@Wolfe: They do get it, sort to speak. They see the sales numbers, they hear the test audiences, and above all else, they see the complaints online. You certainly can't force a developer or publisher to make excusive a game for a console unless you are willing to compensate them for lost sales had they released said title across all platforms. That is something that Microsoft and Sony have shown a decided understanding of.

I actually really enjoyed PSASBR, I'm just saying that all that effort was for nothing. The game was missing a well-rounded cast(not really a 'Playstation' issue) hence why one of the reasons it gets ignored. But, the main point I was making was that people go to Nintendo for Nintendo experiences. Even if the Nintendo consoles don't sell as much as the other 2 for obvious reasons(regarding 3rd party and 'image'), I personally think there will always be those that want to play the kind of things Nintendo excel at. Just like I buy a Playstation for the experiences it brings.

 

[Wolfe]

@Sanji Himura -- Both you and @Tornado seem to be under the impression that I'm absolving Nintendo for their relationship with third parties. I'm not, and that isn't the point. The way third parties fit into the subject is that they either don't understand what Nintendo fans want, or can't be bothered to invest in anything other than what sells best on Playstation/Xbox.

Probably both, and the latter would be because of how they've been burned by Nintendo fans in the past, which in turn was probably due to third party publishers' below-sub-par releases on the GameCube and original Wii, which stems from the sour relationship between Nintendo and third parties in the first place, dating back to the N64. Now that I've reiterated exactly what Tornado said, do you see we're all on the same page on that?

All of the above is just the platform for what I wanted to talk about, which is the polarization of genre interests and game design priorities, with very traditional old-school games representing one end, and very brown-and-grey "interactive movie" cover shooters representing the other. That's why I adjusted the thread title.

I just wanted to explore the idea that after ~20 years of Sony vs Nintendo, we've been split across platforms for mostly preferring different kinds of games. Us. The consumers. I also want to know what you guys think about the rise of these heavily story-driven action games, which is related because anyone who's only a Nintendo fan (not a multi-console gamer) apparently isn't interested in those, as the sales of Assassin's Creed games on Wii U demonstrate.

So can we talk about games instead of arguing over what Nintendo is or isn't responsible for, please? I really want to know what you guys think about that The Order: 1886 quote in post #20. (@BKGlover)

I'm fricking awful at setting up the subject to my own threads. It's not your fault for getting the wrong idea. I'm sorry.

 

[Luminis]

I just wanted to explore the idea that after ~20 years of Sony vs Nintendo, we've been split across platforms for mostly preferring different kinds of games. Us. The consumers. I also want to know what you guys think about the rise of these heavily story-driven action games, which is related because anyone who's only a Nintendo fan (not a multi-console gamer) apparently isn't interested in those, as the sales of Assassin's Creed games on Wii U demonstrate.

This is going to be a bit provocative, I'm sure, but I'm of the opinion that Nintendo doesn't sell their games by the way they look, play, or feel. They largely sell by virtue of being part of a given franchise. I'm inclined to believe that Nintendo is selling the same franchises they sold twenty years ago to the same people who bought them twenty years ago because they bought them years ago. You could clone Super Mario to the T, including the precise and tight gameplay, vibrant colours and light-hearted tone, but without the Mario branding and without being made by Nintendo, you'd end up with a game people won't care about.

Which, then, explains why I don't buy into the "vibrant gameplay = Nintendo vs. brown dudebro quick-time-event = everyone else" idea. That's the result of "the divide", not the reason, imho. Nintendo's isolated itself and tries to differentiate itself from its competition (which is a valid business strategy, after all), in the process driving third party developers away - and the only thing they do is push out those light-hearted games with tight gameplay. If you're a Nintendo fan, that's what you're going to get, period. And while I like me some Mario or Zelda or Pokémon, that's not going to entertain me for two decades straight, I'm sorry.

Let's also keep in mind that not every "mature" game is plastered with cinematics, becoming an interactive movie. Dark Souls, for example. Or Skyrim. So, you have those mature games that aren't about linearity and simply following a plot as well - and they're doing quite well for themselves. You've also got light-hearted games like Rayman on non-Nintendo consoles, so... Yeah. Makes me question the whole premise of the threat, basically. There's little point to the Nintendo vs. everyone else stage that has been set...

