Naughty Dog Co-Founder: Nintendo ?Irrelevant as a Hardware Manufacturer?

[EvilRoy]

A pain in the butt for lazy third parties? It's a pain in the butt for everyone first, third, lazy, adept. Nintendo programmers didn't just magically know how to develope for the wiiU, they just had a leg up on everyone else by having a head start.

Things don't get easier or cost less when you approach with a can-do attitude. And for zero benefit other than the right to produce a game for a nintendo console, which didn't do Ubisoft any favours considering the fact that they view ZombiU as a failure.

SNIP

What difference? It's great that they look good on the wiiU, but do they look better than they would on ps4 or xbone? Will it sell more? Will it play better or produce some greater artistic feat? Aside from the feeling of accomplishment of a job well done, which you seem to view as absolutely critical, what benefit was there to developing these games on the wiiU over any other platform?

The original argument wasn't "PS4 and XBOne can do anything the WiiU Can", the argument was "It's a Pain in the butt for everyone to program for, and isn't worth it".

Yes, I know. That's why I listed a number of reasons that might somehow justify spending additional time and money developing for wiiU rather than spending less money to produce the same game on a different platform.

I pinpoint games that where developed by companies that actually tried to work with the Hardware, not just plop it on and expect instant results, that are highly rated for their game play and their looks, and then you switched the goal post. And of Course the PS4 and XBone can do what the WiiU Can, but I wasn't arguing that at all.

That's not moving the goalpost. As you said, the original argument was "it's a pain in the butt for everyone to program for, and isn't worth it." You apparently concur with the fact that it is difficult to develop for, so the only question remaining is "is it worth it." If the ps4 and xbone can do what the wiiU can then the answer is no, because they could have made the same game on a different platform for less money and effort.

And for the record, these games would play better on the WiiU then on any other console. For example, Bayonetta 1 was glitchy as all get out, especially on the PS3, due to rushing the game to it. However, Platinum Games has said Thanks to Nintendo, Bayonetta 2 will not be Glitchy because Nintendo forced them to focus on Gameplay rather then Graphics [http://www.destructoid.com/platinum-games-discusses-relationship-with-nintendo-259536.phtml]. If this game where on the PS4 or XBOne as produced by Sega with a forced Due date, Bayonetta 2 would be just as glitchy as Bayonetta 1.

That doesn't have much to do with the console. If you have a problem with bayonetta being rushed, take it up with sega, not sony.

Without the Hardware knowledge, Nintendo probably couldn't make Super Mario 3D World Shine as well as it does on the WiiU. And without Nintendo, Capcom would have had to add Achievements to Monster Hunter, something they refuse to do, though I don't know why.

That at least is a fair point, although the question becomes "would it have been worse if it was on another console."

 

[BloodSquirrel]

I get the feeling that people think processor architecture means something different to what it actually does.

The architecture is just the instruction set that a processor uses to function.

No, it's also stuff like the number of cores, kinds of threading supported, caches, etc. I seriously doubt that many developers are actually writing things in assembly anymore, so the actual instruction set isn't particularly important.

Programming for three full cores vs. one full core and six SPEs, on the other hand, is a big difference.

There's also the system architecture, such as having one pool of RAM vs. separated pools of system and video RAM, special chips for things like audio, etc.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Well, can't really say he's wrong. I mean really, who actually wanted the Wii or the WiiU for the hardware? The only thing that people actually want nintendo for are their first party games.

Dunno, the Wii's motion controller shifted quite a few units with the casual crowd before people realised it was shit.

Straight example with the WiiU although.

That's the thing, people liked the IDEA of the wiimote way more than they liked the real thing, which was incredibly lackluster and disappointing in every way.

Everyone who saw the wiimote immediately imagined themselves playing a lightsaber game where they got to sword fight with perfect 1:1 accuracy for their movements, something that the wii was never even close to capable of.

 

[Korolev]

He has a point - the WiiU hasn't been very successful. I know, the 3DS has done very well and the Wii did very well for a while (it started to perform poorly after a few years, due to the fact that.... well.... not many good games were coming out for it....). Nintendo certainly aren't "done" by any means. The WiiU hasn't, however, done well, and you can't really disguise that. I mean, over a year after its launch, it's finally getting titles that interest me (Super Mario 3D world, Wonderful 101, That Wind-Waker remake, etc). And the hardware is undoubtedly antiquated. Not that hardware is the be-all and end-all, but you can't pretend it doesn't make a difference to gaming, and not just in terms of graphics. Better hardware opens up the possibility of better worlds, better AI, more NPCs on screen, etc.

 

[KazeAizen]

Lol,Nintendo is doing well for itself unlike most AAA devs and actually makes games that people don't hate.

And also don't make disc locked DLC or any real DLC for that matter. In other words they actually make finished games.

Quick correction on the no DLC thing. Nintendo actually made DLC for New Super Mario Bros 2 and DLC, in this case an expansion pack, for NSMBWU under the title of New Super Luigi U. Nintendo really couldn't actually do DLC until the Wii U because the small memory limits of the Wii made it virtually impossible because the console would be unable to load it all since it used a type of flash memory. It's why they are talking about DLC more now.

Luigi U was DLC? thought that was a separate game. Still that to me is better then the money grubbing style DLC from Forza lately. Their hardware prevented them from doing DLC eh. Well if you ask me that actually did them more good in the long run. They still focused on what they do best without any ulterior money grubbing motives. The only blatant money grubbing I ever see Nintendo doing is their handhelds. And even then on their latest example the 2DS they at least tried to justify that particular one and it made sense to me.

 

[omega 616]

Just as a hardware dev? I think if Nintendo stopped with Mario, pokemon and zelda (maybe metroid) they would go bust pretty quickly. Outside of that line you have wonderful 101, zombieU and pikmin but only pikmin did well.

 

[Roxas1359]

Lol,Nintendo is doing well for itself unlike most AAA devs and actually makes games that people don't hate.

And also don't make disc locked DLC or any real DLC for that matter. In other words they actually make finished games.

Quick correction on the no DLC thing. Nintendo actually made DLC for New Super Mario Bros 2 and DLC, in this case an expansion pack, for NSMBWU under the title of New Super Luigi U. Nintendo really couldn't actually do DLC until the Wii U because the small memory limits of the Wii made it virtually impossible because the console would be unable to load it all since it used a type of flash memory. It's why they are talking about DLC more now.

Luigi U was DLC? thought that was a separate game. Still that to me is better then the money grubbing style DLC from Forza lately. Their hardware prevented them from doing DLC eh. Well if you ask me that actually did them more good in the long run. They still focused on what they do best without any ulterior money grubbing motives. The only blatant money grubbing I ever see Nintendo doing is their handhelds. And even then on their latest example the 2DS they at least tried to justify that particular one and it made sense to me.

Luigi U is the old form of DLC we used to have back in the day: expansion packs. Expansion packs were extremely popular until around the second year of last grn when DLC itself became more standardized. The Shivering Isles DLC is actually an expansion pack itself for example. Some companies used to print the expansion packs on discs themselves, but digital distribution of it was cheaper and over time it took over the standard trandition of printing expansion packs. Only companies I've seen that still print some of the expansion are Bethesda and Gear Box, mostly though it's done digitally now. Some other examples of expansion packs are the Kingdom Hearts Final Mix games and the Final Fantasy International games, although both of those will pretty much stop since it's cheaper to set the expansions as DLC rather than reprint the game with the expansions in them. It's why there is no International version of FF XIII-1 through 3.

The Forza example you put though is microtransactions, which sadly have been made popularized due to people buying it up, with Capcom and EA being the worst offenders of this. Personally the only DLC I ever buy are expansion pack types, so basically Fallout DLC or some RPG ones since they are a lot more to the game itself. Heck I remember that one of the people from Nintendo a while back said that they might do DLC for future Zelda titles. DLC itself is not bad, it's how it's handled and distributed that can make it bad. Heck Guerilla Games is doing something nice, they are making all future map packs for Killzone Shadowfall free for everyone, so the problem of communities getting divided won't be an issue there.

 

[Ipsen]

Speaking of innovation and experimentation, here's an article Cracked put up today:

http://www.cracked.com/article_20749_6-iconic-video-games-that-were-created-by-technical-problems.html

Nintendo has HALF of those entries. And as one commenter said "So the moral of the story is that noone's creative unless you put artificial limitations on their unoriginal ideas." That sums up Nintendo's mindset. They don't make anything more powerful than it NEEDS to be. If you don't put limitations on people they'll just get lazy and complacent, which is exactly what MS and Sony are encouraging. They're allowing 3rd parties (oddly, mostly Western ones) to get away with doing things half-assed. This can't go on forever and letting them get away with this is pathetic.

I think 'half-assed' sums up a white elephant in this discussion.

For some reason, we love running in circles saying that the Wii U's hardware isn't up to par, or is difficult to develop for; thusly, third parties run away.

Why do I care about third party developers who either don't have the expertise or the creativity to develop for a set console? Even on terms of 'hardware' (which, face it kiddos, you only mean GRAPHICS), if a development studio can't work to scale, then they're the ones lacking. Even that's predecated on the notion that 'advancment' in the industry largely means 'better graphics'.

I'd still love to see third party development for the Wii U, but that's something simply positive, and I haven't seen much genuinely positive in ANY part of the console market these days. Over the last 3 or so years I've seen enough dumb shit from the industry in general to know it's not entirely the fault of 'poorly selling, poorly specced' Wii U.