Thus, the whole "polarization" is happening because Nintendo doesn't do anything but their typical games - the rest of the gaming world is FAR from being as black and white as comparing Nintendo to everything else might make it seem. These days, we can have both cinematic, story-based games and some good, old-fashioned fun and I'm quite certain that, a lot of gamers, wouldn't really pick either of the other and stick to it permanently. Aside from die-hard Nintendo fans, that is

So, what do I think about the rise of story-driven action games? Meh, not much different from those very linear JRPGs from the 90s, really. Being able to make it look cinematic is all fun and games, but they're still basically telling a story the player moves along in. Hell, point and click adventures that were hardly more than interactive story telling were popular decades ago, so there's really nothing new about basing a game on its story. That story being poorly written is another story altogether though... Popularity isn't exactly a good measure of quality, after all.

 

[BKGlover]

*snip*
So can we talk about games instead of arguing over what Nintendo is or isn't responsible for, please? I really want to know what you guys think about that The Order: 1886 quote in post #20. (@BKGlover)

Eh? What now?

*Looks at post with quote*

OK....I alert now...

I have an issue with movies anyway. They bore me to no end. I have to sit there and do nothing, and think nothing, for anywhere between 1 hour and 4 hours. With the advent of chapters in the DVD versions, I rarely watch a movie, of my own volition, the entire way through. More to the point though is that there may have been 10 films in the last 5 years that I didn't put the entire plot of the movie together in 10 minutes or less. My problem with cinematic gaming is that it does the exact same thing. Why send myself into a fury for wasting $60+ on something that is story first, visuals second, and gameplay outside the top ten in important aspects, with minimum metacritic scores somewhere inbetween.

As for the quoted quote (and be forewarned I'm about to type in direct response as if this drivel was spat into my face)...

CVG said
So of the three key aspects of a game - visuals, gameplay and story - which would you say was your priority with The Order 1886?

"I think story and visuals are very high. Gameplay is something that... it's a game, we make games, we can't get around it. We love games, but we also love telling stories, so I think story is always going to be at the top because it's what we start with. It's at the top of the pyramid and everything else supports that. I think it'd be more challenging to make a game for the gameplay's sake, then try to make a story that fits in there."

...BULL:censored:! You "love" gaming in the same capacity Hideo Kojima does. If that's "love" what is resentment? You're passing gameplay off almost as a gimmick, which makes me believe the "Hipster" movement has finally reached a position of power an choose to be "ironic" given the 🤬 medium! If the story is great, but the gameplay is broken, how much good has it done. I hark on NFS a fair amount, it's stories have been atrocious, but the reason we KNOW they were atrocious is because we could play the game part of the 🤬 GAME that we were sold! Not a film, a game, a form of active entertainment. If this is the industry now, I'm shutting my end down because I cannot support this.

 

[Wolfe]

@Luminis -- You could turn the franchise vs. gameplay point on its head, because fans know what to expect of the gameplay in any new flagship Nintendo game thanks to Nintendo's unwavering (stubborn) philosophies and standard of quality. Even though I think Mario has been hogging the limelight recently (Link too), I still bought Super Mario 3D World because EAD Tokyo is very talented, and they've proven that their games do not disappoint.

In the end, Nintendo fans trust the next flagship title the way people here trust the next Gran Turismo or Forza. In my humble opinion, as someone who has followed both, Nintendo delivers more dependable results.

I'm definitely not buying the implication that Nintendo fans only care about Nintendo-style games if they're Nintendo-branded. Indie games have a sizable foothold on Wii U/3DS that's only getting bigger. They're frequently old-school, frequently 2D (thank the heavens 2D is making a comeback on consoles!), and they've been quietly filling the hole third party publishers left behind. They might not be selling millions, but they're firmly rooted, if only for a lack of alternatives.