Problems with the third party game industry? Totally forgotten, when the notion of a pillar of the industry falling comes into view. A boner for disaster porn is what I see this as.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

I think 'half-assed' sums up a white elephant in this discussion.

For some reason, we love running in circles saying that the Wii U's hardware isn't up to par, or is difficult to develop for; thusly, third parties run away.

Why do I care about third party developers who either don't have the expertise or the creativity to develop for a set console? Even on terms of 'hardware' (which, face it kiddos, you only mean GRAPHICS), if a development studio can't work to scale, then they're the ones lacking. Even that's predecated on the notion that 'advancment' in the industry largely means 'better graphics'.

I'd still love to see third party development for the Wii U, but that's something simply positive, and I haven't seen much genuinely positive in ANY part of the console market these days. Over the last 3 or so years I've seen enough dumb shit from the industry in general to know it's not entirely the fault of 'poorly selling, poorly specced' Wii U.

Problems with the third party game industry? Totally forgotten, when the notion of a pillar of the industry falling comes into view. A boner for disaster porn is what I see this as.

We'll create our own games industry! With blackjack! And hookers! In fact, forget the industry!

 

[Ipsen]

We'll create our own games industry! With blackjack! And hookers! In fact, forget the industry!

Spoken like a true Bender.

More griping!

And the hardware is undoubtedly antiquated. Not that hardware is the be-all and end-all, but you can't pretend it doesn't make a difference to gaming, and not just in terms of graphics. Better hardware opens up the possibility of better worlds, better AI, more NPCs on screen, etc.

Really?

Wii U, antiquated? Mario 3D World runs at 720P, at 60FPS. Since when did even 720P look 'antiquated'? PS4 and X1 games can't even keep up 60FPS when they try. Hell, they can't even find true 1080P either, apparently. I know PC already holds the cutting edge, way beyond this 'next gen' in terms of capability, but let's not mistake that for the 'standard'.

For that matter, there isn't really a standard set; PC lets you choose your graphical settings, and tough shit on consoles, b/c devs decide everything there.

Also, REALLY?

I've been asking for better AI for years. It has truly improved, but nowhere near the rate at which graphical features (such as everything else you listed: worlds/environmnets, NPC activity) has improved. Face it; all the hardware improvements over the years simply adds up to reaching almighty 1080P/60FPS. Even that's not the cutting edge anymore.

 

[ChupathingyX]

Plus, he basicly ran THQ into the ground, or at least it went under on his watch, so really he shouldnt be talking about other companies anyway.

What does THQ closing down have to do with games being hindered by their hardware? Nothing, so there's no reason for THQ to be a part of this discussion or a factor of his opinion. If he was criticising Nintendo for bad publishing practices or running the financial side of Nintendo then it would become a factor.

Naughty Dog didnt make anything other than Playstation games then too, so the point is just as valid.

That's factually wrong.

If you're going to make an argument make sure your information is correct next time.

 

[captainballsack]

"It is a crime that we do not play those games on the systems that we have."

Then buy a fucking Wii U.

There is nothing wrong with it, it's a good console. It is a crime that no one is buying it.

 

[Colt47]

"It is a crime that we do not play those games on the systems that we have."

Then buy a fucking Wii U.

There is nothing wrong with it, it's a good console. It is a crime that no one is buying it.

Sadly the Wii and WiiU have the stigma of being casual and aren't considered to be real consoles.Frankly I think this generation is spoiled on photo realistic graphics to the point where they turn their noses up at unique gaming consoles that don't have "uber realistic" graphics or textures.

Actually, right now the AAA publisher industry seems to make nothing but graphical overhauls of older games. If they feel especially perky they sometimes throw a new can of story paint on one as well.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

He does have a point though, so stop getting your knickers in a knot people. So long as Nintendo keeps on churning out first party exclusive for their brick made from sand, they aren't going to die off over night. Best case scenario they just release games for all platforms, you can have your Mario's and Zelda's on your glorious PC's, stop ya cryin'.

 

[captainballsack]

"It is a crime that we do not play those games on the systems that we have."

Then buy a fucking Wii U.

There is nothing wrong with it, it's a good console. It is a crime that no one is buying it.

Sadly the Wii and WiiU have the stigma of being casual and aren't considered to be real consoles.Frankly I think this generation is spoiled on photo realistic graphics to the point where they turn their noses up at unique gaming consoles that don't have "uber realistic" graphics or textures.

What's funny is that the graphical and narrative content of mainstream games is becoming more and more aimed at adults while simultaneously becoming more and more tutorialised and hand-holding. Nintendo games are a lot harder than anything I've played that's come out of Naughty Dog's catalog, yet Nintendo games are the casual ones?

It seems to me that these days, Nintendo are the only triple A developers who give a shit about solid game design. It's all story nowadays and the "Citizen Kane of gaming." No wonder a gigantic indie revolution full of platformers and Nintendo-esque game theory has happened.