You're also misreading me similar to how Tornado and Sanji did. The premise is not one of mutual exclusivity or black-and-white. Please re-read my multiple attempts to clarify that I'm fully aware the libraries on Playstation/Xbox are not monolithic. The opening premise is more focused on what might make Nintendo fans "different" from the mainstream, even when they have access to the same games (like the Wii U ports that Pachter pointed to as flops), and I wanted to expand from that to discuss recent trends in game design.

Considering the PS4/XBone together have sold well over twice as many units as the Wii U, I didn't intend to generalize PS4/XBone players the same way. There are gamers of all kinds on those platforms.

So, what do I think about the rise of story-driven action games? Meh, not much different from those very linear JRPGs from the 90s, really. Being able to make it look cinematic is all fun and games, but they're still basically telling a story the player moves along in. Hell, point and click adventures that were hardly more than interactive story telling were popular decades ago, so there's really nothing new about basing a game on its story. That story being poorly written is another story altogether though... Popularity isn't exactly a good measure of quality, after all.

Yeah, I already thought about the similarities to point-and-click adventures, but I've never been a fan so I have very little experience to speak from. They certainly involve more problem-solving and puzzles than a cutscene with QTEs, at least.

I also saw the old-school JRPG comparison coming. There are too many twists on the genre for either of us to paint them all one color, but I will say one thing, and I may be alone on this. While text boxes and cutscenes ultimately accomplish the same thing, being able to experience that story at your own pace and in your own "voice" (similar to a novel) by clicking through written dialog is superior. I personally believe games that try to act or "feel" like a movie are misguided. Just my opinion.

To that end, I shall end this post with an excerpt of an interview with Orson Scott Card, with his thoughts about storytelling in videogames, as an author. I found a link to it while reading some of the back-and-forth on the internet regarding The Order: 1886. I've highlighted some points that I feel distinguish something like a 1990s JRPG from today's more "cinematic" offerings (including a modern JRPG like Final Fantasy XIII):

GT: Video games are notorious for having mediocre storylines, which I suppose can be blamed on the gamers themselves. I certainly am guilty of frantically trying to skip monotonous video game dialog, hitting the start button until I can get back into the action. As a writer, how do you go about facing the challenges inherent in writing for such a dynamic medium?

OSC: Games CAN’T have the kind of storylines that movies and books have, or they wouldn’t be playable. You are correct to skip the tedious, badly written “scenes” that are usually a pathetic job of trying to paste story on top of a game. What makes a game work is the opposite of what makes a story work. In a story, you are seeking to find out what really happened – why people do what they do, what the results of their choices are. You identify with the character(s) but you do not control them. Instead, the author has the ultimate authority. When a movie is made from a book and the script changes key events, the readers are usually furious. Why? Since the original events weren’t real, why not change them? The answer is simple: Even in fiction, what the author put down on paper is “the truth” and anyone who fiddles with it is “lying” or “wrecking it.”

In a game, the opposite illusion must be created. Even though most games absolutely force you to follow preset paths, the gamewrights try to give you the illusion that you are making free choices (even though you are actually, in almost all games, still being channeled through certain puzzles with fixed solutions).

There is no question about character motivation. The lead character is you, and your motivation is to beat the enemy and win.

It’s like golf. Sure, you could put on a World War II uniform and pretend that each ball was a bomb that needed to be dropped down into the underground bunker of some Nazi generals, and call it “Golf: The Dirty Dozen,” but the GAME is about you and your contest with the obstacles placed in your way by the course designer. You can compare your score with other players, but the things they do are completely irrelevant to your game. It’s just you against the golf course designer (and, of course, the groundskeepers).

In most videogames, you’re still just playing golf. The story exists only to justify cool new gameplay features. Yes, we respond to greater and greater realism; yes, there’s an element of escapism and power fantasy and all that crap that we hear about from psychologists – but lousy games have those just as much as good ones. What makes a difference is the degree of challenge and freshness in each new game. Everything else is window dressing. You’ve got to have it, but nobody should ever get confused and think that the window dressing IS the game.

The “story” elements of game are the window dressing. No wonder you skip them.

To the degree that the game is fixed – the outcome predetermined – the game is a story. But to the degree that you SEE that the game is fixed, it becomes less fun to play! You want to have the feeling that you can also explore the world a little, maybe find stuff that has nothing to do with gameplay. Since when do you do that in a novel or movie? You can do that on a golf course, because the world is just a little bigger than the fairways and greens. But when you’re choosing weapons in a shooter, you’re just telling the caddy to give you a nine-iron instead of a wood.

 

[Luminis]

@Wolfe - thing is, when talking about the "Nintendo premise", I still think it's very much coined by brand loyalty, not by what Nintendo gamers want or don't want from third party games. I'm not saying that the brand loyalty isn't justified or anything, just that you can put out a new Zelda/Mario/Pokemon title and it will sell, even though some might not be as great as their predecessors. Heck, you can put out an old Zelda title and it will sell.

They buy their Nintendo console for their Nintendo games and that's that. Going by the Nintendo-loving folks I know myself (and there are a few), they get the Wii U for Nintendo's first party titles and play third parties on the PC or their other console of choice. That's why games like AC sell so little on a Nintendo console. That's pretty much the result of differentiating themselves from the competition: Nintendo gets to be the one that compliments the gaming experience offered by a PC or a PS4/XBOne, so people get it exactly for the experience that they can't get on their other devices. Experiences that can be had on those other devices, though... Why have those on the Wii U?

Anyway, on to the next point: Modern action games vs. point-and-clicks and JRPGs.

To me, a game is either strictly linear or it is not. That can be due to the story, but it doesn't have to be. The GTA games, for example, are very much story driven games, yet are open world and definitely not linear games. Same goes for, say, Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes; and the MGS franchise is notorious being too close to being an interactive movie for its own good. Throwing linear gameplay in with a cinematic presentation of the story might, superficially, make sense because a lot of games like, say, Final Fantasy XIII are both strictly linear and presents themselves as a cinematic experience. However, I am of the opinion that they are fundamentally different things.

Do I like linear gameplay? No.

Next question, presentation. To me, it all hinges on whether the story is good or not. I'd rather have a well written, decent story presented in a very cinematic way than some unimaginative stale rubbish presented in text boxes. Both ways of presentation have their pros and cons. Bioshock Infinite managed to tell a rather decent story very well and I'm inclined to believe that it wouldn't have come across half as well if presented purely by text. Well, we're basically debating books vs. movies now, aren't we?

 

[Wolfe]

@Luminis -- There's no denying the strength of Nintendo's brand by itself. I just happen to believe it's mostly justified, like you say.

For the next bit, I guess I don't have much to offer beyond my own anecdote and guesswork. I can speak for myself, and my general experience with third party games on my PS2/XB360. I don't really know how many Wii-U-only gamers there are who skipped the AC games just because, and not because they were playing it on something else. As for your question, "Experiences that can be had on those other devices, though... Why have those on the Wii U?" It depends on what you think of the Wii U GamePad ("underrated" I say, but also "underused") and the value of features like off-TV play, a secondary screen, online functionality without a subscription fee...or no-TV play.

For the other part, yeah, I suppose it's kinda like books vs movies. You see what BKGlover had to say about it, and he already had an opinion about movies. I'm similar in that I also don't have a habit of watching movies. We don't have cable/satellite TV, either.

I brought up the text vs cinematics thing because of an issue I've encountered personally. I have the JRPG Lost Odyssey, which I enjoyed a lot and I think is up there with the classics (it was directed by Hironobu Sakaguchi and scored by Nobuo Uematsu). I completed it once, and I've long been meaning to revisit it the way I've revisited games like FFI, FFIV, or FFVI countless times...but the thought of sitting through all of those cutscenes again makes me groan, and I don't just want to skip over them, either. It's an unnecessary timesink and negatively impacts the replay value of the game. Plus, I think the most compelling storytelling in the game is its "dream" sequences, which are like a series of short stories (without narration).

Ultimately, personally, I just want a game to be a game. If it has a story to tell, I prefer at least some autonomy over that storytelling, even if it amounts to little more than control of the pacing (and liberation from god-awful voice acting, which is par for the course in the gaming industry).